Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Charles Prior, Professor in History, University of Birmingham

The Trump administration’s drive to increase domestic production of fossil fuels and mining of key minerals likely cannot be accomplished without a key constituency: Native nations.

The U.S. has 374 treaties with 574 governments of sovereign nations inside the United States’ borders, governing 2.5% of the country’s territory, predominantly west of the Mississippi.

Native American tribal lands contain 30% of the nation’s coal, 50% of its uranium and 20% of its natural gas. And they contain materials critical for advanced technologies, including renewable energy: copper for electric grids, lithium and rare earth elements for batteries and electronics, and water for agriculture and power generation.

Significantly expanding domestic access to fossil fuels, critical minerals and water will require the U.S. government to work with Native nations. Their rights to resources on their lands are enshrined in long-standing treaties whose legal power is on equal footing to the U.S. Constitution itself. I study these agreements, negotiated from the late 18th to the late 19th centuries and ratified by the U.S. Senate. They are not mere historical artifacts but rather key documents at the center of modern conflicts over drilling, mining, pipelines and energy infrastructure.

For Indigenous nations, access to natural resources is more than a matter of economic opportunity or environmental sustainability. Managing these lands is inseparable from questions of sovereignty, sacred land and treaty enforcement.

Treaties as living law

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are ranked as “the supreme Law of the Land” right alongside the Constitution itself.

Federal Indian Law, largely codified in Title 25 of the U.S. Code, defines the relationship between the United States and tribal nations, including recognizing tribes as possessing and exercising “self-government.” Supreme Court decisions sometimes recognize tribes as sovereign political entities, but that sovereignty is constrained by congressional authority and overlapping state jurisdiction.

The treaties have long been seen as instruments that allowed settlers of European descent to annex Native territory. But they also sanctioned activity on land the tribes never officially gave up. One treaty with the Eastern Shoshone permitted “mining settlements” on lands reserved to the tribe, while another allowed “prospecting” for “minerals and metals.”

But in recent decades, Native nations have used the treaties as grounds for reasserting their sovereign status, restoring the documents to their original purpose as an organized set of nation-to-nation relationships deeply rooted in North American diplomatic history.

In particular, Indigenous activism and litigation since the 1970s have revived treaty claims as tools to protect land, water and cultural practices. Treaties once dismissed as instruments of dispossession are increasingly invoked as binding legal commitments – and as relevant to, and capable of, shaping contemporary energy policy.

Energy projects and treaty disputes

The tribes are demanding the federal government protect sacred lands, ecosystems and community health when evaluating proposals for mining and other developments.

Native-led protests and lawsuits are a common feature of large infrastructure projects that cross their land or threaten their resources. In 2021, the White Earth Nation sought to block the expansion of the Enbridge Line 3 oil pipeline. The route was planned to run underneath a spiritually significant Minnesota lake where it and other tribes had treaty-protected rights to water, hunting and fishing.

In its effort, which was ultimately unsuccessful, the tribe cited treaties from 1837, 1854 and 1855. The tribe argued that these treaties required the federal government to protect their rights to hunt, fish and gather – a position supported by a 1999 Supreme Court ruling.

More successful was a 2024 move by the Navajo Nation to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject a proposed hydropower project on Navajo lands.

In late January 2026, however, the commission approved a similar hydropower project on a sacred and treaty-protected area of Yakama Nation lands in the state of Washington. The Yakama Nation and other tribes and local groups are asking state courts to block the project.

These cases expose a long-standing tension in U.S. law between the federal government’s treaty-bound responsibility to protect tribal resources and the authority claimed by the federal and state governments over land and development.

Oak Flat and the Apache Stronghold case

One of the most significant current disputes involves the proposed Resolution Copper mine at Oak Flat in Arizona. Known to the Western Apache as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel, Oak Flat is a sacred site used for ceremonies central to Apache religious life.

In 2014, Congress authorized the transfer of around 2,422 acres of federally protected land in Tonto National Forest to the mining company through the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, embedded in a defense spending bill. If allowed, the underground mining proposed on that land presents a risk of subsidence and potential collapse of the site.

In 2021, the Apache-led coalition Apache Stronghold sued the U.S. government, arguing that the land transfer violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and provisions in the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe that required the government to respect tribal lands.

The courts have so far sided with the federal government on the grounds that Congress, rather than the states, has ultimate authority in what federal law calls “Indian country.”

First, a U.S. District Court denied an injunction to stop the transfer. In March 2024, the justices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split ruling upholding that decision and finding that the project did not impose a “substantial burden” on the Apaches’ religious rights.

In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. However, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote that they wanted to hear the case. They warned that by not hearing it, the court was allowing the destruction of a sacred religious site.

The Apaches tried again in late 2025, but the Supreme Court denied that request, too, leaving intact the 9th Circuit ruling, which allowed the land transfer to the mining company.

Even so, the conflict is not over. The Apaches took additional claims to the 9th Circuit in a different legal form, and the court issued temporary restraining orders in late 2025, which paused aspects of the land transfer while litigation continues.

Why treaties still matter

The Oak Flat dispute highlights the limits of existing legal protections for Indigenous sacred sites, even when treaties and religious freedom are clearly at stake. It also shows how congressional control over use of federal land can override Indigenous objections in the name of energy security and critical minerals.

