Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

President Donald Trump on April 7, 2026, announced a ceasefire between the United States and Iran, after more than a month of war marked by U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian military leadership, Iranian retaliation against regional oil infrastructure and a global energy crisis.

As a former U.S. diplomat, I have found there are three ways that warring parties arrive at a ceasefire.

The first scenario happens when one party tires of war and asks for peace, as Hamas, the militant Palestinian organization, did when it pushed for a ceasefire with Israel in late 2023 and early 2024. But this strategy reveals weakness to the other side and thus seldom works. Israel ignored Hamas and continued the war in Gaza until October 2025.

Warring nations also reach ceasefires when a powerful third country insists the two parties stop fighting due to risks to world peace and regional stability. In the modern era, the U.S. has done this several times in the Mideast when it has leveraged influence over key players, such as Israel and Egypt. But with the Iran war, there is no country in a good position to do this.

The current U.S.-Iran ceasefire is a good example of the third way that agreements to stop fighting can happen. Both countries were tired of the costs and the ongoing risks of the war, and they sent signals to that effect.

Pakistan, which deserves praise for stepping in, picked up on this and offered to serve as an intermediary. For at least two weeks, assuming the ceasefire holds, the U.S., Iran and Israel can lick their wounds and consider their next moves, as they work out whether the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is covered by the ceasefire.

US and Israel’s war with Iran

Why were the United States and Iran ready for a ceasefire?

For the U.S. and Israel, the war didn’t go as planned. There was no true regime change in Iran and no uprising of its people.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime channel between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, and maintained its ability to shoot down warplanes and attack its neighbors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

For Iran, the war has cost the lives of thousands of its citizens and dozens of its leaders. It has also ruined key infrastructure, and it had the potential to get much worse.

Key ceasefire demands

That’s how we got here. Now, where could the war go next?

One possibility is that the ceasefire lasts only two weeks, is shaky throughout – as seen with Israel’s bombing of Lebanon after the ceasefire was declared – and war resumes.

The world already knows what that looks like, with its impact on the global economy and the soaring financial costs to the U.S. military.

Another scenario is that the ceasefire is extended, either clearly or just de facto, with zero to minimal U.S. attacks or Iranian missile or drone launches. This is quite possible.

The third and best outcome would be if the two parties are able to use these two weeks, plus some extensions, to hammer out the key points of a peace deal.

What could this involve?

The two key U.S.-Israel demands are that Iran give up its nuclear weapons development and stop backing Hamas and Hezbollah, the Shiite militia with extensive influence in Lebanon.

At this point, I believe the Iranians should realize that nuclear weapons are not their best deterrence, and that their attempts to obtain them have led only to their isolation. Their true deterrence is their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and choke off 20% of the world’s energy supply. For that, they need only drones and small speed boats.

Iran’s support of Hezbollah, which has contributed to the ruin of a once prosperous and democratic Lebanon since it launched military operations inside the country in 1982, is a liability to them as well.

Iran’s missile attacks during this war have made it clear that they would be able to deliver nuclear weapons if they had them. And their drone and missile strikes on their Muslim neighbors, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are only creating new enemies.

But what would the Iranians want in return?

First and foremost, an end to attacks by other countries attempting to topple their regime. Second, and just as important, a permanent lifting of sanctions so long as they end their support for terrorist groups and surrender their uranium. Unfortunately, such an agreement would do nothing for pro-human rights groups in Iran.

A lack of trust

All parties would need to be committed to working out the many details for a ceasefire to last. Pakistan would need to stay the course as an honest broker and not get discouraged. The governments involved would need to be able to persuade their people that such a deal is acceptable.

Sound impossible? It’s been done many times in history. Think of how intractable the conflicts in Northern Ireland or between Israel and Egypt once seemed. The key element is for both sides to fear a resumption of war more than they do the consequences of a compromise peace.

A major problem is the lack of trust on both sides. The U.S. has seen Iran go back on promises before. Israel was traumatized by Hamas attacks in 2023. And Iran can’t keep up with Trump’s constantly changing signals and his bombing Iran while negotiating with the government there.

But if the ceasefire holds and negotiations are successful, the world could see an Iran that, at least, is no longer a menace to its neighbors. And Iran would see itself being readmitted to the world economy, which it desperately needs.

If it doesn’t work, and we go back to how things were before the ceasefire, we’ll be back to the U.S. and Israel raining down hard-to-replace munitions on Iran, and Iran lashing out with drones and missile attacks against a dozen countries, with the world economy taking a beating.

Donald Heflin 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 ceasefire with Iran: What’s next? A former diplomat explains 3 possible scenarios – https://theconversation.com/us-ceasefire-with-iran-whats-next-a-former-diplomat-explains-3-possible-scenarios-280232

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kar-Hai Chu, Associate Professor of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

As the risk of measles remains an ongoing concern, herd immunity in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is already slipping. According to data obtained via The Washington Post in January 2026, 1 in 3 Allegheny County kindergartners were in a classroom too far below adequate vaccination coverage to stop a measles outbreak during the 2023-24 school year.

A professor from the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health, Kar-Hai Chu, and a research program supervisor, Maggie Slavin, answered our questions about declining measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates and what it means for the future of public health.

Private and parochial/religious schools in Allegheny County fall below the herd immunity threshold, while public schools tend not to. What explains that gap, and should it concern us?

Research shows the disparity between vaccination coverage in private and parochial/religious versus public schools is that private and parochial/religious schools tend to have higher rates of exemptions to vaccinations for moral and religious beliefs.

Local vaccination rates in Allegheny County schools are declining and are below the necessary level of vaccination coverage to stop the spread of measles: 95%. Between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, public schools displayed an overall decline in coverage, whereas private and parochial/religious increased coverage between the two years, yet have greater variation in coverage across schools. Regardless of school type, children should have complete and updated vaccinations to protect themselves and the community. Even small dips in vaccination rates can lead to the spread of disease.

What are combination vaccines and how long have they been used?

Combination vaccines are single injections that protect against multiple, preventable diseases and have been used since the 1940s. They represent one of public health’s most successful interventions. Common examples include DTaP – for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis – and MMR, for measles, mumps and rubella. The MMR vaccine has been licensed since 1971 and helped eliminate measles from the U.S. by 2000. It reduced cases by 80% within a decade of its introduction to society.

Why are some government officials calling to split these vaccines?

The U.S. officials calling to split combination vaccines cite unsubstantiated claims linking them to autism and concerns about too many vaccinations administered at once.

These claims contradict decades of scientific evidence that demonstrates the safety and efficacy of combination vaccines.

Who determines vaccination recommendations in the US?

