But at the same time, inflation – the other component of the Fed’s dual mandate – has begun to accelerate again. As rising tariffs squeeze consumer spending in sectors exposed to the harshest tariffs – such as clothing and electronics – other inflationary pressures loom over the horizon.
A slowing economy or rising inflation is a circumstance that policymakers want to avoid. But as an economist and finance professor, I’m increasingly concerned about the risk that they happen at the same time – a horrible economic condition known as stagflation – and that the Fed may be too slow in responding.
The reason markets and the White House are so interested is because what the Fed does matters. The central bank’s decision at its near-monthly meetings helps banks and other lenders to determine rates on auto loans, mortgages, credit cards and more. Lower rates usually lead more businesses and consumers to borrow and spend more, boosting economic activity. This also can drive up inflation.
For the better part of three years, the central bank has been focused on its generational fight against inflation. But now, with inflation down significantly from its 40-year high of 9% reached in 2022 and the jobs market sputtering, conditions finally seemed right to resume cutting rates.
The labor market has seen continued deterioration, most notably with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ revisions to nonfarm payrolls – in effect reducing the number of jobs economists thought the U.S. gained by almost 1 million for the year ending in March 2025.
At the Fed’s last meeting in August, Chair Jerome Powell said that the risks to the labor market now exceed the risks of inflation.
For example, for the first time since 2021, the number of unemployed people have outpaced job vacancies as companies have moved to eliminate open positions before laying off workers.
Most compelling is the so-called U6 unemployment rate – which includes those in the regular unemployment figures and people who have stopped looking for jobs, as well as those who are working part time but are looking for full-time opportunities. That has increased over the past three months to 8.1%.
The evidence suggests that businesses are reluctant to add workers as tariff policy and broad economic uncertainty appear to drive hiring decisions.
The last time there was stagflation was the 1970s, which led to long lines for cars ≠ and mowers – at the gas stations. AP Photo
The worst of both worlds
The short-term risk here is that a quarter-point cut won’t be enough to shore up the jobs market, and it may be too late to prevent the economy from tipping into recession.
The longer-term risk is more concerning: Not only could the economy contract, but it could do so while inflation accelerates.
The last time the U.S. experienced stagflation was in the 1970s, when an oil embargo caused the price of crude to double. This drove up inflation while causing unemployment to soar and the economy to stall. Policies aimed at reducing inflation typically exacerbate slowing growth, and vice versa. In other words, there were fewer dollars to go around – and those dollars were worth a little less every day.
The pain experienced during this previous bout of stagflation convinced a generation of economists and policymakers that the condition was to be avoided at all costs.
The Fed, which has consistently shown its hand and has guided the markets toward this week’s rate cut, now has to make what seems like an impossible decision: cut rates even if doing so will add inflationary pressures.
In my view, it’s clear that a cut is warranted. But will it drive up inflation? Economists like me will be watching this closely.
Jason Reed 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.
Shortly following the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, many politicians and pundits were quick to highlight the importance of civil discourse.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called for an “off-ramp” to political hostilities, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement condemning political violence. He lauded Kirk’s “commitment to debate,” adding, “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” Political commentator Ezra Klein wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.”
Clearly, murder is a no-go. But what does it mean to practice politics “the right way?” How can people engage “across ideology” in a “spirited” way?
Well, one way to not practice politics the right way is to limit the other side from having a voice of authority. Since 2016, the organization Kirk co-founded, Turning Point USA, has hosted the Professor Watchlist. The online database generated harassment campaigns against professors, leading to calls for firings, hate mail and death threats. To be sure, the left has not been without its own excesses of harassment in recent years.
Kirk was also known for going to college campuses and speaking to students: entering the lion’s den and affably challenging audiences to “change my mind.”
To me, the impulse to shut down the other side, combined with the “change my mind approach” to debate, has only exacerbated political polarization and entrenchment. Instead, I propose a few different ways of thinking about conversations with people whose views differ from your own.
Deliberative democracy is the idea that decision-making and governance are arrived at through thoughtful, reasoned and respectful dialogue. This may take the shape of debates in Congress or robust questioning in town halls. But deliberative democracy also shapes the way all neighbors or citizens treat each other, whether on the street or at the dinner table.
I contend that a big stumbling block that prevents the U.S. from tackling its biggest problems is how Americans conceptualize deliberative democracy: There’s a fantasy that people’s minds can be easily changed, if only they’re given certain information or hear certain arguments.
In the 1990s, this was epitomized through former President Bill Clinton’s Initiative on Race, a program that he framed as a vehicle for social and political transformation. Clinton believed that an advisory board of experts could foster a meaningful national dialogue and produce necessary healing.
By the time Clinton’s second term ended, the initiative quietly disappeared, only to be mentioned in passing in Clinton’s memoir. Yet with each subsequent racial flash point, from the arrest of Henry Louis Gates in 2009 to the murder of George Floyd, calls resurfaced for the national conversation. But race remains a politically and culturally salient issue.
Similarly, many Americans view friends, relatives and colleagues as targets for conversion. Because of the nature of my research, I often get a version of this question from my students: “How do you change someone’s mind if they say they’re a socialist?” Or they may frame it as, “I’ve got Thanksgiving with my family coming up, and my Uncle Johnny is so transphobic. How do I convince him to support trans rights?”
Cultural theorist Lauren Berlant would describe these encounters as moments of cruel optimism. There’s the belief that what you’re about to do is good and worthy. But time and again, you’re met with feelings of futility and frustration.
When debating politics, many people crave a chance to engage with someone they disagree with. There’s the hope of changing hearts and minds. But few minds – if any – change that quickly, and approaching these conversations as small windows of opportunity ends up being their downfall.
Opening minds instead of changing them
There are more fruitful approaches to conversation than merely trying to best someone in an argument by deploying buzzwords or “gotcha!” moments.