This and comparable disputes also show how treaties, federal law and the Constitution can be used to slow, reshape and sometimes halt extractive projects, forcing states and corporations to reckon with Native sovereignty, even where Congress or the executive branch claims the last word.

For Native nations, treaties remain central tools for asserting sovereignty and shaping energy futures. Tribal governments and Indigenous corporations are increasingly active in renewable energy and mineral markets, seeking development on their own terms. In April 2025, Buu Nygren, president of the coal-rich Navajo Nation, called for energy developments that honor tribal sovereignty and secure Indigenous nations’ place in global supply chains.

Treaties are not relics of the past. They continue to shape how energy, law and sovereignty intersect in the United States today.

Charles Prior receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust (Major Research Fellowship, 2024-27).

– ref. Green or not, US energy future depends on Native nations – https://theconversation.com/green-or-not-us-energy-future-depends-on-native-nations-254756

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Erin Clabough, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia

In 2024, 51% of families read aloud to their very young children, while 37% read aloud to their kids between the ages of 6 and 8 years old.

Some parents have said they stop reading aloud to their school-age children because their kids can read on their own.

I’m a neuroscientist with four children, and I wondered whether children might be losing more than just the pleasure of listening to books read aloud. In particular, I wondered whether it affected their empathy and creativity.

A simple idea from the literature

I have studied and written about empathy and creativity as part of my personal effort to better understand how to be a good parent. I have found that empathy and creativity aren’t talents you’re born with or without. They are skills that respond to practice, just like learning to play piano.

But my children weren’t being taught either empathy or creativity in elementary school. And the data showed that young people’s empathy and creativity may have dropped over the past few decades.

Empathy isn’t just about being nice. It’s a superpower that helps children predict behavior and navigate social situations safely. It makes them better at reading faces and emotional cues.

And creativity is essential for self-control and problem-solving. It’s much easier to regulate your behavior if you can imagine multiple solutions to a problem instead of fixating on the one thing you’re not supposed to do.

About 10 years ago, I started making some changes at home to ensure that my children got these skills.

Setting aside 15 minutes at night was sometimes the only one-on-one time I had with each kid, with bedtimes of 7:30, 7:45, 8:00 and 8:15 p.m. It was precious to me. I wondered whether using conflicts in bedtime stories as teachable moments would help them develop more empathy for others and boost their creativity.

I wrote in 2016 about how I think my children became more empathetic when we paused at times during a book to ask: “How do you think this character feels?” and “What would you do?”

But no one had tested this experiment on a broader scale.

Testing the idea

Beginning in 2017, four colleagues and I recruited 38 families in central Virginia with children ages 6 to 8, which is an age when kids are navigating social relationships and experiencing intense brain development. All of the children in our study were somewhat independent beginning readers or they could read independently. In our study, caregivers read one storybook nightly for two weeks.

I chose seven illustrated books: “The Tooth Fairy Wars,” “Library Lion,” “A Letter for Leo,” “Stuck with the Blooz,” “Cub’s Big World,” “Nugget and Fang” and “A New Friend for Marmalade.” There was nothing special about these books except that they all contained some sort of social conflict – and my kids gave them a thumbs-up.

They were about, among other characters, a polar bear cub who becomes separated from his mother in the snow, and a boy who hid his teeth from the tooth fairy.

Half the families in our study read a book each night straight through without pausing. The other half paused at one conflict point per story to ask two reflection questions. For example, when the tooth fairy stole the tooth Nathan desperately wanted to keep, they asked, “How would you feel if you were Nathan?” If the child answered, parents just listened. If not, they waited 30 seconds before continuing.

Before and after two weeks, we tested children’s empathetic ability to understand what others might be thinking and how they are feeling. We also tested creativity using the alternative uses task, which asked kids to generate creative ideas, such as thinking of unusual uses for a paper clip or listing things with wheels.

A boost in empathy either way

After just 14 bedtimes with books, we found – as our 2026 research shows – that children whose parents paused for questions got better at understanding others’ perspectives. But so did children whose parents just read straight through.

We found that what scientists call cognitive and overall empathy improved significantly in both groups between childen’s initial visit and our follow-up visit two weeks after they read the books for a week.

This may be because it is easier to quickly develop cognitive empathy – meaning when you put yourself in someone else’s shoes – as compared to developing emotional empathy, or feeling what others feel. Emotional empathy involves different brain regions and likely requires longer to change deeply rooted emotional processing patterns.

A creative approach

After two weeks of bedtime reading, children in both groups got better at creative thinking. We used a standard creativity test that measures the number and the originality of responses when children were asked to think of uses for everyday objects. For example, if asked about a brick, a common answer would be to build a wall, while a more original response might be to grind it up to make red chalk.

But the children whose parents paused for questions generated significantly more ideas overall.

Their responses delighted me: They suggested using a paper clip as wire in a potato clock, to help put on a doll’s shoes, or to simply see what sound it makes hitting the floor.

We also noticed that the younger kids came up with more original ideas than the older ones. This matches other research showing that creativity may fade as children grow up and they prioritize fitting in with others more than thinking differently.

What we still need to learn

Our study had limitations: We did not have a comparison group that did not read at all. And most families had a higher income, with 92% of families earning more than $50,000 per year.

Future research could address this gap and also investigate whether the benefits we found persist past two weeks – and whether they translate into real-world kindness.