Since 1964, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has provided evidence-based vaccination recommendations. The committee consists of volunteer medical and public health experts appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services for staggered, four-year terms. These experts review scientific evidence throughout the year and update recommendations accordingly. States maintain authority to implement these recommendations as they see fit. Vaccination recommendations have been politicized under the current administration and are currently in a sort of limbo.

In June 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of promoting anti-vaccination dissinformation, took the unprecedented step of firing all 17 committee members and appointing 12 new members with questionable qualifications and conflicts of interest. This could be considered a fundamental disruption to the evidence-based process that has protected public health for over 60 years.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health and Gov. Josh Shapiro have stated that they continue to endorse evidence-based vaccination guidelines from leading national medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

What are the real-world consequences of vaccine misinformation and disinformation?

An example consequence is now visible: Measles is spreading again in the U.S. In 2025, there were 2,255 confirmed cases, which is nearly double the 2019 peak of 1,274 cases.

While there haven’t been any confirmed cases of measles in Allegheny County in 2026, there were confirmed measles cases in Lancaster County on Feb. 3, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which determined the individuals were not vaccinated.

Another visible consequence of vaccination misinformation and disinformation is that unvaccinated people face 140 times higher risk of contracting measles. Over 90% of 2025 cases in the U.S. occurred in people who were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccine status.

When government officials become sources of misinformation, the threat multiplies exponentially. The World Health Organization identifies vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health.

What can be done to protect evidence-based vaccination policy?

The American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes that state-level policies may offer greater responsiveness to local needs while maintaining evidence-based standards.

Stronger state policies play a key role in ensuring vaccine access. In Louisiana, for example, framing vaccination as a way to keep your neighbors safe has been used as an effective way to appeal to local communities. In South Dakota, advocates are reaching business owners by emphasizing the economic benefits of immunization. The state of Oregon created a financing model that allows providers and clinics to access vaccines with no upfront costs, then they reimburse the state once they have been paid by insurers.

People can support organizations that prioritize scientific evidence over anecdotes, demand transparency in policymaking and understand the difference between legitimate scientific debate and coordinated misinformation. These are crucial steps in protecting vaccine policies. The 2026 American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines have been deemed trustworthy by 12 health care organizations that represent over a million pediatric medical professionals.

Kar-Hai Chu receives funding from the NIH.

Maggie Slavin 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. What declining vaccination rates mean for your family – and what you can do – https://theconversation.com/what-declining-vaccination-rates-mean-for-your-family-and-what-you-can-do-277469

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Nathaniel M. Tran, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Administration, University of Illinois Chicago

An increasing number of U.S. states have passed laws that allow health care providers – including doctors, nurses and pharmacists – to refuse to treat patients based on their personal or religious beliefs. While these conscientious objection laws have long existed for issues such as abortion, their effects on LGBTQ+ people have not been well studied.

As of April 2026, 11 U.S. states have enacted conscientious objection laws specifically targeting LGBTQ+ people. As public health researchers who study the effects of public policies on the health of LGBTQ+ people, we wanted to examine how these laws have affected the roughly 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ Americans living in a state where a provider can legally refuse them care.

Specifically looking at sexual minorities, our research found that lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer adults living in states that passed conscientious objection laws were 28% less likely to report receiving a first-time HIV test, compared to peers in states without conscientious objection laws. These laws did not affect HIV testing rates for heterosexual adults.

Similarly, LGBQ+ adults in affected states were 71% more likely to report being in fair or poor health after the laws passed, compared to those in states without the laws.

Measuring the harm

We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the health outcomes of more than 109,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and heterosexual adults from 2016 to 2018. We focused on eight states, comparing two that enacted conscientious objection laws during that period (Illinois and Mississippi) and six that did not (Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia).

To isolate the effect of the laws themselves, we compared changes in health outcomes among LGBQ+ and heterosexual adults living in states with or without religious exemptions to health care, both before and after the laws passed. Making all these comparisons at once allowed us to identify differences in health outcomes due to the laws rather than preexisting differences between states.

We found that conscientious objection laws were associated with significant harms to LGBQ+ adults, including a decline in HIV testing and a worsening of self-rated health.

Our findings highlight how laws permitting clinicians to refuse to provide health care to LGBQ+ patients deepen existing health disparities. Notably, conscientious objection laws are just one type of policy restricting LGBTQ+ people’s access to health care.

The Trump administration has slashed budgets for the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS program and state-level AIDS drugs assistance programs, reducing the availability of HIV prevention and treatment services. States have also moved to restrict access to gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, despite its additional benefit of helping to reduce new HIV infections. Employers have successfully declined to provide insurance coverage of highly effective HIV prevention medications under religious freedom laws.

Worsening disparities

LGBTQ+ people already face greater health challenges than their heterosexual peers, including higher rates of unmet health care needs and discrimination in medical settings.

HIV preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, can lower the risk of contracting HIV from sex by 99%. However, patients are required to receive an HIV test before PrEP can be prescribed. If providers are unwilling or unable to engage with LGBQ+ patients on their sexual health, people who could benefit most from HIV prevention tools, such as PrEP, may never receive them.

Moreover, since the risk of contracting HIV is closely linked to the social determinants of health, such as having safe and stable housing and employment, barriers to HIV testing could further widen health gaps.

Similarly, the worsening in self-rated health among LGBQ+ adults suggests that the cumulative effect of these laws on well-being is real and immediate. A person’s perception of their own health status is one of the strongest predictors of earlier death.

What can be done

Acknowledging the health consequences of conscientious objection laws could help policymakers and the public better understand their impact.

A 2026 national study found that Americans were more motivated to support policies that address LGBTQ+ inequality when these laws were framed as improving health inequality rather than economic inequality or sense of belonging. This finding suggests that people perceive health inequality as unjust and are less likely to blame LGBTQ+ individuals for those circumstances.

Health care systems can build more affirming environments that actively reassure LGBTQ+ patients will receive fair and equitable care. This can encourage more timely access to preventive services, such as vaccinations and cancer screenings.

For LGBTQ+ people, knowing your rights as a patient and seeking out LGBTQ+-affirming providers and community health centers can help mitigate some of the harms of restrictive laws.

Nathaniel M. Tran received funding from the National Institute on Aging. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health

Periwinkle Seljord-Solberg 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. Doctors can refuse to treat LGBTQ+ patients in several states – these religious exemption laws lead to drops in HIV testing – https://theconversation.com/doctors-can-refuse-to-treat-lgbtq-patients-in-several-states-these-religious-exemption-laws-lead-to-drops-in-hiv-testing-277828

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Marie Helweg-Larsen, Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College

Smoking is really bad for you. Most people know that. Even smokers think smoking is bad for one’s health. But most people don’t know just how bad it is.

