Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kris Inman, Professor of African Studies and Security Studies, Georgetown University

Staff at the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism and Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which led U.S. anti-violent extremism efforts, were laid off, the units shuttered, on July 11, 2025.

This dismantling of the country’s terrorism and extremism prevention programs began in February 2025. That’s when staff of USAID’s Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Stabilization were put on leave.

In March, the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, which worked during the Biden administration to prevent terrorism with a staff of about 80 employees, laid off about 30% of its staff. Additional cuts to the center’s staff were made in June.

And on July 11, the countering violent extremism team at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan organization established by Congress, was laid off. The fate of the institute is pending legal cases and congressional funding.

President Donald Trump in February had called for nonstatutory components and functions of certain government entities, including the U.S. Institute of Peace, to “be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”

These cuts have drastically limited the U.S. government’s terrorism prevention work. What remains of the U.S. capability to respond to terrorism rests in its military and law enforcement, which do not work on prevention. They react to terrorist events after they happen.

As a political scientist who has worked on prevention programs for USAID, the U.S. Institute for Peace, and as an evaluator of the U.S. strategy that implemented the Global Fragility Act, I believe recent Trump administration cuts to terrorism prevention programs risk setting America’s counterterrorism work back into a reactive, military approach that has proven ineffective in reducing terrorism.

The US war against terrorism

Between 9/11 and 2021, the cost of the U.S. war on terrorism was $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths, according to a Brown University study. Nonetheless, terrorism has continued to expanded in geographic reach, diversity and deadliness.

Though it was territorially defeated in Syria in 2019, the Islamic State – designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government – has expanded globally, especially in Africa. Its nine affiliates on the continent have joined several al-Qaida-linked groups such as al-Shabab.

The Islamic State has expanded through a decentralized model of operations. It has networks of affiliates that operate semi-autonomously and exploit areas of weak governance in places such as Mali and Burkina Faso. That makes them difficult to defeat militarily.

These terrorist organizations threaten the U.S. through direct attacks, such as the ISIS-linked attack in New Orleans on Jan. 1, 2025, that killed 14 people.

These groups also disrupt the global economy, such as Houthi attacks on trade routes in the Red Sea.

To understand why terrorism and extremism continue to grow, and to examine what could be done, Congress charged the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2017 to convene the Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States.

This bipartisan task force found that while the U.S. military had battlefield successes, “after each supposed defeat, extremist groups return having grown increasingly ambitious, innovative, and deadly.”

The task force recommended prioritizing and investing in prevention efforts. Those include strengthening the ability of governments to provide social services and helping communities identify signs of conflict – and helping to provide tools to effectively respond when they see the signs.

The report contributed to the Global Fragility Act, which Trump signed in 2019 to fund $1.5 billion over five years of prevention work in places such as Libya, Mozambique and coastal West Africa.

Programs funded by the Global Fragility Act included USAID’s Research for Peace, which monitored signs of terrorism recruitment, trained residents in Côte d’Ivoire on community dialogue to resolve disputes, and worked with local leaders and media to promote peace. All programming under the act has shut down due to the elimination of prevention offices and bureaus.

What the US has lost

The State Department issued a call for funding in July 2025 for a contractor to work on preventing terrorists from recruiting young people online. It stated: “In 2024, teenagers accounted for up to two-thirds of ISIS-linked arrests in Europe, with children as young as 11 involved in recent terrorist plots.”

In the same month, the department canceled the program due to a loss of funding.

It’s the kind of program that the now defunct Office of Countering Violent Extremism would have overseen. The government evidently recognizes the need for prevention work. But it dismantled the expertise and infrastructure required to design and manage such responses.

Lost expertise

The work done within the prevention infrastructure wasn’t perfect. But it was highly specialized, with expertise built over 2½ decades.

Chris Bosley, a former interim director of the violence and extremism program at the U.S. Institute of Peace who was laid off in July, told me recently, “Adequate investment in prevention programs isn’t cheap, but it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the decades of failed military action, and more effective than barbed wire – tools that come too late, cost too much, and add fuel to the very conditions that perpetuate the threats they’re meant to address.”

For now, the U.S. has lost a trove of counterterrorism expertise. And it has removed the guardrails – community engagement protocols and conflict prevention programs – that helped avoid the unintended consequences of U.S. military responses.

Without prevention efforts, we risk repeating some of the harmful outcomes of the past. Those include military abuses against civilians, prisoner radicalization in detention facilities and the loss of public trust, such as what happened in Guantanamo Bay, in Bagram, Afghanistan, and at various CIA black sites during the George W. Bush administration.