But importantly, we found no gender differences in our study. The practice works equally well for boys and girls. And even though the majority of our families said they already read regularly to their children, this practice still worked to boost empathy and creativity.

Bedtime stories are about more than routine

As a neuroscientist, I know the elementary school years are a particularly powerful window when children experience intense formation of new brain connections.

These 15 minutes of reading aren’t just about preparing kids to sleep or teaching them to decode words. They’re building neural pathways for understanding others and imagining possibilities. With repeated practice, these connections strengthen, just like practicing piano.

In a world designed to pull families toward screens, bedtime reading remains a refuge where parent and child share the same imaginative space.

But the pressure’s off for parents: You don’t have to read in any special way. Just read.

Erin Clabough is affiliated with Neuro Pty Ltd.

– ref. Reading to young kids improves their social skills − and a new study shows it doesn’t matter whether parents stop to ask questions – https://theconversation.com/reading-to-young-kids-improves-their-social-skills-and-a-new-study-shows-it-doesnt-matter-whether-parents-stop-to-ask-questions-274926

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Meg A. Warren, Professor of Management, Western Washington University

What really holds people back from stepping up as allies in support of their marginalized colleagues? For example, why don’t more men say something when they see a colleague or a customer make a sexist remark about a female co-worker?

Our research, published in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, suggests that people often hesitate to intervene when co-workers are mistreated because they themselves feel disempowered in their organizations and experience distrust and polarization.

Our findings run counter to the common assumption that people don’t step up to support marginalized colleagues because they don’t care or are unmotivated. Not seeing much action against inequity and injustice can drive this cynical idea. It’s built into many diversity, equity and inclusion training programs that rely on motivational tactics of persuasion, guilting and shaming to get people to act.

We are psychology researchers interested in how people can use their strengths to effectively support others who are marginalized. We surveyed 778 employees in Michigan and 973 employees across all provinces of Canada, representative of urban and rural areas, working-class and professional jobs, and across all demographics, including gender, race and sexual orientation. We asked them, “What makes it hard for you to be an ally for underrepresented and marginalized people (e.g., people of color, women, persons with disability) in your organization?”

Low motivation represented just 8% of the barriers people cited. And lack of awareness that marginalized groups face inequities accounted for only 10% of the barriers people mentioned. Most diversity training money tends to be devoted to teaching employees about these topics – suggesting why many diversity training programs fail.

The most common barrier to allyship that our participants named was distrust and tension between people in their organization, which had them second-guessing themselves and self-censoring. People also reported feeling disempowered, like they didn’t have the power, opportunity or resources to make a real difference for their colleagues.

Why it matters

Researchers, specialists and consultants alike approach issues of workplace inequity with the assumption that to drive action they need to first unblock potential allies’ deep-seated resistance to change. For example, specialists assume that people need to become more motivated, more courageous, less biased or better informed about existing inequities in order to act as allies.

In this study, we temporarily set aside all preexisting assumptions and directly asked people what made it hard for them to be an ally, in their own words. Our goal was to identify practical roadblocks at the top of people’s minds that stop them from taking the first step, or the next logical step.

When popular messaging, like on social media, and organizational interventions misunderstand the causes of people’s inaction, they risk exacerbating frustration and tensions. Interventions need to account for their audience’s true perspectives on what makes allyship difficult. Otherwise, they’ll lack credibility, and people will likely be less receptive to program content.

What still isn’t known

We’d like to further investigate the impacts of the specific barriers mentioned in our study. More insight could help workplaces focus interventions on addressing barriers that are the worst pressure points and avoid overspending on interventions that can move the needle only so much.

More than a quarter of respondents said they experienced no barriers to standing up for colleagues. We’d like to investigate whether these respondents simply didn’t want to engage with our question, are uncertain about the barriers, or are already engaging in some form of allyship. Our team’s previous research has shown that even loud allies who publicly call out bias often also engage in quiet allyship actions, such as privately checking in on how a victim of bias is doing and assisting in strategizing next steps.

What’s next

Our research team is investigating whether programs designed with this study’s findings in mind – starting with building trusting relationships and helping people feel empowered – can increase allyship action. When diversity programs built on inaccurate assumptions don’t show the desired results, they risk having funding withdrawn or being halted altogether. Instead, as organizations take stock and pivot, evidence from our study and others can help them more effectively plan their next move.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

– ref. Distrust and disempowerment, not apathy, keep employees from supporting marginalized colleagues – https://theconversation.com/distrust-and-disempowerment-not-apathy-keep-employees-from-supporting-marginalized-colleagues-274502

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Patrick Aguilar, Managing Director of Health, Washington University in St. Louis

In announcing its “Great Healthcare Plan” in January 2026, the Trump administration became the latest in a long history of efforts by the U.S. government to rein in the soaring cost of health care.

As a physician and professor studying the intersection of business and health, I know that the challenges in reforming the sprawling U.S. health care system are immense. That’s partly for political and even philosophical reasons.

But it also reflects a complex system fraught with competing interests – and the fact that patients, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers change their behaviors in conflicting ways when faced with new rules.

Soaring costs

U.S. health care is the most expensive in the world, and according to a poll published in late January 2026, two-thirds of Americans are very worried about their ability to pay for it – whether it’s their medications, a doctor’s visit, health insurance or an unpredictably costly medical emergency.

Disputes over health policy even played a central role in the federal government shutdown in fall 2025.