More people in the United States die every year from smoking than from alcohol, illegal drug use, car accidents, suicides and murders combined. Cigarette smoking costs an estimated US$240 billion annually in health care costs, which harm not only smokers but also nonsmokers, communities and the economy. Smoking is the top preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. and worldwide.

The number of smokers in the U.S. has declined from 41% in 1944 to 11% in 2024. However, over 25 million Americans still smoke.

This drop is partly the result of many smoking laws enacted in the past 50 years. They include national bans on cigarette advertising on television and radio (1971), smoking on commercial flights (2000), sale of fruit- or candy-flavored cigarettes (2009), and sale of cigarettes to people ages 18 to 20 (2019). New policies might seem as strange or unfamiliar as these measures did at the time.

One potentially transformative idea – creating a tobacco-free generation – would build on these past laws. It would phase out smoking by banning it permanently for anyone born after a specific date. For example, a law could make it illegal for anyone under 21 to ever buy cigarettes, whereas people age 21 or older at the time would not be affected. The focus would be on tobacco sales, which already require age verification in the U.S., not on criminalizing tobacco use.

As a psychological scientist, I have studied for decades how people think about smoking. In my view, the key obstacle to creating future generations of nonsmokers is that people do not fully understand how dangerous smoking is and do not realize the formidable influence of the tobacco industry.

Creating a tobacco-free generation

The idea of creating a tobacco-free generation was first proposed by health researchers in 2010. In 2021 the town of Brookline, Massachusetts, became the first U.S. community to adopt it. Brookline’s ordinance prohibits tobacco and vape sales to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000. It has survived a legal challenge and has been emulated in 22 more Massachusetts towns.

As of early 2026, Hawaii and Massachusetts are considering statewide tobacco-free generation bills. Abroad, the Maldives enacted the first countrywide ban in 2025.

Similar proposals have faced pushback elsewhere. In New Zealand, a ban was adopted in 2022 but repealed in 2024. The United Kingdom is considering a similar bill after an earlier version was scrapped due to a snap election.

Why people underestimate harm from cigarettes

It is hard to visualize what exactly it means that 480,000 people in the U.S. die from smoking every year or that each cigarette that you smoke shortens your life by 20 minutes. It is also easy to feel optimistically biased about one’s personal risk as a smoker and believe that others are more likely to become addicted or die prematurely.

Studies show that nonsmokers, former smokers and current smokers underestimate smoking risks. One likely reason is messaging by the tobacco industry, which claimed for decades that cigarettes were safe, even though tobacco industry scientists knew as early as 1953 that smoking caused lung cancer.

Another factor is glamorization of cigarettes in movies. Fully half of the top films released in 2024 showed tobacco imagery, typically of cigarettes. Research shows that adolescents and young adults who watch smoking in movies are more interested in taking up smoking.

Finally, smoking deaths may seem to be unremarkable because some of the illnesses that cigarette smoking causes, such as heart disease or cancer, are commonplace. And unlike deaths from drug overdoses, we do not always see the consequences of a lifetime of smoking.

What about freedom of choice?

A common argument against laws that regulate personal choices, such as whether to smoke or wear seat belts, is that people prize their autonomy and don’t like governments telling them how to live. This isn’t a new challenge for public health policies, which often restrict private citizens’ freedom to do as they wish.

People can be persuaded that community action should trump individual choice if a behavior, such as smoking cigarettes or driving while drunk, harms others who don’t engage in it. Many public health laws are designed to protect people who are innocent or vulnerable. For example, current smoking laws have been enacted in part to protect nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke, especially children. And smoking increases health care costs for everyone, not just smokers.

By preventing people in the U.S. who cannot legally buy cigarettes now from ever doing so, generational smoking bans balance the rights of current adult smokers against the major public health benefits of a phased smoking ban that will eventually end the smoking epidemic.

Arguments against generational smoking laws

The tobacco industry’s attempts to undermine tobacco health policies are well documented and follow a predictable pattern. For example, when the U.K. government considered a generational smoking policy in 2023, tobacco companies and their supporters argued that smoking was a minor problem, that individuals should be responsible for their own choices, and that a nationwide ban would lead to illegal behavior or hurt business profits.

In a 2025 study assessing how Belgian politicians viewed generational smoking bans, researchers heard similar arguments. Respondents across the political spectrum valued personal freedom and informed individual choice more highly than protecting children. The politicians also believed that young people could understand how smoking affected their health, and that raising awareness was more important than bans. These arguments aligned with tobacco industry positions.

However, research shows that young people hold many optimistic beliefs about smoking, especially with respect to the addictiveness of nicotine and the likelihood that they will avoid becoming lifelong smokers. Studies have also found that adolescents don’t know enough to make an informed choice to smoke. These findings matter because the tobacco industry routinely targets young people in an effort to create lifelong smokers.

The tobacco industry’s harm reduction approach frames e-cigarettes, also known as vapes, as a way to create a smoke-free future by transitioning smokers to other nicotine products. But research shows that the tobacco industry actively markets nicotine products such as vapes to young people to create a new generation of nicotine users.

Not a silver bullet

Curbing the use of an addictive product is challenging, and there are ways for young people to obtain cigarettes illegally, as they do now in places where cigarette buyers must be at least 21. Tactics include shopping at stores that don’t check IDs, having older friends buy cigarettes and purchasing cigarettes illegally online.

Tobacco-free generation policies aren’t a silver bullet. They work most effectively in conjunction with other measures, such as plain packaging; high prices; bans on displays, advertising and flavored products; smoking cessation support; and public health messages making clear that cigarettes are unsafe at any age.

Still, health experts and groups including the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology argue that creating a tobacco-free generation could dramatically reduce preventable deaths and secure a healthier future for today’s children and future generations. In my view, understanding the obstacles to change is a critical step toward achieving this goal.

Marie Helweg-Larsen has received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. Tobacco is still one of the world’s top killers – here are the key obstacles to enacting generational smoking bans – https://theconversation.com/tobacco-is-still-one-of-the-worlds-top-killers-here-are-the-key-obstacles-to-enacting-generational-smoking-bans-278018

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Helen Colby, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Indiana University

As health care costs rise, patients aren’t just shouldering higher bills. They’re bearing more and more responsibility for getting information.

Americans are facing a health care affordability crunch on multiple fronts. In 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress approved a sweeping tax law that scaled back premium subsidies for Americans accessing care through the Affordable Care Act starting in 2026. As a result, millions on ACA plans now face much higher premiums, with many dropping out or expecting to drop out and risk going uninsured as premiums surge. By March 2026, about 1 in 10 people on ACA plans had dropped out, and that share is expected to rise.