Counterterrorism prevention experts expect terrorism to worsen. Dexter Ingram, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism who was laid off in July, told me: “It seems like we’re now going to try shooting our way out of this problem again, and it’s going to make the problem worse.”

What can be done?

Rebuilding a prevention-focused approach with expertise will require political will and bipartisan support.

U.S. Reps. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat from California, and Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican, have introduced a bill that would reauthorize the Global Fragility Act, extending it until 2030. It would allow the U.S. government to continue preventing conflicts, radicalization and helping unstable countries. The measure would also improve the way various government agencies collaborate to achieve these goals.

But its success hinges on securing funding and restoring or creating new offices with expert staff that can address the issues that lead to terrorism.

This analysis was developed with research contributions from Saroy Rakotoson and Liam Painter at Georgetown University.

Kris Inman 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 administration cuts to terrorism prevention departments could leave Americans exposed – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-cuts-to-terrorism-prevention-departments-could-leave-americans-exposed-261630

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

The gerrymandering drama in Texas – and beyond – has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress.

The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who’s aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections.

Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind.

But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call “dummymandered.”

Democrats can finally fight back

Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states.

Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats’ losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year’s midterm elections.

Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York – led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively – have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side.

New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is “sick and tired of being pushed around” while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she’d even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission.

It’s unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile.

Dummymandering

Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness.

In responding to Democrats’ continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. “If they don’t start showing up, I may start expanding,” Abbott said. “We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we’re going to be adding on the Republican side.”

But Abbott might think twice about this strategy.

Parties that gerrymander their states’ districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations.

When parties gerrymander districts, they don’t usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts.

But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected.

This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “dummymandering,” has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide.

With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to.

There’s not much left to gerrymander

One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons.

First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses.

Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control.

But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024.

There’s also the fact that over the past half-century, “gerrymanderable” territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That’s because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties.

This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas.

As a result, it’s become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party’s voters in order to diminish the opponents’ ability to elect one of their own.

Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today’s clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion.

And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps – not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they’re unsatisfied with the odds in the next election.

Charlie Hunt 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. 3 reasons Republicans’ redistricting power grab might backfire – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-republicans-redistricting-power-grab-might-backfire-262553

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Debbie Felton, Professor of Classics, UMass Amherst

“No Kings” rallies. “Good Trouble” protests. “Rage against the Regime” uprisings. These events in the first seven months of President Donald Trump’s second term, along with public opinion polls, show that many Americans are concerned about Trump’s expansive use of executive power.

Views on this issue often have a partisan slant. Republicans express more concern about presidential power when Democrats control the White House, and vice versa.

But many in both parties prefer that U.S. political leaders work through established channels, rather than through unconventional actions that may pose challenges to the Constitution and the rule of law, such as mass firings and large-scale deportations.

As a professor of classics, I know that concerns about authoritarianism go back thousands of years. One early discussion appears in the work of the fifth-century B.C.E. Greek writer Herodotus, whose “History” – sometimes called “Histories” – is considered the first great prose narrative in Western literature.

In it, Herodotus analyzed the Persian invasion of Greece – the defining event of his time. To understand how Greece, a much smaller power, achieved a major victory over Persia, Herodotus explored the nature of effective leadership, which he saw as a critical factor in the conflict’s outcome.

A shocking upset

Persia was already a vast empire when it invaded Greece, a tiny country made up of independent city-states. The Persians expected a quick and easy victory.

Instead, the Greco-Persian Wars lasted over a decade, from 490 to 479 B.C.E. They ended with Greece defeating the Persians – a shocking upset. Consequently, Persia abandoned its westward expansion, while various Greek city-states formed a tenuous alliance that lasted nearly 50 years.

To explain this unexpected outcome, Herodotus described how Persian and Greek societies developed before this crucial conflict. In his view, the fact that many Greek city-states had representative governments enabled the Greek victory.

These systems allowed individuals to participate in discussing strategies and resulted in the Greeks uniting to fight for freedom. For example, when the Persian fleet was headed toward mainland Greece, the Athenian general Miltiades says, “Never before have we been in such extreme danger. If we give in to the Persians, we will suffer greatly under the tyrant Hippias.”

Herodotus tended to put his political philosophies into the mouths of historical figures such as Miltiades. He condensed his thoughts about government into what historians call the “Constitutional Debate,” a fictional conversation among three real characters: Persian noblemen named Otanes, Megabazus and Darius.