Trump’s health care framework outlines no specific policy actions, but it does establish priorities to address a number of longtime concerns, including prescription drug costs, price transparency, lowering insurance premiums and making health insurance companies generally more accountable.

Why have these challenges been so difficult to address?

Drug price sticker shock

Prescription drug costs in the U.S. began rising sharply in the 1980s, when drugmakers increased the development of innovative new treatments for common diseases. But efforts to combat this trend have resembled a game of whack-a-mole because the factors driving it are so intertwined.

One issue is the unique set of challenges that define drug development. As with any consumer good, manufacturers price prescription drugs to cover costs and earn profits. Drug manufacturing, however, involves an expensive and time-consuming development process with a high risk of failure.

Patent protection is another issue. Drug patents last 20 years, but completing costly trials necessary for regulatory approval takes up much of that period, reducing the time when manufacturers have exclusive rights to sell the drug. After a patent expires, generic versions can be made and sold for significantly less, lowering the profits for the original manufacturer. Though some data challenges this claim, the pharmaceutical industry contends that high prices while drugs are under patent help companies recover their investment, which then funds the discovery of new drugs. And they often find ways to extend their patents, which keeps prices elevated for longer.

Then there are the intermediaries. Once a drug is on the market, prices are typically set through negotiations with administrators called pharmacy benefit managers, who negotiate discounts and rebates on prescription drugs for health insurers and employers offering benefits to their workers. Pharmacy benefit managers are paid based on those discounts, so they do not have an incentive to lower total drug prices, though new transparency rules enacted Feb. 3 aim to change payment practices. Drugmakers often raise the list price of drugs to make up for the markdowns that pharmacy benefit managers negotiate – and possibly even more than that.

In many countries, centralized government negotiators set the price for prescription drugs, resulting in lower drug prices. This has prompted American officials to consider using those prices as a reference for setting drug prices here. In its blueprint, the Trump administration has called for a “most-favored nation” drug pricing policy, under which some U.S. drug prices would match the lowest prices paid in other countries.

This may work in the short term, but manufacturers say it could also curtail investment in innovative new drugs. And some industry experts worry that it may push manufacturers to raise international prices.

In late 2025, 16 pharmaceutical companies agreed to most-favored nation pricing for some drugs. Consumers can now buy them directly from manufacturers through TrumpRx, a portal that points consumers to drug manufacturers and provides coupons for purchasing more than 40 widely used brand-name drugs at a discount, which launched Feb. 5. However, many drugs available through the platform can be purchased at lower prices as generics

Increasing price transparency

Fewer than 1 in 20 Americans know how much health care services will cost before they receive them. One fix for this seems obvious: Make providers list their prices up front. That way, consumers could compare prices and choose the most cost-effective options for their care.

Spurred by bipartisan support in Congress, the government has embraced price transparency for health care services over the past decade. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced stricter enforcement for hospitals, which must now post actual prices, rather than estimates, for common medical procedures. Data is mixed on whether the approach is working as planned, however. Hospitals have reduced prices for people paying out of pocket, but not for those paying with insurance, according to a 2025 study.

For one thing, when regulations change, companies make strategic decisions to achieve their financial goals and meet the new rules – sometimes yielding unintended consequences. One study found, for example, that price transparency regulations in a series of clinics led to an increase in physician charges to insurance companies because some providers who had been charging less raised their prices to match more expensive competitors.

Additionally, a 2024 federal government study found that 46% of hospitals were not compliant. The American Hospital Association, a trade group, suggested price transparency imposes a high administrative burden on hospitals while providing confusing information to patients, whose costs may vary depending on unique aspects of their conditions. And the fine for noncompliance, US$300 per day, may be insufficient to offset the cost of disclosing this information, according to some health policy experts.

Beyond high costs, patients also worry that insurers won’t actually cover the care they receive. Cigna is currently fighting a lawsuit accusing its doctors of denying claims almost instantly – within an average of 1.2 seconds – but concerns about claims denial are rampant across the industry. Companies’ use of artificial intelligence to deny claims is compounding the problem.

Curbing the rise in health insurance premiums

Many Americans struggle to afford monthly insurance premiums. But curbing that increase significantly may be impossible without reining in overall health care costs and, paradoxically, keeping more people insured.

Insurance works by pooling money paid by members of an insurance plan. That money covers all members’ health care costs, with some using more than they contribute and others less. Premium prices therefore depend on how many people are in the plan, as well as the services insurance will cover and the services people actually use. Because health care costs are rising overall, commercial insurance companies may not be able to significantly lower premiums without reducing their ability to cover costs and absorb risk.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans under age 65 receive health insurance through employers. Another 6.9% of them get it through Affordable Care Act marketplaces, where enrollment numbers are extremely sensitive to premium costs.

Enrollment in ACA plans nearly doubled in 2021, from about 12 million to more than 24 million, when the government introduced subsidies to reduce premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. But when the subsidies expired on Jan. 1, 2026, about 1.4 million dropped coverage, and for most who didn’t, premiums more than doubled. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another 3.7 million will become uninsured in 2027, reversing some of the huge gains made since the ACA was passed in 2010.

When health insurance costs rise, healthier people may risk going without. Those who remain insured tend to need more health services, requiring those more costly services to be covered by a smaller pool of people and raising premium prices even higher.