Meanwhile, high-deductible insurance plans have become more common, requiring patients to pay thousands of dollars before coverage fully kicks in. The rise of those plans, along with surging drug prices and the growing share of Americans who are under- or uninsured, means that medical debt remains a leading source of financial strain.

Nearly half of U.S. adults now report difficulty affording health care. Together, these shifts are accelerating the “consumerization” of health care. Patients now have the ability to comparison shop, evaluate options and manage costs – but often without clear pricing. In this environment, knowing how to ask the right questions may be one of the most important tools patients have.

We are professors who study how perceptions of health care costs shape patients’ decisions about their care. Our research examines
how factors such as price-transparency regulations influence patient choices. Across our work, we consistently hear from patients about rising costs and how conversations about price with their providers too often never happen.

Why speaking up about cost matters

When one of us took our child to the doctor for pink eye, the pediatrician quickly sent a prescription for antibiotic drops to the pharmacy. At the pickup, the pharmacist dropped the news that the drops would cost more than US$300. A follow-up phone call to the doctor’s office, however, yielded important information: A generic version of the same medication offered the same treatment and the same results, but at a fraction of the price.

That quick phone call saved her a lot of money. It also raised a broader question: Why don’t more people have these conversations about cost? In fact, one study shows that cost conversations occur in only about 30% of medical visits.

These discussions aren’t just for medications. They can be crucial when a recommended procedure has multiple alternatives; when out-of-pocket costs might affect whether you follow through on care; or when a sudden medical bill could create financial strain. Speaking up about price can help patients stay healthier and avoid the all-too-common trade-off between medical care and household expenses.

The study mentioned above also found that doctors and patients identified ways to reduce out-of-pocket costs – such as switching to a generic drug or adjusting the timing of care – in nearly half of those cases. Importantly, these conversations were typically brief and did not compromise the quality of care, the researchers found.

Patients actually prefer doctors who bring up costs, other research has found. Still, most patients remain hesitant. While a majority say they want to discuss cost, only a minority actually do, often waiting until a bill arrives – often when it’s too late to consider alternatives. That’s why it’s important that consumers feel empowered to ask the right questions. Here are three that can help make care more affordable.

Is there a generic or lower-cost alternative?

One of the simplest ways to reduce drug costs is to ask whether a less expensive option is available. Brand-name medications can cost significantly more than generics, even when they are equally effective. One industry survey estimated that 90% of all prescriptions filled in 2024 were generic or biosimilar, but these accounted for only 12% of drug spending.

In many cases, physicians can substitute a generic drug or recommend a similar treatment that achieves the same outcome at a lower price. And when no direct generic exists, there may be therapeutic alternatives worth considering. For example, if a brand-name eye drop or inhaler isn’t available in generic form, doctors can often prescribe a different medication in the same class that works just as well but costs far less. Research on physician–patient cost conversations shows that switching to lower-cost, clinically similar alternatives within the same drug class is a common strategy for reducing out-of-pocket spending without compromising care.

Is there any financial assistance available?

Some hospitals and large health systems have specific programs aimed at making care more affordable for lower-income patients. In many states, government programs address this same goal. These programs often offer discounts on care, but they can be complex to navigate and require significant paperwork. Many health care offices have staff who are knowledgeable about these programs and can help patients determine eligibility and sometimes even assist with applications, although the Trump administration has cut funding.

Patients can often find these programs through hospital or health system websites, which typically include financial assistance or “charity care” pages outlining eligibility and how to apply. State Medicaid offices and insurance marketplaces are also key entry points for coverage and subsidy programs. Nonprofit organizations and patient advocacy groups may also offer or list assistance tailored to specific conditions or medications.

It’s also important to remember that for prescription medications, what you’re quoted isn’t always the final price. Many medications come with options to reduce costs, including manufacturer coupons, copay assistance programs and patient assistance programs. Doctors’ offices and pharmacists may also know practical ways to save money, such as using a different pharmacy, switching to mail order or adjusting how a prescription is written. Asking about these options can uncover savings that aren’t immediately obvious.

What will this cost me, and are there other options?

Health care pricing is often opaque, and costs can vary widely depending on where and how care is delivered. Asking up front about your expected out-of-pocket cost can help you avoid surprises later.

This question also opens the door to alternatives. For example, patients may be able to choose a lower-cost imaging center, opt for outpatient rather than hospital-based care, or delay nonurgent services until insurance coverage improves.

Speaking up is part of taking care of your health

Health care decisions shouldn’t feel like a choice between your well-being and your wallet. A brief, honest conversation about cost can lead to more affordable and more sustainable care.

Physicians can’t address financial concerns they don’t hear about, and most want to help their patients access care they can realistically follow through on. As costs continue to shift toward the patient’s burden, asking these questions isn’t just helpful – it’s essential.

The next time you’re handed a prescription or a referral, remember: One simple question about price could make all the difference.

Deidre Popovich has received grant funding from BlueCross BlueShield of Texas and Providence Health.

Helen Colby 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. Health care sticker shock has become the norm, but talking to your doctor about costs can help you rein it in – https://theconversation.com/health-care-sticker-shock-has-become-the-norm-but-talking-to-your-doctor-about-costs-can-help-you-rein-it-in-262990

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University

For much of his political career, dishonesty has been without cost for Donald Trump. He entered into national politics with the birther lie, claiming that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and that did not prevent Trump from winning the 2016 GOP nomination.

His persistent false statements about crowd sizes, electoral outcomes and the birthplace of his father barely garner press coverage today.

What’s more, the admission that Trump lies seems to have had little impact. On the campaign trail during the 2024 presidential race, vice-presidential candidate JD Vance acknowledged that Trump’s story that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Ohio had been “created.” That confession had no discernible effect on Trump’s popularity. In fact, some measures indicate that Trump’s supporters admire his untruthfulness.

More recently, however, things have changed. Data now indicates mounting regret and disappointment among his base.

The administration’s failure to sustain convincing messaging about the Iran war, the Epstein files, the tariffs and inflation have left some supporters feeling duped and abandoned by Trump.

The president’s recent approval numbers are registering this shift.

This might suggest that fact-checking efforts are paying off. But, as a philosopher who studies the cognitive and emotional aspects of citizenship, I think this is incorrect. There is a better explanation for why, at this point, Trump’s followers are reacting negatively to his assertions.

When falsehoods aren’t lies

Although fact-checking can be successful in establishing the facts among people who have not already made up their minds, it is generally ineffective among true believers. Once someone has formed an opinion, debunking their belief can backfire, driving them to commit even more strongly to their mistake.

To explain the emerging shift among Trump’s base requires looking elsewhere. Specifically, I think it requires abandoning the idea that Trump’s more outlandishly false statements are lies at all.