Rather than trying to immediately change someone’s mind, what if you entered a conversation with the goal of simply planting seeds? This approach transforms the dialogue from an attempted conversion into a legitimate conversation, wherein you’re merely offering your partner something to consider after the fact.
Another strategy involves remembering that conversations often have multiple audiences.
Consider the Thanksgiving dinner with Uncle Johnny. What if, instead of focusing on trying to convert him, the speaker recognized that there were other listeners at the table? Perhaps they could rethink their encounter not as converting an opponent, but as modeling to relatives how to have a conversation about one’s values with a loved one whom they vehemently disagree with. Or perhaps the speaker could recognize that a cousin at the table may be closeted, and take it upon themselves to model how to push back against transphobia.
In both cases, the conversion of Uncle Johnny ceases to be the objective. Civic dialogue and persuasion remain.
Change is slow but never futile
If the U.S. is going to heal its civic life through dialogue, I think it will require Americans to not just speak with those they disagree with, but to listen to them as well.
Krista Ratcliffe, a scholar of rhetoric at Arizona State University, has written about her concept of “rhetorical listening.” Listeners, she argues, must not simply be attuned to the words a speakers says, but also to the life experiences and ideologies that shape those words.
Rhetorical listening means avoiding the urge to one-up the opponent or convert the unwashed masses. Instead, you’re entering into dialogue from a position of curiosity, with a willingness to learn and grow.
Many people believe that the U.S. is at an inflection point. Will families and friendships continue to be torn apart? Will greater political polarization lead to more violence? Often it feels hopeless.
Like Sisyphus, many Americans probably feel like they continue to push a boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down the other side. The error would be for Americans to be surprised when the boulder rolls back down – shocked that there was no progress and that everyone has to start over again.
While the Sisyphean task of deliberative democracy requires that citizens push the boulder day in and day out, they should also recognize that as they push, the weight of the boulder as it’s collectively pushed will gradually and imperceptibly alter the terrain.
Lee Bebout 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.
While differing in context, these events share devastating commonalities that will haunt many Americans for decades and possibly generations to come. And they are only the latest of a very long string of violent acts, some politically motivated and some motivated simply by the intention to harm as many people as possible.
I am a trauma psychiatrist and researcher, and I know that the direct and indirect effects of such violence reach millions. While those in the immediate surroundings are most affected, the rest of society suffers, too.
First, the immediate survivors
No two people experience exposure to public violence in the same way. The extent of the trauma, stress and fear can vary, depending on variables ranging from someone’s genetic makeup to where they were during the incident, and what they saw and heard. A hallmark of exposure to such life-threatening experiences is post-traumatic stress disorder.
PTSD is a debilitating condition that develops after exposure to serious traumatic experiences such as war, natural disasters, rape, assault, robbery and gun violence. Nearly 8% of the U.S. population deals with PTSD. Symptoms include high anxiety, avoidance of reminders of the trauma, emotional numbness, hypervigilance, frequent intrusive memories of trauma, nightmares and flashbacks. The brain switches to fight-or-flight and survival mode, and the person is always waiting for something terrible to happen. Survivors of a shooting may avoid the neighborhood where the shooting occurred or the contexts related to the shooting.
When the trauma is caused by people, as in a public shooting, the impact can be profound. The rate of PTSD in people directly exposed to mass shootings may be as high as 36% among survivors. Depression, another debilitating psychiatric condition, occurs in as many as 80% of people with PTSD. Because of the human nature of such events, avoidance often extends to all public situations. In my work as a psychiatrist, I often see people with PTSD socially debilitated to the point they cannot leave home even for grocery shopping.
People may also experience survivor’s guilt, the feeling that they failed others who died or did not do enough to help them, or just guilt at having survived.
PTSD can improve by itself, but many people need treatment. The more chronic PTSD is, the more negative the impact on the brain. Hence, it is important for those who are exposed to receive proper screening, prevention and care when needed.
Children and adolescents, who are developing their worldview and learning how safe it is to live in this society, may suffer even more. Exposure to horrific experiences such as school shootings or related news can fundamentally affect the way children and youth perceive the world as a safe or unsafe place.
They can carry such a worldview for the rest of their lives and transfer it to their children. Research is also abundant on the long-term detrimental impact of childhood trauma on a person’s mental and physical health through their adult life.
PTSD can also develop via indirect exposure to others’ severe trauma. People in the vicinity of a shooting may see exposed, disfigured or dead bodies. They may also see injured people in agony, hear extremely loud noises and experience chaos and terror after the shooting.
A group whose chronic exposure to horrific trauma is often overlooked is the first responders. While survivors try to run away from an active shooter, the police, firefighters and paramedics rush into the danger zone. In addition, dispatchers hear firsthand the highly disturbing details of the event as it is underway but may not receive the support needed to process the events.
Many first responders might have their own children in that school or nearby. They frequently face uncertainty; threats to themselves, their colleagues and others; and terribly upsetting post-shooting scenes. This type of exposure happens to them too frequently. As a result, PTSD has been reported in up to 20% of first responders to mass violence.
Widespread panic and pain
People who were not directly exposed to the disaster but who were exposed to the news also experience distress, anxiety or symptoms of PTSD. Every time there is a mass shooting in a new location or setting, such as a synagogue, a concert or a day care center, people may begin to believe that this type of place is no longer safe. People worry not only about themselves but also about the safety of their children and other loved ones.
Repeated media exposure to the circumstances surrounding a tragic event, including images of the aftermath of a shooting, can be highly stressful to survivors, those who lost loved ones and first responders. In my clinic, I hear from affected people that repeatedly seeing the event on the news, and others asking them about their experiences, can bring painful memories to the surface. Some first responders I’ve worked with try to hide their occupation from others to prevent being asked about such events.
However, as the graphic assassination of Kirk shows – videos of it ran unedited on many social media platforms for hours before they were taken down – exposure to violent images now reach a far wider population.