The Trump administration has proposed routing the money spent on subsidies directly to eligible Americans to help them purchase health insurance. How much people would receive is unclear, but amounts in previous proposals wouldn’t cover what the subsidies provided.

To sum it up, health care is extremely complicated and there are numerous barriers to reforms, as successive U.S. administrations have learned over the years. Whether the Trump administration finds some success will depend on how well the policies are able to surmount these and other obstacles.

Patrick Aguilar 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. Why is US health care still the most expensive in the world after decades of cost-cutting initiatives? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-us-health-care-still-the-most-expensive-in-the-world-after-decades-of-cost-cutting-initiatives-273743

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Gerard F. Powers, Director of Catholic Peacebuilding Studies, University of Notre Dame

In recent weeks, Catholic leaders have been increasingly outspoken in their criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, especially its military intervention in Venezuela and saber-rattling over Greenland.

On Jan. 19, 2026, the three cardinals heading U.S. archdioceses – Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington, D.C., and Joseph Tobin of Newark – issued a rare joint statement. “The United States has entered into the most profound and searing debate about the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world since the end of the Cold War,” they began, calling for “a genuinely moral foreign policy.”

The cardinals quoted Pope Leo XIV’s annual address to the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, delivered earlier that month, in which he deplored that “a zeal for war is spreading,” and the norm governing the use of force “has been completely undermined.”

In follow-up interviews, Cupich criticized the U.S. operation to capture President Nicolás Maduro for sending a message that “might makes right.” Tobin noted that some members of the Trump administration seemed to be advancing “almost a Darwinian calculus that the powerful survive and the weak don’t deserve to.”

As a former foreign policy adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and now director of Catholic peacebuilding studies at Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute, I know how rare it is that the cardinals’ short statement became headline news – especially because what they said mostly reiterated long-standing church teachings.

More novel, however, were statements by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services. In December 2025, Broglio issued a detailed critique of the morality and legality of the Trump administration’s strikes against boats in the Caribbean. In a January interview with the BBC, when asked if an invasion of Greenland could be considered just, he said, “I cannot see any circumstances that it would.”

It is unusual for an archbishop of the military services to question the morality of specific U.S. military interventions. After doing so, it is even more unusual to call on the nation’s leaders to respect the consciences of military personnel “by not asking them to engage in immoral actions,” and to remind service members that “it would be morally acceptable to disobey (such an) order.”

All of these statements continue U.S. bishops’ legacy of opposing virtually every major U.S. military intervention since Vietnam, except the invasion of Afghanistan.

Just war

That opposition reflects the Catholic Church’s centuries-old “just war” tradition and its increasingly restrictive approach to what counts as “just.”

Just war criteria limit when, why and how force may be used. According to the Catholic catechism, going to war is legitimate in cases where there are not other means of stopping “lasting, grave, and certain harm,” there is reasonable chance of success, and war will not produce “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.”

In other words, war should be “a last resort in extreme situations, not a normal instrument of national policy,” as the cardinals noted in their statement. The Catholic Church presumes that war is a failure of politics.

That restrictive approach, which some conservative Catholics dub “functional pacifism,” has put church leaders in opposition to U.S. military interventions that reflect a much more permissive interpretation of just war. The permissive approach presumes that war might be a last resort, but it remains a form of politics – one tool in the foreign policy toolbox.

Cold War criticism

These contrasting approaches were especially evident in the nuclear debate of the early 1980s and the debate over the 2003 Iraq invasion.

When Ronald Reagan first took office, his administration launched a massive nuclear buildup and deployed intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe, arguing that Americans were falling behind the Soviets in the Cold War.

In 1983, the U.S. bishops issued a highly influential letter, The Challenge of Peace, that opposed core elements of the administration’s nuclear policy. They called for a halt to the arms race, opposed the first use of nuclear weapons, and were skeptical of the morality of even a limited second, or retaliatory, use.

Their 103-page letter did not have a direct impact on U.S. nuclear policy, but it helped ensure that the just war tradition was no longer dismissed as outdated by policymakers and analysts. The pastoral was required reading in military academies.

One of the architects of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Watkins, was troubled by the church’s criticism of deterrence, according to journalist John Newhouse. Watkins saw missile defense as a morally superior alternative, which is how the so-called “Star Wars” program was sold to a skeptical Congress and public.

No preventive war

Debate about overly permissive use of force reached its zenith in the lead-up to the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. The administration argued that military force should not be restricted to defense against aggression. Preventive war was justified, in this view, to remove the potential danger Iraq posed in the aftermath of 9/11: a rogue regime, with weapons of mass destruction, and ties to global terrorists.

Pope John Paul II, U.S. bishops and Catholic leaders around the world vociferously objected, saying such a doctrine would emasculate the just war tradition and international law. As then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – who later became Pope Benedict – said in 2002, “The concept of ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

As early as May 2002, U.S. bishops embarked on a series of meetings with White House officials, urging them not to go to war. In March 2003, John Paul sent the Italian Cardinal Pio Laghi to hand-deliver a letter to President George W. Bush urging the same.

New context

It is not new for the church’s more idealist and cosmopolitan approach to international affairs to be in deep tension with a realist, “anti-globalist” U.S. foreign policy. In fact, the bishops have been more outspoken in the past than now.

But what is new, at least since the end of the Cold War, is church leaders’ growing concern about an intentionally norm-busting foreign policy. Past administrations offered legal and moral justifications for military inventions, such as the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq was a just war.