I realize that this may sound odd.

To explain, let’s begin by noting that it is surprisingly difficult to give an adequate definition of lying. Intuitive characterizations – “A lie is something that isn’t true” – fall short.

For example, lying isn’t merely uttering a falsehood. Honest mistakes and statements made from lapses of memory are not lies. You could say instead that lying is deliberately asserting what one knows to be false.

But that won’t work, either.

President Bill Clinton lied when he claimed that “there is not a sexual relationship,” which, at the moment he said it, was true.

At the very least, the definition of lying must include speaking with the aim of causing one’s audience to adopt a falsehood. But that would make stage actors liars.

We should say instead that lying is a matter of speaking with the intent to deceive. Though difficulties remain, that’s a workable definition.

Betrayal by contempt

Given the ease with which many of Trump’s false statements are debunked, I think it’s unlikely that he aims to deceive anyone. No one really believes that Trump has stopped eight wars, defeated inflation, brought gasoline prices below US$2, cut a deal with the CEO of Sharpie or has 100% approval for his military incursion in Iran – all things he has said.

As he is not attempting to deceive, Trump isn’t lying when he makes such claims. Rather, he is doing something else entirely, something arguably more pernicious.

From my perspective as a political philosopher, these and other similar claims indicate he is speaking falsely as a way of demeaning or taunting his detractors. By resolutely asserting unbelievable falsehoods, Trump is expressing contempt. He is deriding the enterprise of journalism, in effect forcing reporters to write stories about his incredible statements, thereby indirectly controlling the news cycle.

It seems to me that his purpose is not to convince anyone, but rather to declare to the press, and perhaps also to his opposition, “You cannot stop me.” For a political movement rooted in the idea that U.S. politics is a swamp in need of draining, Trump’s defiant style has been successful.

But here’s the catch. It appears that Trump’s supporters are now beginning to feel that they, too, are on the receiving end of his contempt.

His recent claims that grocery prices are falling, his tariffs are working, the economy is roaring and the operation in Iran is a “little excursion” that has already been successful are not only obvious falsehoods.

In asserting them, Trump belittles those who must bear the effects of a struggling economy and an ill-conceived war. From this perspective, the shift among his base is not due to their realization that Trump lies. It’s that he has betrayed them.

Robert B. Talisse 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. As a philosopher, I’m convinced that Trump isn’t lying − he’s doing something worse – https://theconversation.com/as-a-philosopher-im-convinced-that-trump-isnt-lying-hes-doing-something-worse-279093

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kevin D. Murphy, Professor and Chair of History of Art, Vanderbilt University

Sand was thrown in the gears of President Donald Trump’s grand White House ballroom plans on March 31, 2026, when U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ordered a pause on construction.

The president, the judge wrote, was the “steward” of the residence, not its “owner.” In response, the Justice Department filed an emergency motion, asking that construction be allowed to resume due to security risks caused by the project being in a state of limbo.

Presidents of the United States, unlike other world leaders, have not typically sought to impress their own architectural tastes on national monuments.

In this regard, Trump is the exception. His approach to remaking federal architecture has mirrored his approach to university funding and immigration enforcement: move fast, break things.

But Trump’s imposition of his aesthetic preferences doesn’t just threaten to erase chapters in the story of the nation’s federal architecture. It also risks undoing the legacies of presidential wives, influential designers and the egalitarian ideals that many of these buildings embody.

Gaudy grandeur

Since his second term began in January 2025, Trump has paved over the storied White House Rose Garden – established by first lady Ellen Wilson in 1913 and redesigned by renowned horticulturalist Bunny Mellon in 1962 – complaining that ladies’ high-heeled shoes sank into the ground. The art deco bathroom off the Lincoln Bedroom now reflects Trump’s penchant for polished marble. And gold-colored decorative elements have been affixed to the simple woodwork throughout the White House, with some of the ornamentation brought from Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida estate.

Most notably, the East Wing, which housed the offices of the first lady and her staff, was flattened in fall 2025 to make way for a grand ballroom projected to cost some US$400 million. The building, if completed as planned, will dwarf the historic White House.

The ballroom also reflects Trump’s taste for grandiosity and opulence – the same aesthetic that’s reflected in the 250-foot “Independence Arch” that Trump has proposed for Washington.

Trump has repeatedly complained that public buildings in Washington lack grandeur. He was even quoted by Golf Magazine in 2017 as having described the White House as a “real dump,” although he later denied it.

Yet many of the structures he has demolished or has sought to revise embody, in their form and decoration, certain republican ideals, such as government by the people, civic virtue and opposition to concentrated power.

Buildings that embody egalitarianism

Trump has added accents to the White House to mimic the imposing homes of British and European monarchs. But the residence’s original “republican simplicity” – a concept attributed to Thomas Jefferson – actually had a purpose: It signaled the egalitarian outlook of the founders.

In 1792, when Jefferson was George Washington’s secretary of state, he anonymously entered the competition to design a new presidential home. His submission, which didn’t end up winning, was inspired by Renaissance architecture like Andrea Palladio’s Villa Rotonda. Completed around 1570 in northern Italy, the Villa Rotonda features symmetrical facades and harmonious proportions that have been equated with Renaissance humanism and rationalism.

Elsewhere, Jefferson advocated for modeling the young nation’s government architecture on the classical tradition, due to its associations with ancient Greek and Roman democracy. This often meant using classical design principles like restraint, order and geometric harmony, and adapting them by either simplifying the elements or using locally available materials instead of the expensive marble and other stones favored by the ancients.

A repudiation of ‘republican simplicity’

In August 2025, Trump signed an executive order, Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again, directing that this same classical style inform the design of all future federal buildings.

Yet Trump’s own vision for the White House design doesn’t align with this directive. For one, the sheer enormity of the proposed ballroom transgresses the foundational belief in classical restraint.

The columns that support the massive south portico – which in an earlier iteration was reached by a grand staircase that didn’t lead to an entrance – have Corinthian capitals, the most ornate type of decorative top for a column. In contrast, Ionic capitals, which are more restrained, currently grace the columns at the entrance of the White House. One of Trump’s appointees, however, wants to swap these out in favor of Corinthian capitals.

And the temple-style portico on the east façade of the planned ballroom is awkwardly shifted to the far north end, rather than being centered as the classical tradition would dictate.

Glossing over history

This is not to say that classical principles have never run up against contemporary design trends.

In 1888, architect Alfred B. Mullett completed the State, War and Navy Building, now known as the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Mullet had been inspired by Boston’s Old City Hall, which had been completed in 1865 and was itself inspired by the government architecture of the French Second Empire.