Thousands of college-age students witnessed the public assassination of Charlie Kirk in person, while millions of other people saw it on social media. Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images News via Getty Images
Is there any good to come of such tragedy?
In my book “Afraid: Understanding the Purpose of Fear and Harnessing the Power of Anxiety,” I explain that the combination of toxic politics, a media economy built on fear and outrage, and social media algorithms have brought Americans to a place where half of the population believes the other half is either stupid or evil.
Demonizing or attempting to eliminate those who think differently – literally or symbolically – has become a dangerous norm, which is all too evident in the wake of the Kirk shooting. This violence plays out not only in political rhetoric on the debate stage but also on the streets.
I believe events like these should be a wake-up call before it is too late, a stark agreement that as Americans we still share far more than we differ.
Americans can channel the collective agony and frustration to encourage meaningful change, cooling down the division, making gun laws safer, opening genuinely constructive discussions, informing the public about the risks and calling on lawmakers to take real action. In times of hardship, humans often can raise the sense of community, support one another and advocate for their rights, including the right to be safe at schools, concerts, churches and movie theaters.
Negative emotions carry energy. If left unchecked, they will consume us. But sadness, anxiety, anger and frustration can be channeled into actions such as becoming involved in activism and volunteering to help the survivors and society at large.
Finally, exposure to media coverage for several hours daily following a collective trauma can lead to high stress. Check the news a couple of times a day to be informed, but don’t continue seeking out coverage and exposure to graphic images and news. The news cycle tends to report the same stories without much additional information.
Arash Javanbakht 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.
Blue oak woodlands in California offer beauty and opportunities to sustain traditional knowledge and ecological resilience.Nina Fontana, CC BY-NC-ND
It took decades, stacks of legal paperwork and countless phone calls, but, in the spring of 2025, a California Chuckchansi Native American woman and her daughter walked onto a 5-acre parcel of land, shaded by oaks and pines, for the first time.
This land near the foothills of the Sierra National Forest is part of an unusual category of land that has been largely left alone for more than a century. The parcel, like roughly 400 other parcels across the state totaling 16,000 acres in area, is held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of specific Indigenous people – such as a family member of the woman visiting the land with her daughter.
Largely inaccessible for more than a century, and therefore so far of little actual benefit to those it is meant for, this land provides an opportunity for Indigenous people to not only have recognized land rights but also to care for their land in traditional ways that could help reduce the threat of intensifying wildfires as part of a changing climate.
In collaboration with families who have long been connected to this land, our research team at the University of California, Davis is working to clarify ownership records, document ecological conditions and share information to help allottees access and use their allotments.
California’s unique historical situation
As European nations colonized the area that became the United States, they entered into treaties with Native nations. These treaties established tribal reservations and secured some Indigenous rights to resources and land.
Just after California became a state in 1850, the federal government negotiated 18 treaties with 134 tribes, reserving about 7.5 million acres, roughly 7.5% of the state, for tribes’ exclusive use.
Then, in 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Native people across the U.S. to be assigned or apply for land individually. Though it called the seized land – their former tribal homelands – the “public domain,” the Dawes Act presented a significant opportunity for the landless Native people in California to secure land rights that would be recognized by the government.
Allotments are in a wide range of ecosystems, though more are in blue oak woodlands than any other single type of habitat. Images created by James Thorne, Ryan Boynton, Allan Hollander and Dave Waetjan.
Many of these allotments were remote – ecologically rich, yet hard to access. They were carved out of ancestral territories but often lacked access to infrastructure like roads, water or electricity. In some cases, allotments were separated from traditional village sites, ceremonial areas or vital water resources, cutting them off from broader ecosystems and community networks.
Federal officials often drew rough or incorrect maps and even lost track of which parcels had been allotted and to whom, especially as original allottees passed away. As a result, many allotments were claimed and occupied by others, coming into private hands without the full knowledge or consent of the Native families they were held in trust for.
There were once 2,522 public domain allotments in California totaling 336,409 acres. In 2025, approximately 400 of these allotments remain, encompassing just over 16,000 acres. They are some of the only remaining, legally recognized tracts of land where California Native American families can maintain ties to place, which make them uniquely significant for cultural survival, sovereignty and ecological stewardship.
The allotments today
Because of their remoteness, many of these lands remained relatively undisturbed by human activity and are home to diverse habitats, native plants and traditional gathering places. And because they are held in trust for Native people, they present an opportunity to exercise Indigenous practices of land and resource management, which have sustained people and ecosystems through millennia of climate shifts.
We and our UC Davis research team partner with allottee families; legal advocates including California Indian Legal Services, a Native-led legal nonprofit; and California Public Domain Allottee Association, an allottee-led nonprofit that supports allottees to access and care for their lands. Together, we are studying various aspects of the remaining allotments, including seeking to understand how vulnerable they are to wildfire and drought, and identifying options for managing the land to reduce those vulnerabilities.
Allotments have a range of fire risk, though many are in very-high-risk areas. Images created by James Thorne, Ryan Boynton, Allan Hollander and Dave Waetjan.
Many of these parcels are located in remote, less-developed foothills or steep terrain where they have remained relatively intact, retaining more native species and diverse habitats than surrounding lands. Many of these parcels have elements like oak woodlands, meadows, brooks and rivers that create cooler, wetter areas that help plants and animals endure wildfires or periods of extreme heat or drought.
Allotment lands also offer the potential for the return of stewardship methods that – before European colonization – sustained and improved these lands for generations. For example, Indigenous communities have long used fire to tend plants, reduce overgrowth, restore water tables and generally keep ecosystems healthy.
Guided by Indigenous knowledge and rooted in the specific cultures and ecologies of place, this practice, often called cultural burning, reduces dry materials that could fuel future wildfires, making landscapes more fire-resilient and lowering both ecological and economic damage when wildfires occur. At the same time, it brings back plants for food, medicine, fiber and basketry for California Native communities.