Trump, however, has abandoned any pretenses of his predecessors, telling The New York Times, “I don’t need international law.” The only limit on his international power, he said, is “my own morality.”

The bishops’ statements on his administration’s foreign policy are few and modest compared to the past. But with an American pope leading the way, they may prove the first salvo in more public and vigorous opposition by Catholic leaders.

Gerard F. Powers received a grant from the Nuclear Threat Initiative that helped support the Catholic Peacebuilding Network’s Project on Revitalizing Catholic Engagement on Nuclear Disarmament. He is an expert consultant (unpaid) to the Holy See Mission to the UN. From 1987-2004, Powers was a senior advisor on international policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

– ref. What is and isn’t new about US bishops’ criticism of Trump’s foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/what-is-and-isnt-new-about-us-bishops-criticism-of-trumps-foreign-policy-274499

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding, and the White House announced that Zeldin would make the move official on Feb. 12, 2026.

There’s no question that rescinding the endangerment finding would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. A federal judge also ruled on Jan. 30 that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write that climate science review. While that ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, it raises questions.

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.

This article, originally published Feb. 2, 2026, has been updated with the White House announcing a date for rescinding the endangerment finding.

Gary W. Yohe 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. Trump’s plan to wipe out US climate rules relies on EPA rescinding its 2009 endangerment finding – but will it survive court challenges? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-wipe-out-us-climate-rules-relies-on-epa-rescinding-its-2009-endangerment-finding-but-will-it-survive-court-challenges-274194

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brett Robertson, Associate Professor and Associate Director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute, University of South Carolina

When powerful winter storms and freezing temperatures hit the U.S. in late January 2026, they left hundreds of thousands of people without power for days and were blamed for more than 100 deaths from a variety of causes.

Some people died from exposure to cold inside their homes. Others fell outside or suffered heart attacks while shoveling snow. Three young brothers died after falling through ice on a Texas pond. Dozens of children were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning from improperly used generators or heaters.

These tragedies and others share a common theme: Winter storms pose multiple dangers at once, and people often underestimate how quickly conditions can become life-threatening.

I’m the associate director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina, where we work on ways to improve emergency preparedness and response. Here is what people need to know to reduce their risk of injury during severe winter weather.

Prepare before the storm arrives

Preparation makes the biggest difference when temperatures drop, and services fail. Many winter storm injuries happen after power outages knock out heat, lighting or medical equipment.

Start by assembling a basic emergency kit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends having water, food that does not require cooking, a flashlight, a battery-powered radio, extra batteries and a first-aid kit, at minimum.

In wintertime, you’ll also need warm clothing, blankets, hats and gloves. When you go out, even in a vehicle, make sure you dress for the weather. Keep a blanket in the car in case you get stranded, as hundreds of people did for hours overnight on a Mississippi highway on Jan. 27 in freezing, snowy weather.

Portable phone chargers matter more than many people realize. During emergencies, phones become lifelines for updates, help and contact with family. Keep devices charged ahead of the storm and conserve battery power once the storm begins.

If anyone in your home depends on electrically powered medical equipment, make a plan now. Know where you can go if the power goes out for an extended period. Contact your utility provider in advance to ask about outage planning, including whether they offer priority restoration or guidance for customers who rely on powered medical equipment.

What to do if the power goes out

Loss of heat is one of the most serious dangers of winter storms. Hypothermia can occur indoors when temperatures drop, especially overnight.

If the power goes out, choose one room to stay in and close its doors to keep the warmth inside. Cover windows with curtains or blankets. Wear loose layers and a knit hat to keep your own body heat in, even indoors. Remember to also eat regular snacks and drink warm fluids when possible, since the body uses energy to stay warm.

It might seem tempting, but don’t use camp stoves, outdoor grills or generators inside a home. These can quickly produce carbon monoxide, an odorless and deadly gas. During the January storm, one Nashville hospital saw more than 40 children with carbon monoxide poisoning linked to unsafe heating practices.

If you must use a generator, keep it outdoors and far from windows and doors. Make sure your home’s carbon monoxide detectors are working before storms arrive.

If your home becomes too cold, go to a warmer place, such as a friend’s home, a warming center or a public shelter. You can call 2-1-1, a nationwide hotline, to find local options. The American Red Cross and the Salvation Army also list open shelters on their websites. Several states maintain online maps for finding warming centers and emergency services during winter storms, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, Tennessee, and Texas.

Be careful outside – ice changes things

Winter storms make everyday activities dangerous. Ice turns sidewalks into slippery hazards. Snow shoveling strains the heart.
Frozen ponds and lakes might look solid but often are not as the ice can change quickly with weather conditions.

Walking on icy surfaces, even your own sidewalk, requires slow steps, proper footwear and full attention to what you’re doing. Falls can cause head injuries or broken bones, and it can happen with your first step out the door.

Shoveling snow is a common risk that people often overlook, but it deserves special caution. The actions of shoveling in cold weather can place intense strain on the heart. For people with heart conditions, it that extra strain can trigger heart attacks.

If you’re shoveling, take frequent breaks. Push snow instead of lifting when possible. And stop immediately if you feel chest pain, dizziness, or shortness of breath.

Communication saves time and lives

Winter storms disrupt information flows. Cell service fails. Internet access drops. Power outages silence televisions.