Trump has said that he finds the Eisenhower building’s gray granite façade dreary, and that he’d like to paint it white. Yet the material itself is a crucial element, tying the structure to the “Boston Granite Style.”

If the office building is painted white – in a process that would degrade the granite – a visual key to understanding its architectural and political history would be lost.

Architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock argued how forward-looking the building was for its time, and showed how how it mirrored the first skyscrapers erected in New York City: Richard Morris Hunt’s Tribune Building and the Western Union Building designed by Hunt’s pupil George B. Post.

For these reasons, preservationists have sued Trump to try to prevent these alterations.

Design that’s bottom up, not top down

I think it’s also important to note that in the original design and construction of many of the buildings Trump disparages, women played outsized roles.

As I note in my 2025 book, “Women Architects at Work: Making American Modernism,” which I co-authored with Mary Anne Hunting, the contributions of women in architecture and design have often been overlooked.

The Trump administration’s projects in and around Washington will only further obscure the women who shaped the federal buildings and landscapes of the capital.

While the Rose Garden reflected the efforts of Bunny Mellon and Jacqueline Kennedy, the East Wing came under the watchful eye of Edith Roosevelt, the wife of President Theodore Roosevelt. Edith worked hand-in-hand with famed classicist architect Charles Follen McKim on its redesign as the primary entrance, in 1902. And had it not been for the public fundraising efforts of Jacqueline Kennedy, the capital may never have had a performing arts venue of national significance, the Kennedy Center for the Arts. In early 2026, the Trump administration announced that the center would close for two years to undergo an estimated US$200 million renovation.

While all buildings are living organisms that are frequently adapted to changing functional requirements, they are also the repositories of national memory.

In 1961, a young Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, as a U.S. senator from New York, would later go on to advocate for historic preservation, penned “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture” on behalf of an ad hoc government committee on office space.

“The development of an official style must be avoided,” he wrote. “Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government, and not vice versa.”

As Judge Leon made clear in his ballroom ruling, no government officials – not even presidents – “own” federal architecture. The American people do. And it’s up to their representatives in Congress to decide whether to destroy or renovate it, bearing in mind that it’s an inextricable part of the country’s history.

This article was written with the collaboration of Mary Anne Hunting, Ph.D., an independent scholar in New York City.

Kevin D. Murphy 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. In his efforts to remake federal architecture, Trump repudiates the ‘republican ideals’ that have long informed it – https://theconversation.com/in-his-efforts-to-remake-federal-architecture-trump-repudiates-the-republican-ideals-that-have-long-informed-it-276565

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Patrick M. Shober, Postdoctoral Fellow in Planetary Sciences, NASA

Across the Earth, every night, thousands of automated stargazers are waiting to take pictures of shooting stars. I am one of the scientists who study these meteors.

Most movies and news alerts focus on large asteroids that could destroy the Earth. And your phones notifies you every few months that an object nine washing machines wide is going to just narrowly skim past. However, the small dust and rubble that enter our atmosphere daily tell an equally interesting story.

My planetary science colleagues and I use camera observations of the night sky to better understand dust, car-sized asteroids and debris from comets in our solar system.

In a study published in March 2026, I searched through millions of meteor observations collected by all-sky camera networks based in Canada, Japan, California and Europe and found a small, recently formed cluster. The 282 meteors associated with this cluster tell the story of an asteroid that got a little too close to the Sun.

Meteor formation

When a sand-sized crumb of space rock hits our atmosphere, it heats up almost instantly, vaporizing its surface layer and turning it into an electrically charged gas. The whole fragment starts to glow — this is what we call a meteor. If the object is larger, like a boulder, and brighter, it’s called a bolide or a fireball. On average, these objects hit our atmosphere going over 15 miles per second. For small dust or sand-sized objects, the whole process lasts only a fraction of a second before they completely disappear.

Most of these sand-sized fragments in the solar system originate from comets – cold, icy objects from the outer reaches of the solar system. As comets pass by the Sun, their icy components turn to gas, releasing tons of dust. This is why comets are often called “dirty snowballs” and appear fuzzy in telescopic images.

Asteroids, on the other hand, are leftovers from the early solar system that formed closer to the Sun. They are dry and rocky, and do not have the same ices that give comets their characteristic tails.

What does it mean to be active?

Astronomers call an asteroid or comet “active” when it sheds dust, gas or larger fragments. This activity is caused by some external force on the object in space, like heat from the Sun, a small impact, or when asteroids spin too fast and fly apart.

Understanding and identifying activity helps scientists better understand how these objects change over time.

For comets, sublimation of ices – when solid ice turns directly into gas, skipping the liquid phase – is the primary culprit. However, for asteroids, the reason for activity can vary greatly.

For example, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission, which launched into space to study an asteroid named Bennu, saw activity from its surface, with heat stress and small impacts among the leading explanations.

Other sources for asteroid activity include breakup when an asteroid spins too fast, tidal forces ripping apart asteroids during close encounters with a planet, or gas release.

Researchers most commonly search for activity using telescopes. Astronomers can look for a “tail” or fuzziness around the object. This tail is a clear sign that there is gas and dust around the body. But there is another way to search for activity – meteor showers.

Finding hidden asteroids via meteor showers

The most famous active asteroid is 3200 Phaethon. It is the parent body of the Geminid meteor shower that occurs every year in mid-December. During past close approaches with the Sun, Phaethon released vast amounts of dust and larger fragments. These morsels of Phaethon have spread out along its entire orbit over time, leading to the present Geminid meteor stream.

Each meteor shower we observe occurs when the Earth passes through one of these debris streams. So if astronomers can detect meteor showers, they can also be used to find active objects in space.

At first, debris shed by an asteroid or comet travels closely together. Imagine squeezing a single drop of food dye into a moving stream of water: Initially, the dye stays in a tight, concentrated cloud. But as it flows, the water’s swirling currents pull at the dye, causing it to spread out and fade.

In space, the gravitational tugs from passing planets act like those currents. They pull on the individual meteor fragments in slightly different ways, causing the once-tight stream to gradually drift apart until it completely dilutes into the background dust of our solar system.

The discovery of a rock-comet

In a study published in March 2026 in the Astrophysical Journal, I used millions of observations of meteors to search for recent, unknown activity from asteroids near the Earth. I found one clear cluster of 282 meteors that stood out.

What makes this discovery so exciting is that we are essentially witnessing a hidden asteroid being baked to bits. This newly confirmed meteor stream follows an extreme orbit that plunges almost five times closer to the Sun than Earth does.

Based on how these meteors break apart when they hit our atmosphere, we can tell they are moderately fragile, but tougher than stuff from comets. This finding tells us that intense solar heat is literally cracking the asteroid’s surface, baking out trapped gases and causing it to crumble. This is likely a major source of past Phaethon activity and the main reason the meteorites on Earth are so diverse.