Challenges on allotments
The Chuckchansi family who reached their land for the first time in the spring of 2025 would like to move onto the land. However, the parcel is surrounded by private property, and they need to seek permission from neighboring landowners to even walk onto their own parcel.
In addition, a small number of employees at the Bureau of Indian Affairs are responsible for allotments, and they must also deal with issues on larger reservations and other tribal lands.
Further, because the lands are held in federal trust, allottees’ ability to engage in traditional management practices like cultural burning often face more stringent federal permitting processes than state or private landowners – including restrictions under the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
To our knowledge, no fire management plans have been approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on California Native American public domain allotments. Nonetheless, many families are interested in following traditional practices to manage their land. These efforts were a key topic at the most recent California Public Domain Allottees Conference, which included about 100 participants, including many allottee families.
People gather at the second annual California Public Domain Allottees Conference in May 2025. Nina Fontana, CC BY-NC-ND
One option could be to shift some of the regulatory authority from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the allottees themselves. Shifting authority to Indigenous peoples has improved forest health elsewhere, as found in a collaborative study between University of California Extension foresters and Hoopa Tribal Forestry. That research found that when the Hoopa Tribe gained control of forestry on their reservation along the Klamath River basin in northern California, tribal members moved away from large-scale clear-cutting. They decreased allowable logging amounts, created buffers around streams and protected species that were culturally important, while still reducing the buildup of downed or dead wood that can fuel wildfires.
At a time when California faces record-breaking wildfires and intensifying climate extremes, allotments offer rare pockets of intact habitat with the potential to be managed with cultural knowledge and ecological care. They show that adapting to change is not just about infrastructure or technology, but also about relationships – between people and place, culture and ecology, past and future.
This research was funded by the California Climate Action Seed Grant (#R02CP7261: Planning Landscape Resilience for California Indian Allotment Lands) and the United States Geological Survey (G22AC00076-00, Indigenous-Led Climate Adaptation Strategies: Integrating Landscape Condition, Monitoring, and Cultural Fire with the North Fork Mono Tribe, and G23AC00682-00, Future of Fire Phase II: Learning by Doing with Cultural Fire Practitioners).
This research was funded by the Climate Action Grant (California Climate Action Seed Grant #R02CP7261: Planning Landscape Resilience for California Indian Allotment Lands) and the United States Geological Survey (G22AC00076-00, Indigenous-Led Climate Adaptation Strategies: Integrating Landscape Condition, Monitoring, and Cultural Fire with the North Fork Mono Tribe, and G23AC00682-00, Future of Fire Phase II: Learning by Doing with Cultural Fire Practitioners).
Microplastics seem to be everywhere – in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat. They have turned up in human organs, blood, testicles, placentas and even brains.
Countries have tried for the past few years to write a global plastics treaty that might reduce human exposure to plastic particles and their harm to wildlife and ecosystems, but the latest negotiations collapsed in August 2025. Most plastics are made with chemicals from fossil fuels, and oil-producing countries, including the U.S., have opposed efforts that might limit plastics production.
While U.S. and global solutions seem far off, policies to limit harm from microplastics are gaining traction at the state and local levels.
Marine animals ingest microplastics from the water and as they’re eating. These were found in marine animals at the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research near Athens, Greece, in 2025. Milos Bicanski/Getty Images
Banning added microplastics: Glitter, confetti and turf
Some microplastics are deliberately manufactured to be small and added to products. Think glitter in cosmetics, confetti released at celebrations and plastic pellet infill, used between the blades in turf fields to provide cushion and stability.
These tiny plastics inevitably end up in the environment, making their way into the air, water and soil, where they can be inhaled or ingested by humans and other organisms.
Personal care products, particularly makeup, have added glitter in recent years. However, when that makeup is washed off, it often goes down drains and into wastewater, adding to plastics in the environment. Rich Fury/Invision/AP
European regulators targeted turf infill through the same law for glitter, and municipalities in Connecticut and Massachusetts are considering local bans.
Rhode Island’s proposed law, which would ban all intentionally added microplastics by 2029, is broad enough to include glitter, turf and confetti.
Reducing secondary microplastics: Textiles and tires
Most microplastics don’t start small; rather, they break off from larger items. Two of the biggest culprits of secondary microplastics are synthetic clothing and vehicle tires.
A study in 2019 estimated that textiles accounted for 35% of all microplastics entering the ocean – shed from polyester, nylon or acrylic clothing when washed. Microplastics can carry chemicals and other pollutants, which can bioaccumulate up the food chain.
Several U.S. states, including Oregon, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are considering similar legislation. California came close in 2023, passing legislation to require microfiber filters for washing machines, but it was ultimately vetoed due to concerns about the cost of adding the filters. Even so, data submitted in support of the bill showed that such filters could cut microplastic releases from laundry by nearly 80%.
Some states, such as California and New York, are considering warnings on clothing made with synthetic fibers that would alert consumers to the shedding of microplastics.
Tires are another large source of microplastics. As they wear down, tires release millions of tons of particles annually, many of which end up in rivers and oceans. These particles include 6PPD-quinone, a chemical linked to mass die-offs of salmon in the Pacific Northwest.
One approach would be to redesign the product to include safer alternatives. California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control recently added 6PPD-quinone to its priority product list, requiring manufacturers to explain how they will either redesign their product or remove it from the market.
Regulating disposal
Microplastics can also be dealt with at the disposal stage.
Disposable wipes, for example, contain plastic fibers but are still flushed down toilets, clogging pipes and releasing microplastics. States such as New York, California and Michigan have passed “no-flush” labeling laws requiring clear warnings on packaging, alerting consumers to dispose of these wipes another way.
Construction sites also contribute to local microplastic pollution. Towns along the New Jersey shore have enacted ordinances that require builders to prevent microplastics from entering storm drains that can carry them to waterways and the ocean. Such methods include using saws and drills with vacuums to reduce the release of microplastics and cleaning worksites each day.