In my research on heat and storm emergencies, people frequently rely on personal networks to share updates, resources, and safety information. With that in mind, check on family, friends and neighbors, especially older adults and people who live alone.

Research I have conducted shows that nearby social ties matter during disasters because they help people share information and act more quickly when services are disrupted. Make sure that the information you’re sharing is coming from reliable sources – not everything on social media is. Also, let others know where you plan to go if conditions worsen.

Use multiple sources for information. Battery-powered radios remain critical during winter storms. Sign up for local emergency alerts by email or text. Studies have found that in regions accustomed to frequent hazardous weather, people often take actions in response to risks more slowly when they don’t have reliable local updates or clear alerts.

Practice matters

Many injuries happen because people delay actions they know they need to take. They wait to leave a house that’s getting too cold or at risk of damage by weather, such as flooding. They wait to ask for help. They wait to adjust plans.

In research I contributed to on evacuation drills involving wildfires, people who practiced their evacuation plan in advance were more likely to react quickly when conditions changed. Talking through evacuation plans for any type of emergency, whether a hurricane or a winter storm, builds people’s confidence and reduces their hesitation.

Take time each winter to review your emergency supplies, communication plans, and heating options.

Winter storms will test your preparation, judgment, and patience. You cannot control when the next one arrives, but you can decide how ready you will be when it does.

This article, originally published Jan. 29, 2026, has been updated with additional details on the new storm.

Brett Robertson receives funding from the National Science Foundation (Award #2316128). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Winter storms can be deadly – here’s how to stay safe before, during and after one hits – https://theconversation.com/winter-storms-can-be-deadly-heres-how-to-stay-safe-before-during-and-after-one-hits-274605

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Thomas Begley, Professor of Biological Sciences, Associate Director of The RNA Institute, University at Albany, State University of New York

Although there are striking differences between the cells that make up your eyes, kidneys, brain and toes, the DNA blueprint for these cells is essentially the same. Where do those differences come from?

Scientists are realizing the defining qualities that make up each cell actually lie in a cousin of DNA called RNA.

RNA was long considered DNA’s boring biochemical relative. Researchers thought it merely takes the genetic information stored in DNA and delivers it to other parts of the cell, where it is then used to make the proteins that carry out the cell’s functions.

But only roughly 2% of DNA codes for protein. The rest – sequences of the DNA that don’t code for proteins – is what scientists consider the dark matter of the genome, and there is much interest in figuring out what it does. Therein lies much of the mystery and magic of RNA.

In this dark matter, noncoding DNA is transcribed into noncoding RNA. These include RNAs small and long that are never translated into protein, and have the potential to regulate the genome and generate the diversity of cells by turning on or off various genes. When these multifaceted RNAs go awry, they can lead to a broad array of diseases in people.

RNA scientists like those on our team are now working to sequence every human RNA as part of the Human RNome Project – the RNA equivalent of the Human Genome Project – to aid in human health and improve treatments for disease.

RNA modifications orchestrate cell fate

DNA details how genes can become proteins, while RNA signals when and where these proteins are made. In other words, DNA is information storage while RNA is information access and regulation.

RNA has many varieties that differ by size and structure, with smaller forms that are involved in cell regulation and development. Much of the RNA that is transcribed from DNA is processed and modified after it is made.

RNA modifications are chemical structures added on to RNA that regulate information transfer. These RNA modifications are distinct from DNA modifications that are known as epigenetic marks. Whereas DNA modifications can be inherited, RNA modifications arise in response to the current state of the cell. RNA modifications are more dynamic and have more dramatic effects on the structure and function of the cell, including how proteins are made under different cellular conditions.

Under normal conditions, for example, some RNA modification patterns trigger the disposal of RNAs that code for or help decode stress-response proteins. When the cell enters a state of stress, this modification pattern is reprogrammed so these proteins can accumulate and help the cell recover.

Additionally, the chemical diversity of RNA modifications is greater than that of DNA modifications. In addition to variations in the basic building blocks that make up RNA, there are over 50 chemical varieties known as the human epitranscriptome in a cell. In comparison, epigenetic marks number in the handful.

Collaborations between our lab and others have identified increased levels of modification to specific types of RNA, called transfer RNA, that deliver the building blocks of proteins to the parts of the cell assembling them. These tRNA modifications can be a key driver of cancer and resistance to chemotherapy, and they are also linked to developmental and neurological diseases.

RNome to understand health and disease

Compared to DNA, RNA is more unstable and structurally diverse, and there are fewer tools available to study and sequence it. While many resources and efforts were made to sequence DNA through the Human Genome Project, sequencing RNA and its many modifications remains a challenging task.

But with advances in technology, researchers are now able to study RNA modifications and recognize their potential to treat or prevent disease. The past 20 years of research devoted to RNA modifications has led to what scientists have called an RNA Renaissance, catapulting RNA to become one of the most attractive macromolecules to study and use as vaccines and medicines.

Understanding and harnessing the power of the dark matter of RNA requires a project on the scale of the Human Genome Project. Labs around the world are using new technologies and approaches to sequence all RNAs, called the RNome. Cataloging and defining RNA and its modifications in healthy and diseased cells will require even further advances in sequencing technology so that it can detect more than one modification at a time.

We believe maps of the RNome will spur new technologies, new discoveries and provide a path to new treatments, improving human health on a grand scale.