Persia’s ascent

For centuries prior to invading Greece, Persia had been a small region inhabited by various ancient Iranian peoples and controlled by the neighboring kingdom of Media. Then, in 550 B.C.E., King Cyrus II of Persia overthrew the Medes and expanded Persian territory into what became the Achaemenid Empire.

Thanks to his effective leadership and tolerance for the customs of cultures he conquered, historians call him “Cyrus the Great.”

His son and successor, Cambyses, was less successful. He added Egypt to the Persian empire, but according to Herodotus, Cambyses acted erratically and cruelly. He desecrated the pharaoh’s tomb, mocked the Egyptians’ gods, and killed their sacred Apis bull. He also demanded that Persian judges change the laws so that he could marry his own sisters.

After Cambyses died childless, various factions vied for the Persian throne. Herodotus set his discussion about alternative political systems in this unstable period.

The case for democracy

Otanes, the first speaker in the Constitutional Debate, says “the time has passed for any one man among us to have absolute power.” He recommends that the Persian people themselves handle state affairs.

“How can monarchy continue to be our norm, when a monarch can do whatever he wants, with no accountability whatsoever?” Otanes asks. Even worse, a monarch “disrupts the laws,” as Cambyses did.

Otanes favors rule by the many, which he calls “isonomia,” meaning “equality under the law.” In this system, he explains, politicians are elected and held responsible for their behavior and make decisions transparently.

Today, unlike Otanes, Republican members of Congress appear reluctant to hold Trump responsible for anything or ensure transparency within the administration. Prominent Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are challenging Trump administration actions that they view as lawless, such as freezing of funds authorized by Congress.

Do oligarchs know better?

Otanes’ fellow nobleman, Megabazus, agrees that the Persians should abolish monarchy, but he raises concerns about rule by the people.

“The masses are useless – there’s nothing more witless and violent than a crowd,” Megabazus asserts. He believes “commoners” don’t understand the intricacies of policymaking.

Instead, Megabazus suggests oligarchy, or “rule by a few.” Choose the best men in Persia and let them rule everyone else, he urges, because they “will naturally come up with the best ideas.”

But Megabazus doesn’t explain who would qualify as “the best men” or who would select them.

The U.S. has occasionally resembled an oligarchy, with small, elite groups holding most political power. For example, Article 1, Section 3 of the original Constitution provided for election of senators by state legislators, not directly by the people. Senators were not elected by popular vote until the 17th Amendment passed in 1913.

More recently, Trump has received millions of dollars in support from billionaire tech industry leaders such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, who hope to influence antitrust policy and deregulation. The Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Musk before he stepped down in May 2025, is now run by young men with virtually no government experience. DOGE’s cuts to programs such as humanitarian aid are wreaking havoc across the globe.

What about monarchy?

The third speaker, Darius, sees democracy and oligarchy as equally flawed. He points out that even well-intentioned oligarchs fight among themselves because “each wants his own opinion to prevail.” This leads to hatred and worse, much like the Trump-Musk relationship gone sour.

Rather, Darius asserts, “using good judgment, a monarch will be a flawless guardian of the people.” He argues that since Persia was freed by one man, King Cyrus II, Persians should maintain their traditional monarchy.

Darius doesn’t explain how to ensure a monarch’s good judgment. But his argument wins out. It had to, since in reality Darius became Persia’s next king. Kings, or shahs, ruled Persia – it became known as Iran in 1935 – until the Iranian Revolution of 1979 eliminated the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Trump is not technically a monarch, but some believe he acts like one. He and his administration have ignored court orders, preempted the powers of Congress and sought to silence his critics by attacking protected free speech.

Lessons from Herodotus

Herodotus himself was largely pro-democracy, but his Constitutional Debate doesn’t endorse one form of government. Instead, it highlights principles of good leadership. These include accountability, moderation and respect for “nomos,” a Greek term encompassing the concepts of custom and law.

Herodotus emphasizes: “Formerly great cities have become small, while small cities have become great.” Human fortune changes constantly, and Persia’s failure to conquer Greece is just one example.

History has seen the rise and fall of many world powers. Is the United States next? Herodotus viewed the Persian monarchy, whose kings believed their own authority was paramount, as the weakness that led to their astounding defeat in 479 B.C.E.

Debbie Felton is affiliated with the Democratic Party (registered to vote).