Oregon and Colorado have new producer responsibility laws that require manufacturers that sell products in plastic packaging to fund recycling programs. California requires manufacturers of expanded polystyrene plastic products to ensure increasing levels of recycling of their products.
Statewide strategies and disclosure laws
Some states are experimenting with broader, statewide strategies based on research.
California’s statewide microplastic strategy, eg: link error. adopted in 2022, is the first of its kind. It requires standardized testing for microplastics in drinking water and sets out a multiyear road map for reducing pollution from textiles, tires and other sources.
California has also begun treating microplastics themselves as a “chemical of concern.” That shifts disclosure and risk assessment obligations to manufacturers, rather than leaving the burden on consumers or local governments.
Other states are pursuing statewide strategies. Virginia, New Jersey and Illinois have considered bills to monitor microplastics in drinking water. A Minnesota bill would study microplastics in meat and poultry, and the findings and recommendations could influence future consumer safety regulations in the state.
State and local initiatives in the U.S. and abroad – be they bans, labels, disclosures or studies – can help keep microplastics out of our environment and lay the foundation for future large-scale regulation.
Federal ripple effects
These state-level initiatives are starting to influence policymakers in Washington.
In June 2025, the U.S. House passed the bipartisan WIPPES Act, modeled on state “no-flush” laws, and sent it to the Senate for consideration.
Another bipartisan bill was introduced in July 2025, the Microplastic Safety Act, which would direct the FDA to research microplastics’ human health impacts, particularly on children and reproductive systems.
Proposals to require microfiber filters in washing machines, first tested at the state level, are also being considered at the federal level.
This pattern is not new. A decade ago, state bans on wash-off cosmetic microbeads paved the way for the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, the only federal law to date that directly bans a type of microplastic. That history suggests today’s state and local actions could again catalyze broader national reform.
Small steps with big impact
Microplastics are a daunting challenge: They come from many sources, are hard to clean up once released, and pose risks to our health and the environment.
While global treaties and sweeping federal legislation remain out of reach, local and state governments are showing a path forward. These microsolutions may not eliminate microplastics, but they can reduce pollution in immediate and measurable ways, creating momentum for larger reforms.
Sarah J. Morath is affiliated with the Global Council for Science and the Environment.
Republican-leaning economists tend to predict stronger economic growth when a Republican is president than Democrats do – and because of this partisan optimism, their forecasts end up being less accurate.
The respondents were professional economists at major banks, consulting firms and universities whose forecasts help guide financial markets and business decisions. Out of more than 300 economists in our sample, we could identify the political affiliations of 122. We did this by looking at the forecasters’ political donation records, voter registration data and work histories with partisan groups.
The pattern was striking: Republican forecasters systematically predicted higher gross domestic product growth when their party controlled the presidency, representing roughly 10% to 15% of average growth rates during our study period.
When we examined forecast accuracy using real-time GDP data, Republican forecasters made larger errors when their preferred party held office. This suggests partisan optimism makes their professional judgment worse.
What makes this finding particularly notable is its asymmetry. The partisan gap emerged specifically during Republican presidencies. Under Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Republican and Democratic forecasters made virtually identical predictions. That wasn’t the case when George W. Bush, and later Donald Trump, occupied the White House.
Interestingly, this bias appears only in GDP forecasts. When we analyzed predictions for inflation, unemployment and interest rates, we found no systematic differences between Republican and Democratic forecasters.
That makes sense, because GDP forecasts are inherently more uncertain than other economic predictions. Professional forecasters tend to disagree more and make more mistakes when predicting GDP compared to inflation or unemployment rates. This creates opportunities for partisan ideologies to sneak in.
We traced the bias to different views about the effectiveness of tax policies. Using Google Trends data to measure when tax cuts were in the news, we found Republican forecasters become systematically more optimistic precisely when tax policy discussions heat up.
Why it matters
Previous research has found that most people have a strong partisan bias when they make economic predictions. Our work is the first to show that professional economists can also succumb to such influences – despite their training and market incentives to be accurate.
Their errors can come at a high price. Financial markets, policymakers and businesses rely on economists’ forecasts to make major decisions. When the Federal Reserve sets interest rates, when companies plan investments and when investors allocate portfolios, they often reference these professional consensus forecasts.
Our research challenges a common assumption in economics: that aggregating diverse expert forecasts eliminates individual biases and improves accuracy.
This doesn’t mean professional forecasters are incompetent or dishonest. These are highly trained economists with strong financial incentives for accuracy. Rather, our findings reveal how even experts with the best intentions can be unconsciously influenced by their own ideological beliefs – especially when dealing with inherently uncertain data.
What still isn’t known
Several important questions remain unanswered. It’s unclear how this bias might be reduced. Would making forecasters more aware of their political leanings help reduce the effect? Or would developing new forecasting methods that weight predictions based on historical accuracy during different political regimes improve consensus forecasts?
We’re also curious whether institutional factors matter. Might forecasters at institutions with explicit political diversity policies show less bias? How do international forecasters viewing the U.S. economy compare to domestic ones?
Finally, our research focuses on U.S. forecasters during a period of increasing political polarization. Whether similar patterns emerge in other countries with different political systems, or during less polarized times, remains an open question.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Aeimit Lakdawala has previously received funding from NSF.
A vending machine dispenses Narcan nasal spray, a medication that reverses opioid overdose, and other items. Penn State College of Medicine
In the lobby of the YMCA in Reading, Pennsylvania, stands a row of vending machines – but one machine is different from the rest.
Instead of stocking chips or soda, this vending machine has drug-testing strips, hygiene kits, socks, soap, wound care supplies and naloxone, a medication also known by its brand name Narcan that is used to reverse opioid overdoses – all completely free.