Thomas Begley receives funding from NIH

Marlene Belfort 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. RNA is key to the dark matter of the genome − scientists are sequencing it to illuminate human health and disease – https://theconversation.com/rna-is-key-to-the-dark-matter-of-the-genome-scientists-are-sequencing-it-to-illuminate-human-health-and-disease-274014

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robbyn Abbitt, Associate Director of the Geospatial Analysis Center, Miami University

If you told me a decade ago that I’d become an expert in mapping cemeteries, I would’ve laughed and been very confused about the dramatic turn my professional life must’ve taken at some point.

I’m an environmental scientist who specializes in geospatial technology, which involves analyzing the Earth and how geography plays a role in human societies. I use these tools in my work to map conservation planning, food deserts, trail systems and green space accessibility.

For the past 20 years I’ve been overseeing Miami University’s Geospatial Analysis Center, building relationships with local cities, counties and companies. I started pairing my classes with outside partners to do mapping and analysis work. Some of the work my students most enjoyed was mapping small local cemeteries in and around southwest Ohio. The projects allowed them to gain experience with collecting data in the field and provided a human connection to the data.

Then in 2020, the local cemetery association of Oxford, Ohio – which owned and operated the area’s largest cemetery, spanning over 40 acres – fell upon financial troubles and dissolved. This meant the city was now solely and fully responsible for the management and maintenance of this historic and active cemetery. And it was provided only old paper maps and stacks of interment cards that listed names, dates and funeral homes. The assistant city manager reached out to see whether there was a way we could help with mapping the cemetery and transitioning from all-paper to digital resources.

Thus began a yearlong adventure in harnessing the efforts of over 50 college students to figure out how to map a cemetery with over 6,000 headstones and virtually no records. What I didn’t anticipate was the newfound connections students would develop to the college town they call home.

Old school cemetery mapping

Traditional mapping methods would have us divide and conquer: We’d go out to the cemetery with multiple GPS units and mark a point on each headstone. While at the cemetery, we’d also take a photo of the headstone and write down its information – such as name and dates of birth and death – in a notebook.

Back in the office, we’d then combine the data from all our GPS units with the handwritten notes and photos. The final dataset would include the location of the headstone, all information on the headstone and a reference link to a photo.

This process took roughly 10 to 15 minutes per headstone overall. So a small cemetery of roughly 300 headstones would require nearly 60 hours of work to successfully map.

In the past five to 10 years, however, geospatial technology tools have gone through a transformation. Smartphones and the cloud have replaced the need for hand-held GPS units and local data servers. Drones can also quickly capture high-resolution aerial imagery. We could use these tools to combine all the separate steps necessary to collect headstone information and imagery.

All of this got me thinking: What if we used these advances in geospatial mapping technology to flip the script on cemetery mapping?

Flipping the script

What happened next was a giant experiment. Luckily for us, the city of Oxford had a new drone it had used to capture high-quality imagery of the cemetery. With this imagery, you could zoom in and see individual headstones very clearly.

In the classroom, we created a new database and divvied up the cemetery into areas we were each responsible for. Before we even went on a site visit, every person placed a dot on top of each headstone they could see in the drone imagery of their area. Then at the cemetery we could simply walk to each headstone we were responsible for, take a photo and attach that to the dot we had placed earlier.

The result was a database of over 5,000 headstones marking where over 6,000 individuals had been laid to rest. With old field methods this would have taken over 1,200 hours. The new methods cut that time in half: just over 600 hours of work, or roughly six minutes per headstone.

Using this database, we then created a web application where family members and the city could search for individuals by name or by location. The city of Oxford now manages and updates this online resource.

Building community, past and present

While our goal had been to create a searchable online database of the cemetery to help the city, my students and I also learned a lot about our community. We said names and read stories that had previously been lost to time.

We learned that Miami University has a special section of the cemetery set aside for faculty and staff. Students encountered names they see every day as they enter campus buildings and walk the streets of Oxford.

We encountered “Babyland,” a special section where the local hospital, McCullough-Hyde, offers burial of infants who are lost during childbirth or treatment.

And we discovered that there are over 400 military veterans in the cemetery, including four from the Revolutionary War.

After this project, my students reported feeling more connected to the community of Miami University and the city of Oxford. They felt proud of the work they had done to preserve the area’s local history. And many continued to do research on the family names they encountered in the cemetery.

As the role of cemeteries shifts over time, they remain a treasure trove of local history and family connection. Knowing where to find a loved one is part of the human experience. Paying homage to those community members who worked and lived where we are now continues to be an important part of documenting our shared history.

And for students, mapping cemeteries provided a space to build community among their peers – and with their community ancestors.

Robbyn Abbitt receives funding from local entities that manage the cemeteries that have been mapped. She works for Miami University.

– ref. Mapping cemeteries for class – how students used phones and drones to help a city count its headstones – https://theconversation.com/mapping-cemeteries-for-class-how-students-used-phones-and-drones-to-help-a-city-count-its-headstones-273154

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. But on Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.

There’s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.”

Gary W. Yohe 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. Trump’s plan to wipe out US climate rules relies on EPA rescinding its 2009 endangerment finding – but will courts allow it? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-wipe-out-us-climate-rules-relies-on-epa-rescinding-its-2009-endangerment-finding-but-will-courts-allow-it-274194