– ref. Authoritarian rulers aren’t new – here’s what Herodotus, an early Greek historian, wrote about them – https://theconversation.com/authoritarian-rulers-arent-new-heres-what-herodotus-an-early-greek-historian-wrote-about-them-259127

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sky Hooler, Ph.D. Student in Environmental Science, University at Albany, State University of New York

Lush forests and crisp mountain air have drawn people to New York’s Adirondack Mountains for centuries. In the late 1800s, these forests were a haven for tuberculosis patients seeking the cool, fresh air. Today, the region is still a sanctuary where families vacation and hikers roam pristine trails.

However, hidden health dangers have been accumulating in these mountains since industrialization began.

Tiny metal particulates released into the air from factories, power plants and vehicles across the Midwest and Canada can travel thousands of miles on the wind and fall with rain. Among them are microscopic pollutants such as lead and cadmium, known for their toxic effects on human health and wildlife.

For decades, factories released this pollution without controls. By the 1960s and 1970s, their pollution was causing acid rain that killed trees in forests across the eastern U.S., while airborne metals were accumulating in even the most remote lakes in the Adirondacks.

As paleolimnologists, we study the history of the environment using sediment cores from lake bottoms, where layers of mud, leaves and pollen pile up over time, documenting environmental and chemical changes.

In a recent study, we looked at two big questions: Have lakes in the Northeast U.S. recovered from the era of industrial metal pollution, and did the Clean Air Act, written to help stop the pollution, work?

Digging up time capsules

On multiple summer trips between 2021 and 2024, we hiked into the Adirondacks’ backcountry with 60-pound inflatable boats, a GPS and piles of long, heavy metal tubes in tow.

We focused on four ponds – Rat, Challis, Black and Little Hope. In each, we dropped cylindrical tubes that plunge into the darkness of the lake bottom. The tubes suction up the mud in a way that preserves the accumulated layers like a history book.

Back in the lab, we sliced these cores millimeter by millimeter, extracting metals such as lead, zinc and arsenic to analyze the concentrations over time.

The changes in the levels of metals we found in different layers of the cores paint a dramatic picture of the pristine nature of these lakes before European settlers arrived in the area, and what happened as factories began going up across the country.

A century plagued by contamination

Starting in the early 1900s, coal burning in power plants and factories, smelting and the growing use of leaded gasoline began releasing pollutants that blew into the region. We found that manganese, arsenic, iron, zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, copper and cobalt began to appear in greater concentrations in the lakes and rose rapidly.

At the same time, acid rain, formed from sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal and gasoline, acted like chemical shovels, freeing more metals naturally held in the bedrock and forest soils.

The result was a cascade of metal pollution that washed down the slopes with the rain, winding through creeks and seeping into lakes.

All of this is captured in the lake sediment cores.

As extensive logging and massive fires stripped away vegetation and topsoil, the exposed landscapes created express lanes for metals to wash downhill. When acidification met these disturbed lands, the result was extraordinary: Metal levels didn’t just increase, they skyrocketed. In some cases, we found that lead levels in the sediment reached 328 parts per million, 109 times higher than natural preindustrial levels. That lead would have first been in the air, where people were exposed, and then in the wildlife and fish that people consume.

These particles are so small that they can enter a person’s lungs and bloodstream, infiltrate food webs and accumulate in ecosystems.

Then, suddenly, the increase stopped.

A public outcry over acid rain, which was stripping needles from trees and poisoning fish, led to major environmental legislation, including the initiation of the Clean Air Act in 1963. The law and subsequent amendments in the following decades began reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and other toxic pollutants. To comply, industries installed scrubbers to remove pollutants at the smokestack rather than releasing them into the air. Catalytic converters reduced vehicle exhaust, and lead was removed from gasoline.

The air grew cleaner, the rain became less acidic, and our sediment cores show that the lakes began to heal through natural biogeochemical processes, although slowly.

By 1996, atmospheric lead levels measured at Whiteface Mountain in the Adirondacks had declined by 90%. National levels were down 94%. But in the lakes, lead had decreased only by about half.

Only in the past five years, since about 2020, have we seen metal concentrations within the lakes fall to less than 10% of their levels at the height of pollution in the region.

Our study is the first documented case of a full recovery in Northeast U.S. lakes that reflects the recovery seen in the atmosphere.

It’s a powerful success story and proof that environmental policy works.

Looking forward

But the Adirondacks aren’t entirely in the clear. Legacy pollution lingers in the soils, ready to be remobilized by future disturbances from land development or logging. And there are new concerns. We are now tracking the rise of microplastics and the growing pressures of climate change on lake ecosystems.

Recovery is not a finish line; it’s an ongoing process. The Clean Air Act and water monitoring are still important for keeping the region’s air and water clean.