The Health To Go vending machine has been in the Reading YMCA for over a year. Another one is in Harrisburg, outside of the UPMC Harrisburg Emergency Department. The machines list the names of resources such as mental health care, food banks, housing assistance and substance use disorder treatment on the screen and provide contact information and a QR code to scan for more info.
Most machines dispense naloxone nasal spray to reverse overdoses and other items such as syringes and fentanyl test strips. Some, like the Health To Go machines, also offer general health and hygiene items such as soap, toothpaste and toothbrushes, and pregnancy tests. If a person is seen at the machine, they could be getting a toothbrush and socks or they could be getting naloxone – no one watching would necessarily know. Also, the nature of the vending machine means the people using them don’t need to interact with a person to obtain Narcan or drug-checking strips, as many people with substance use disorder feel stigma or embarrassment about their addiction.
The Health To Go vending machines are interactive, with a large touch screen in the front. The vending machine is connected to WiFi and cellular data and is able to capture anonymous information on how people are using the machine. The machine can also ask users survey questions to get their feedback, such as whether there are other items they would like to see in the machine or whether they think the machine is having an impact on reducing stigma on substance use.
These machines in Pennsylvania, where over 3,300 people died of drug overdose in 2024, down from over 5,300 in 2021, are funded by grants from Penn State College of Medicine, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, UPMC Pinnacle Foundation and opioid settlement funds from Dauphin and Berks counties.
All of this data helps the team know how to improve the machine to better serve people with opioid addiction, as well as people experiencing homelessness and having trouble affording basic needs. The touch screen is also able to play videos, such as a quick explainer on how to use fentanyl testing strips and testimonials from people in recovery, and display local community resources and services where people can get help.
Large touch screens prompt users to sign in to get free items and learn about other community services. Alice Zhang/Penn State College of Medicine
Over the past year, the two Health To Go vending machines in Reading and Harrisburg have dispensed more than 11,000 items. The most popular items are the hygiene kits, with over 3,300 dispensed. The kits contain toothbrushes, toothpaste, socks, combs, nail clippers, ChapStick, mouthwash, soap and towels. The machines also have dispensed nearly 1,900 doses of naloxone, 1,700 wound care kits, and over 1,500 safer sex kits.
We interviewed 10 vending machine users in Reading in the winter and spring of 2025. “I was homeless and I didn’t have any money,” one woman shared with us. “It sounded too good to be true, and then I got here and got all that stuff for free. … Just having a clean pair of socks, that’s awesome.”
More than 2,300 distinct usernames were registered to the two machines in the past year. The usernames are the person’s birth year, a color and a nature or animal icon. This allows us to track individuals anonymously over time as they use the machine and get info as they answer survey questions. Nearly 40% of users reported being unemployed, and almost a quarter said they are experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
Out of those surveyed, 4 in 5 said they had trouble paying for basic needs, and over a third had not seen a health care provider in the past year.
A judgment-free alternative
Health To Go vending machine users reported that they used the machines because the supplies were free, available 24/7, and they could get what they needed easily and without facing judgment.
“You don’t have no one looking over your shoulder, you have no one condemning you for, you know, getting an HIV kit or getting a pregnancy test kit or getting a wound kit,” a vending machine user we surveyed told us. “There’s no one there behind you, just like, ‘Oh my God, you have HIV.’”
“Nobody wants to walk up to somebody and say, ‘Hey, excuse me, can I get a Narcan kit, or can I get a fentanyl test strip?’” another vending machine user said. “It just makes you feel … like not whole. I don’t want other people to know that I’m in an addiction.”
We think that putting naloxone and drug-checking strips alongside other health and hygiene items helps to normalize them. We also believe calling it Health To Go puts the focus on health, not just on substance use.
The team plans to install at least two more machines in central Pennsylvania within the next year. By removing barriers such as cost, hours of operation and potential stigma, the Health To Go vending machines are able to reach people who may otherwise fall through the cracks of traditional health care.
As one machine user explained, “They are saving people from STDs and stuff like that. They’re saving people from overdosing. They’re saving people from dying.”
Alice Zhang receives funding from National Institute on Drug Abuse, UPMC Pinnacle Foundation, Dauphin County, Berks County, York County, and Penn State College of Medicine.
Jennifer 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.
Scientists measure the distance to the Moon by bouncing lasers off mirrors placed there by space probes and astronauts.
By measuring the amount of time it takes light to travel to the Moon and back, scientists can very precisely measure the distance to the Moon and how the distance changes.
The distance to the Moon actually changes over a single month as it goes around the Earth. The Moon is typically 239,000 miles (385,000 km) away from the Earth, but its orbit is not a perfect circle and changes by about 12,400 miles (20,000 km) as it orbits the Earth. This change is why some full moons are a bit bigger than others; these are called supermoons.
As an astrophysics researcher, I’m interested in the motion and interaction of objects such as planets, stars and galaxies. The motions of the Earth and Moon have many interesting consequences, and studying how they move over time can help researchers better understand how each has changed over the 4½ billion years since the Earth and Moon formed.
Tidal forces
So, why is the Moon getting farther away? It’s all because of tides.
Tides come from a difference in gravity across an object. The force of gravity exerted by the Moon is about 4% stronger on the side of Earth that faces toward the Moon, compared to the opposite side of the Earth facing away, because gravity gets weaker with distance.
This tidal force causes the oceans to slosh around in two bulges that point toward and away from the Moon. They do this because the gravitational force pulling on Earth by the Moon isn’t just an average force that’s the same strength everywhere. The Moon’s gravity is strongest on the closer side of the Earth, creating a bulge of water pointing toward the Moon. It’s weaker on the opposite side of the Earth, which leaves another bulge of water that lags behind the rest of the Earth.
A NASA animation, not to scale, shows how the Moon creates tides on the Earth. The water in the oceans sloshes toward and away from the Moon. NASA/Vi Nguyen
As the Earth rotates, these bulges move around and keep pointing at the Moon because of its gravitational pull. In New York City or Los Angeles, the water level can change by about 5 feet due to these tidal bulges.