The search for the source

Why does finding a hidden, crumbling asteroid matter? Meteor observations act as a uniquely sensitive probe that lets us study objects that are completely invisible to traditional telescopes.

Beyond solving astronomical mysteries, analyzing this debris helps us understand the physical evolution of asteroids and comets in our solar system. More importantly, it reveals hidden populations of near-Earth asteroids, which is vital information for planetary defense.

The new meteor shower’s parent asteroid remains elusive. However, NASA’s NEO Surveyor mission, launching in 2027, offers a promising solution. This space telescope, dedicated to planetary defense and the discovery of dark, hazardous, Sun-approaching asteroids, will be the ideal tool for searching for the shower’s origin.

Patrick M. Shober receives funding from the NASA Postdoctoral Program.

– ref. I found a new meteor shower, and it comes from an asteroid getting broken down by the Sun – https://theconversation.com/i-found-a-new-meteor-shower-and-it-comes-from-an-asteroid-getting-broken-down-by-the-sun-277557

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Chad S.A. Gibbs, Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies, College of Charleston

Adek Stein – a Holocaust survivor from Bialystok, Poland – looked anxiously about the room, struggling with the question he’d just been asked. As his eyes searched his small audience, it was clear he was nervous. That itself wasn’t new. But the interviewer had asked about sexual violence during the Holocaust, and Stein’s face seemed to betray a pain and worry he had lived with for years.

The USC Shoah Foundation, which filmed its interview with Stein at his home in Australia in 1995, tries to interview survivors one-on-one, without distraction. But that day, several young women, presumably members of Stein’s family, stayed in the room as he gave testimony – including his experiences as a forced laborer at the Treblinka extermination camp, where more than 900,000 Jews were murdered. Then it came time to talk about how some Germans had taken Jewish women, in his words, “to make fun.”

He stopped and looked at each of those present. Speaking to his interviewer, Stein said he did not want to go on, worried that the story was “too drastic” to recount “in front of these girls.” Stein’s interviewer told him to continue, but he changed the subject and moved on. That was it. Whatever more he knew about the fate of those women went untold.

Sexual violence and exploitation of women during the Holocaust, as well as LGBTQ+ people’s experiences, are some of the many topics that survivors have often struggled to discuss, even decades after the war. In many cases, it has taken years for even the broadest histories to emerge. As ever, what readers can learn about the past is limited by what witnesses were willing to say or write down, and what historians are willing to research.

Women’s lives and resistance at Treblinka

In work for my 2026 book, “Survival at Treblinka,” I came upon Stein’s testimony and many other hints and fragments of women’s lives in that Nazi extermination camp. What I found for this project is important, but I also came to realize it was just one example of wider issues in Holocaust history.

Treblinka, located along the rail line northeast of Warsaw, was actually the name of two different camps. The first, Treblinka I, was one of Nazi Germany’s forced labor camps. Treblinka II, about a mile away, was an extermination camp. It had no function other than mass killing by poison gas and, because of this, never held much more than about 1,000 Jewish prisoners at a time.

SS guards and their helpers forced these inmates to maintain the camp, process goods stolen from those killed, and to bury – and later burn – the bodies. Women prisoners, never more than about 40 in number, were employed as launderers, cleaners, kitchen staff and tailors.

On Aug. 2, 1943, prisoners carried out a long-planned uprising, burning much of the camp. The revolt allowed as many as 300 Jews to escape – at least temporarily – although many were soon found and killed. In “Survival at Treblinka,” I uncover how Jewish women were pivotal to resistance planning, working as couriers, informants and to steal and hide weapons. They also took part in their own everyday acts of resistance, right up to the moment of the revolt.

At every turn, Jewish women and men held in this camp took advantage of the guards’ beliefs about women. Simply put, the German SS did not fear Jewish women, so guards did not supervise them or scrutinize them as much as they did male prisoners. Women cleaned the SS barracks and used these jobs to keep track of the Germans’ comings and goings. They staffed the kitchens and, using the fact that they were not feared, hid stolen weapons there.

German guards created a camp brothel at Treblinka where certain guards and senior prisoners were allowed to assault Jewish women. Again, the Nazis did not fear or suspect those they compelled to endure that place. However, the women held there stole as many as eight rifles from guards to arm the revolt. That pivotal act of resistance and the entire existence of the brothel have not been discussed or remembered before my book.

Working in the 1970s, an earlier historian uncovered the same evidence of sexual exploitation and its outcomes at Treblinka, taken from trial investigation testimony evidence. He chose to cut that quote short and may not have had access to other testimony that proves the existence of a brothel.

As I show in “Survival at Treblinka,” not writing about the brothel also meant not speaking of how these women armed the uprising.

Silence and lost stories

The damaging silence of many male survivors on this topic is worsened by others’ decisions to deny or erase what happened, though that may be understandable. When that earlier historian wrote in the 1970s and ’80s, some of the women forced to endure that brothel were still living. Revealing what they had been through could have destroyed years of careful work to rebuild their lives and distance themselves from what was done to them in the wake of the Holocaust.

In one somewhat shocking example, a male survivor of Treblinka was asked during a 1996 interview by the USC Shoah Foundation whether he knew any women in the camp. That alone was a rare question in interviews between the 1970s and ’90s. The survivor’s answer, “There was no women,” was unequivocal – but not true.

Maps show how male prisoners would have seen women in the camp several times a day, especially at mealtimes. If we plot the paths male workers would take to and from their jobs and account for their likely interactions with women in the kitchens, it is clear that all men had to know women were present at Treblinka.

Left to wonder why witnesses and writers tended to leave out these women and their stories, we must consider whether it was, at times, out of a need to preserve their own sense of masculinity – an unwillingness to discuss what they saw these women endure, which male prisoners could not stop. Of course, some survivors’ sense of culpability might run deeper if they participated in the abuse themselves.

Fearful and self-preserving silence, nervous and embarrassed avoidance, and even willful erasure kept stories like these in the dark. What we know of history is, again, a matter of what scholars and witnesses are ready to discuss, and what sources are prepared to write down, record or say aloud.

More than 80 years after the fact, these stories are coming to light just as many survivors are dying. That, I believe, is not entirely coincidental. As survivors leave us, the stories we tell and the questions we are comfortable asking of sources change. Historians’ own diversity today is also helping to bring attention to the lives of women, people with disabilities, the elderly, queer people and still other voices long obscured.

Distance from the event is sometimes what finally allows us the space to open new doors and hear new voices. That will certainly mean a reassessment and a broadening of Holocaust histories as time goes on. It is a process long overdue, for too much is lost when we look away.