Though our findings come from just a few lakes, the implications extend across the entire Northeast U.S. Many studies from past decades documented declining metal deposition in lakes, and research has confirmed continued reductions in metal pollutants in both soils and rivers.

In the layers of lake mud, we see not only a record of damage but also a testament to nature’s resilience, a reminder that with good legislation and timely intervention, recovery is possible.

Sky Hooler received funding from National Science Foundation with
the Geological Society of America Graduate Student Geoscience
Research Grant #1949901, 2021.

Aubrey Hillman 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. Industrial pollution once ravaged the Adirondacks − decades of history captured in lake mud track their slow recovery – https://theconversation.com/industrial-pollution-once-ravaged-the-adirondacks-decades-of-history-captured-in-lake-mud-track-their-slow-recovery-260182

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Thomas A. Stapleford, Associate Professor of History and Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame

Many financial and political analysts are trying to assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s decision to fire U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Aug. 1, 2025, the same day that an unemployment report conveyed weakness in the job market. Some of the strongest criticism of this unprecedented move has come from Republican-aligned and nonpartisan experts, including a former BLS commissioner Trump appointed during his first term and the American Economic Association, a nonprofit that has 17,000 members in academic, government and business professions. They have said that what Trump has accused McEntarfer of doing – “rigging” data“ – would be impossible to pull off.

The Conversation U.S. asked Tom Stapleford, a professor who has written a book on the political history of the U.S. consumer price index, to explain why this move could undermine trust in the indicators the government releases and why that could damage the economy.

What key data does the BLS release?

Founded in 1884, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes monthly and annual data about American consumers and workers. Historically, the BLS has focused on urban workers and consumers, while the Department of Agriculture covered farmers and agricultural work. But these days, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also collects some data reflecting rural areas too.

The bureau publishes monthly data on inflation, employment and unemployment, and compensation. It also measures productivity on a quarterly basis, and twice per year it issues reports on consumer purchases – what people buy and how much they spend in different categories.

These official statistics are often revised in the months that follow as the bureau adopts new methods or more data becomes available.

How can data affect markets and the economy?

The bureau’s data on inflation, employment, unemployment and compensation draws the most attention because it answers basic questions about the economy.

For example: Are prices rising? Are employers adding new jobs? Are people finding work? How much are workers getting paid?

Employment and unemployment may seem very similar, but they show you different things. BLS employment data tells you how many jobs there are, where they are and in what lines of work.

BLS unemployment data is about people. How many Americans are looking for work but can’t find a job? How many have part-time jobs but would prefer to work full time?

The BLS also collects, analyzes and releases inflation data that shows how price changes are affecting American consumers. The BLS consumer price index data is weighted so that changes in the prices of items that are a big part of household expenses will have a larger effect on the final results than other changes.

Each BLS statistic has a narrow focus, but, taken together, they can reveal a lot about economic conditions across the country and in specific states.

Businesses and investors look to BLS data as guides for trends that might affect companies or financial markets as a whole. If prices start to rise quickly, the Federal Reserve might raise interest rates, which reduces bond prices.

If job creation starts to slow, the country might be heading toward a recession, and employers might pull back on hiring and production or invest less in new equipment. Policymakers use BLS statistics to guide decisions about government actions, and everyone else may use them to judge whether politicians have succeeded in managing the economy well.

Of course, all of these uses depend on Americans being able to trust the numbers. The BLS goes to great lengths to secure that trust, publishing detailed descriptions of its methods and research papers that try to explain patterns in the data and test new approaches. Until recently, the BLS also had two unpaid advisory committees of economists and statisticians from companies, universities and nonprofits that analyzed BLS methods and offered advice.

However, the Department of Labor disbanded those committees in March 2025, stating that the committees “had fulfilled their intended purpose.”

What does the BLS commissioner do?

The BLS commissioner oversees all aspects of the bureau’s operations and serves as the primary liaison with Congress and the leadership of the Department of Labor.

Although some early BLS commissioners did not have advanced degrees, all commissioners since the 1930s have had Ph.D.s in economics or statistics, as well as substantial experience using or producing statistical data.

Unlike rank-and-file BLS staff, who are typically career civil servants, the commissioner is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a four-year term. Due to the timing of those terms, each commissioner’s tenure normally spans two presidential terms. The Senate overwhelmingly approved McEntarfer’s nomination, for example, in an 86-8 vote held in January 2024.

However, this appointment is at will, meaning that a president can legally remove a commissioner at any time.