These liquid bulges do not quite line up with the Moon – they “lead” it a little bit because the Earth is rotating and dragging them forward. These bulges also exert a gravitational pull back on the Moon. The bulge closer to the Moon isn’t just pulling the Moon toward the center of the Earth, but also a little bit ahead in its orbit – like the boost a sports car gets as it goes around a curve.
As the Moon orbits the Earth, the tidal bulges do not exactly point toward the Moon, but instead a little bit ahead of it because of friction between the bulges and the rotating Earth. NASA/Vi Nguyen
This forward pull from the closer tidal bulge causes the Moon to speed up, which causes the size of its orbit to increase. Think of a baseball player hitting a home run. If the player hits the ball faster at home plate, it’ll zoom higher up into the sky.
So the bottom line is that the gravity of the closer tidal bulge on the Earth is pulling the Moon forward, which increases the size of the Moon’s orbit. This means that the Moon gets slightly farther away from the Earth. This effect is very gradual and only detectable on average over years.
Does the Moon’s increasing distance affect Earth?
The Moon gains momentum as its orbit gets bigger. Think about spinning a weight attached to a string. The longer the string, the more momentum the weight has, and the harder it is to stop.
Because the Earth is doing the work of increasing the Moon’s momentum, the Earth’s rotation slows down in turn, as its momentum goes to the Moon. To put it another way, as the Moon’s orbital momentum increases, the Earth’s rotational momentum decreases in exchange. This exchange makes a day get very slightly longer.
But don’t worry, these effects are so small: 1.5 inches per year compared to a distance of 239,000 miles (384,000 km) is just 0.00000001% per year. We’ll keep having eclipses, tides and days that last 24 hours for millions of years.
Eventually, that material formed the Moon, and it was initially much closer to the Earth. Back then, you’d see the Moon much bigger in the sky.
A NASA simulation of the collision between early Earth and a now-destroyed protoplanet that likely created the Moon.
By examining fossilized clam shells for material showing their daily growth patterns, paleontologists found evidence that 70 million years ago – near the end of the time of dinosaurs – the day was only 23.5 hours long, just as predicted by astronomical data.
What will happen in the future?
So, will the Moon eventually escape from the Earth’s gravitational pull as it moves away?
If we fast-forward tens of billions of years into the future, eventually the Earth’s rotation could slow down until it is tidally locked with the Moon. That means that it would take just as long for the Earth to rotate as the Moon does to orbit. At this point, the Moon would stop getting more distant, and you would see the Moon only from one side of the Earth.
A NASA video shows how the Sun might appear as a red giant billions of years in the future.
But two things will stop that from happening. First, in a billion years or so, the Sun will get brighter and boil away the oceans. Then, there won’t be large tidal bulges of water to cause the Moon to get more distant. A few billion years later, the Sun will expand into a red giant, probably destroying the Earth and the Moon.
But these events are so far in the future that you don’t need to worry about them. You just get to enjoy tides on the beach, solar eclipses and our beautiful Moon.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
Stephen DiKerby receives funding from NASA and NSF grants, as well as from Michigan State University.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Siegrist, Associate Professor of Recreation and Sport Management, Coastal Carolina University
Lia Thomas, second from left, stands on the starting blocks during the 500-yard freestyle finals at the NCAA swimming and diving championships in Atlanta on March 17, 2022.Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
With two executive orders related to school sports, President Donald Trump recently tried to settle the growing legal conflict over the right of transgender students to participate in school sports.
Supporters of transgender athlete participation argue that gender is a social construct, shaped by societal norms and cultural beliefs more so than by biology. They say that people should have the right to self-identify. And they argue that there is no significant threat to fairness, safety or opportunity in student sports.
As a professor of sport management with a law degree, I believe the progress in equity, access and participation made by women in sport since the passage of Title IX is at risk if U.S. institutions and legislators depart from the federal law’s original intent: to ensure equal opportunities for women in education settings.
The 2023-2024 academic year saw 235,735 student-athletes participate in NCAA women’s sports. That’s a record high.
When Congress passed Title IX in 1972, the goal was simple: make sure women have the same educational opportunities as men in school, including in sports programs.
Richards was hailed as a pioneer for transgender athletes. But her perspective has shifted over time. In February 2025, Richards said: “I believe that having gone through male puberty disqualifies transgender women from the female category in sports.”
Richards’ perspective underscores the tension between the inclusion of transgender people and maintaining fairness in competition and opportunities for women – a tension that remains at the center of legal debates today.
Court challenges
Courts across the country are now confronting a new wave of challenges to policies on transgender athlete participation from K-12 through college.
In 2021, Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender girl, sued the West Virginia Board of Education in federal court over the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires that sport participation in schools must be based on biological sex at birth. Pepper-Jackson argued that the act violated Title IX and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that requires states to treat people in similar situations equally.
In 2024, several college athletes filed a lawsuit against the NCAA and participating universities. The suit claims the organization violated the athletes’ Title IX rights by allowing transgender swimmer Lia Thomas at the University of Pennsylvania to compete at the national championships in 2022. The plaintiffs argued that competing against athletes who had undergone male puberty created unfair conditions in women’s sports.
The suit has not been resolved. But in April 2025, the Department of Education concluded that the University of Pennsylvania violated Title IX by allowing Thomas to swim on the women’s team during the 2021-2022 season. As part of a resolution agreement with the Education Department, the university was required to restore to female athletes all individual Division I swimming records broken by biologically born male athletes competing in women’s categories. Per the agreement, the university also issued an apology to the affected athletes and adopted biology-based eligibility standards.
Studies show that males have strength and size advantages over women. Those differences translate to advantages in sport, even after hormone suppression. To introduce competitive disadvantages in women’s sport threatens the premise of Title IX: to provide women with equal opportunity.