Chad S.A. Gibbs 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. 80 years later, scholarship is breaking silence on women’s suffering and strength at Treblinka – including their role in its uprising – https://theconversation.com/80-years-later-scholarship-is-breaking-silence-on-womens-suffering-and-strength-at-treblinka-including-their-role-in-its-uprising-276851

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Justin Heinze, Associate Professor of Health Behavior & Health Equity, University of Michigan

What is the best way to handle cellphones in schools?

That’s a question Michigan educators are grappling with this spring after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed into law a ban on smartphone use in Michigan schools.

The law goes into effect in the school year that begins in August 2026. It requires public and charter K-12 schools to adopt rules prohibiting students from using smartphones during instructional time, but it allows educators and school officials to determine the best way to do that.

The new law includes several exemptions, including medical or emergency use, and does not apply to Michigan’s private schools.

We are University of Michigan faculty in the schools of Public Health, Public Policy and Education, and we are interested in how cellphone access both helps and hurts students in schools.

Many districts already have cellphone policies, but the new law creates an opportunity to look at which policies best support student well-being and academic success.

Drawbacks and benefits to student learning

Cellphones were used by 97% of young people ages 11-17 during the school day in 2022, with both good and bad effects.

Cellphone use can distract students and lead to disengagement from school, impaired learning and poorer mental health. It can also lead to exposure to interpersonal violence, such as bullying or fights, and harm broader well-being.

But students also use phones in beneficial ways, such as monitoring their blood sugar levels, connecting with family and peers, and even contacting digital tip lines to prevent violence.

Defining the array of cellphone policies

As part of a CDC-funded project focused on cellphone policies and health, we collected data on existing cellphone policies in the 2025-26 school year for every school district in Michigan. Our team checked hundreds of local and regional education authority webpages and consulted student handbooks. When digital information was missing, we contacted districts directly. Building on a national teacher survey called Phones in Focus, we recorded not only when phone use is restricted but how schools restrict it, noting cases in which the district policy varied by grade level.

At the time of this writing, our data reflects 779, or 95%, of publicly funded traditional and charter school districts in Michigan.

At the start of the 2025-26 school year, 94.7% of districts had existing mandates, compared to 2.5% of districts that required individual schools to set their own policies.

Just under 3% of all Michigan districts had no stated policy at all. It is possible that these districts communicated a set policy through informal channels or, in practice, were letting schools decide on their own rules.

Among districts with mandated policies, there were important differences in rules relating to cellphones. To help think through policies, we sorted them on two criteria: when policies are enforced and how policies are enforced.

About half of the district policies provided different rules by grade level. In these cases, we include the policies for high school students to generate the statistics below.

When and how to limit use

Let’s start with when: In districts with stated policies, 50% specified “bell-to-bell” restrictions, meaning that students were not permitted to use their phones at any point during the school day, including during lunch or passing periods. The remaining 50% of districts mandated “schedule-based” restrictions, which typically meant that phones were prohibited during instructional time but could be used at other times, such as lunch or between classes.

When it comes to the “how,” districts specified a number of different approaches to enforcing cellphone restrictions.

The most common approach, adopted by 62% of districts, is what we describe as a “no show,” meaning that students are required to keep their phones out of sight, such as in their backpacks or pockets. This policy is used in Alanson Public Schools, for example.

Seventeen percent of districts require students to keep their phones in their lockers throughout the school day. Sturgis Public Schools, a school district that provides special education and early childhood services, is one.

Other school districts enforce stricter policies. Detroit Premier Academy, a charter school, implemented a “no phones” rule that bans phones inside school buildings. Roughly 8% of districts surveyed use this approach.

Another 8% collected phones in each classroom, often using structured, numbered pocket charts or a designated bin.

Less common was the “centralized collection” approach, meaning when students arrive at school, staff collect their phones and store them for the remainder of the day. Stockbridge Community Schools was among the 21 school districts, or about 3%, we found that follow this policy.

The final 2% used lockable pouches.

Location and type of school mattered

We found that policy features were associated with the type and location of districts.

Charter and urban districts were substantially more likely than suburban or rural schools to adopt bell-to-bell policies that prohibit phones during the school day.

Roughly 20% of charter districts prohibited students from bringing phones to school, while 2% of traditional districts adopted this approach.

Traditional districts relied more on “lockers” – 22% – and “classroom collection” – 11% – approaches.

Twenty-five percent of rural, 15% of suburban and 5% of city districts used the lockers approach.

These approaches have important implications for enforcement.

The “no show” and “classroom collection” approaches place most of the enforcement burden on teachers, and both methods require monitoring throughout the school day.

The “centralized collection” and “lockable pouch” approaches place more burden on school administrators, but in theory they require enforcement only at the beginning of the day.

It is less clear how the “lockers” and “no phone” approaches are enforced in practice, but they rely more heavily on an individual student’s adherence to policy and resisting the temptation to use a phone throughout the day.

Is one approach better than others?

With so many policies, it’s natural to ask which one is best. No doubt, education leaders across the state will be debating that question with a renewed focus on policies. Here’s some guidelines to help guide those debates:

• Set and communicate clear policies: This will make it easier on school staff responsible for making sure students do not access their phones during the school day. Implementation will be critical. No policy can be effective if it is enforced inconsistently or not at all. Ideally, students should get the same message from the district, principal, teachers and their parents or caregivers.

• Consider difficult trade-offs: “Classroom collection” and “no show” policies allow for parents and students to stay in touch as needed and call less attention to students who use their personal devices for medical or other permitted reasons. On the other hand, these approaches will require teachers to monitor students and enforce the rules throughout the school day, which may be less effective in preventing student phone use than the “centralized collection” approach or rules that completely prohibit phones on school premises.

• Watch out for unintended consequences: Some policies are cheap to implement. Others require the purchasing of expensive equipment or a good deal of staff time. Think about what protocols need to be in place to keep up and enforce those rules. That will enhance resource efficiency and protect teachers who report challenges with monitoring phone use and even violence when they try to enforce the rules.

Justin Heinze receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control, including for the data collected for this article (R01CE003837).

Brian Jacob receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control, the Arnold Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation. He is currently conducting an evaluation of Yondr lockable pouches and, as part of this project, has interacted with Yondr staff to obtain data and gain greater understanding of how Yondr is implemented in schools.

Elyse Thulin receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She is affiliated with Sandy Hook Promise Foundation’s National Research Advisory Council.

– ref. We collected data on how 779 Michigan school districts are regulating student cellphones − here are the trends – https://theconversation.com/we-collected-data-on-how-779-michigan-school-districts-are-regulating-student-cellphones-here-are-the-trends-275544