As these court cases unfold, their resolutions will help define standards for transgender participation in women’s sports across educational levels.
They underscore the ongoing challenge for institutions and governing bodies to balance inclusion, competitive fairness and compliance with Title IX.
Amanda Siegrist 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.
Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated on Sept. 10, 2025, at the start of a college campus tour that centered on Kirk discussing politics – and education – with students.
A large part of Kirk’s political activism centered on what education should look like. Amy Lieberman, The Conversation’s education editor, spoke with Daniel Ruggles, a scholar of conservative youth activism, to better understand the beliefs about education that influenced Kirk and the connection he tried to make with young people.
What is most important to understand about Charlie Kirk’s views on education?
Charlie Kirk’s education philosophy was founded upon the idea of not being on the left. One of the problems with that approach is that it’s harder to explain your ideas and values in a positive way instead of just being “anti” left.
Conservatives, well before Kirk’s time, have been trying to reclaim education from liberals whom they view as valuing equity and belonging instead of timeless values of order and traditional values in society. This philosophy overall focuses on reclaiming education from liberals.
There is a lot of alignment with Kirk’s education philosophy and the Make America Great Again movement, but his approach predates Donald Trump’s rise. It is focused on returning to what conservatives call Western and “traditional” values. This means rolling back the clock to an idealized time when men and women had set gender roles in society and life was more harmonious and wholesome. At its best, this education philosophy can be valuable – teaching what society views as virtuous behavior, ethics and tradition – but it can also prioritize tradition and privilege over justice and equity.
This philosophy also has to do with not feeling a need to apologize for one’s identity. A big divide between liberals and conservatives is how they explain disadvantage. Conservatives like Kirk believe they should not have to apologize for their identities, and other people’s identities should not be a reason for special treatment.
This philosophy is not so much about making education more effective as much as it is about not being “woke.” De-woking the classroom is usually the overall goal. This involves ridding the classroom of what is known as grievance politics – meaning someone believes they have been marginalized because of their identity, race, gender or sexuality.
How far back can you trace this educational philosophy?
The 1960s had an explosion of progressive activism amid the New Left and antiwar movements as young adults realized that they could now demand certain rights. At the same time, there were a lot of young conservatives on campuses who felt fine with the way things were or who were concerned about some of the more radical ideas promoted by the New Left.
Universities became more inclusive in the 1960s, too. Generally, there were not any gender studies programs at American universities until the 1960s and 1970s, nor were there any race and ethnicity programs. Some conservatives pushed back on the emergence of these programs, saying that if there is an African American studies department, they want to see a conservative studies department, too.
After the 1960s, conservative education fights died down. Conservatives still wanted their voices heard on campus, but their merit-only based education philosophy seemed less relevant when left-wing campus protests had declined significantly.
How did Charlie Kirk capitalize on the conservative feelings regarding education?
Kirk founded his political nonprofit, Turning Point USA, in 2012. Kirk didn’t originally support Trump, but he became friends with Donald Trump Jr., and eventually became close with the president. Like Trump, Kirk saw academia as the source of a plethora of problems in American society. His goal was to make college campuses more friendly to conservative students by making conservative ideas like free market economics and traditional gender roles more popular.
There was a lot of foundation laying over time for Kirk’s conservative education philosophy. Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel, as well as the subsequent war in Gaza and Palestinian rights protests in the U.S., offered a moment for conservatives like Kirk to brand progressives at schools as this huge threat.
What was Kirk’s tour focused on accomplishing?
Kirk and others in the conservative youth movement want their followers to have a close relationship with them. This helps conservatives influence government and society, using college campuses to recruit young adults as conservative voters and activists, making the university appear less progressive in the process. Let’s say progressive college kids have Bernie Sanders or Che Guevara posters hanging in their dorm rooms. Conservatives like Kirk have built an all-encompassing, alternative world for young conservatives to become involved in, where they have proximity to political and thought leaders, including Kirk. Turning Point has used flashy slogans, signs and bumper stickers to help make conservatism cool on campus.
Kirk’s tour had just begun, but he had planned to make stops at universities in Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Montana and other states. It was important that Kirk himself was in the room with young people, and that they could ask him questions and talk with him. He was considered approachable in a way that most politicians would not be.
Conservatives have used this strategy for a long time. My own research shows how college students would write to conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley in the 1960s and 1970s and these figures would write back. This kind of proximity between leaders and young supporters isn’t seen on the left. The goal is to cultivate a conservative movement community. Many of those conservative college students later worked for the government. Kirk’s tour was about continuing that kind of direct relationship between conservative leaders and young people.
Conservatives have a pipeline – meaning, let’s say you’re in high school and you discover conservative ideas by watching Charlie Kirk on YouTube. In college, you can go to Turning Point events and meet conservative leaders. After you graduate, you can even get a job with a conservative group through websites like ConservativeJobs.com. The point of the pipeline is to always give young conservatives a next step to becoming more involved in politics. While not everyone follows this pipeline, it helps the conservative movement cultivate new generations of talent. I think Kirk had a lot he was trying to accomplish, including building up a reservoir of young talent through Turning Point.
How is Turning Point distinct from the Republican Party and MAGA?
Turning Point isn’t the same as the Republican Party, but it’s helping to push the party further to the right. Turning Point has alienated other members of the conservative movement in certain ways. In 2018, the conservative youth group Young America’s Foundation accused Turning Point of taking over the conservative youth movement and crowding out other groups. Turning Point’s total revenue has grown considerably in the last few years, topping US$85 million in 2024 – that matters because money and attention help Turning Point push out other conservative voices.
Kirk and Trump agreed on a lot of policy issues. Kirk used Turning Point to define conservatism on his terms and to defend Trump. Education is the bulk of Turning Point’s work, a continuation of what has historically also been been the most important cultural issue on the right since the 1960s.
Daniel Ruggles 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.