Could the top BLS official fudge any data?

It would be very difficult for the commissioner to alter or falsify data on his or her own.

The data is produced collectively by a large nonpartisan staff who are protected by civil service regulations, so it would be impossible for the commissioner simply to change the numbers.

Nonetheless, the commissioner could shape BLS data indirectly. The commissioner could make certain data harder to access, devote fewer resources to some topics or close some data series altogether.

More significantly, creating national statistics is complicated: There is always uncertainty, and even experts will disagree on many issues. A sufficiently motivated commissioner could potentially nudge the data in favored directions simply by altering the methodology.

If BLS staff thought a commissioner was truly trying to manipulate the statistics, however, I would expect many of them would resign or protest publicly. And there’s no sign of that having happened under McEntarfer’s leadership. She has strong support from former BLS commissioners and leading economists.

What are some possible consequences?

I do not expect to see any immediate consequences from McEntarfer’s firing.

The acting commissioner of the BLS, William Wiatrowski, is a longtime BLS employee who has held this role before.

The rest of the bureau’s staff remain the same. Over the long term, the actions of whomever Trump appoints as McEntarfer’s permanent replacement will determine whether her firing was an aberration or the mark of a new relationship between the White House and the BLS that could eventually undercut trust in its statistics.

To strengthen confidence in the BLS, the new commissioner could reinstate the external advisory committees that the Trump administration has disbanded. But he or she could weaken confidence by making controversial changes, especially regarding employment statistics, that are criticized by leading professional organizations or that cause top BLS officials to quit their jobs.

I believe it’s unlikely that BLS statistics could be faked in ways that would deceive economists. But they could become much less useful, and that would be bad for the United States.

Thomas A. Stapleford 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. Bureau of Labor Statistics tells the US what’s up with the economy – Trump firing its top official may undercut trust in its data – https://theconversation.com/bureau-of-labor-statistics-tells-the-us-whats-up-with-the-economy-trump-firing-its-top-official-may-undercut-trust-in-its-data-262673

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael G. Kozak, Associate Clinical Professor of Educational Administration and Leadership, Drexel University

Generative AI platforms have sent shock waves through the K-12 education sector since the public release of ChatGPT nearly three years ago.

The technology is taking hold under the belief that students and teachers need to be proficient in these powerful tools, even though many concerns remain around equity, privacy, bias and degradation of critical thinking among students.

As a professor who teaches future educators and is part of an AI-focused working group, I have observed the potential for artificial intelligence to transform teaching and learning practices in K-12 schools. The trends I am seeing – and that I encourage – are for K-12 educators to use AI to shift from memorization and rote learning to instead emphasize critical thinking and creativity.

Jumping in the deep end

After the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, some large school districts initially banned the use of AI due to concerns about cheating. Surveys also reflected worries about chatbots fabricating information, such as references for school papers, in addition to concerns about misinformation and biases existing in AI responses to prompts.

Students, on the other hand, tended to jump into the deep end of the AI pool. Common Sense Media, which offers recommendations on children’s media consumption, published a report in 2024 showing that students were using AI-supported search and chatbots for homework and to stave off boredom as well as other personal reasons, including “creating content as a joke, planning activities, and seeking health advice.” Most of the teachers and parents of the students in the study were unaware that students were using the technology.

In my work at Drexel University teaching graduate students who are aspiring school principals or superintendents, I found that in 2023, K-12 students were afraid of using AI due to the policies implemented in their districts banning it. However, it quickly became apparent that students were able to mask their use of AI by instructing AI to insert some mistakes to their assignments.

Meanwhile, despite teachers’ initial concerns about AI, approximately 60% of K-12 teachers now admit to using AI to plan lessons, communicate with parents and assist with grading. Concerns over students cheating still exist, but time-strapped teachers are finding that using AI can save them time while improving their teaching.

A recent Walton Foundation and Gallup study revealed that teachers who used AI tools weekly saved an average of 5.9 hours per week, which they reallocated to “providing students more nuanced feedback, creating individualized lessons, writing emails and getting home to their families in a more reasonable time.”

Opening up new ways of teaching

I recommend that my graduate students use AI because I think ignoring emerging trends in education is not wise. I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives if students are taught ethical use of the technology and guardrails are put in place, such as requiring that AI be cited as a source if students use it in coursework.

Advocates say AI is changing teaching for the better, since it forces teachers to identify additional ways for students to demonstrate their understanding of content. Some strategies for students who rely too heavily on AI include oral presentations, project-based learning and building portfolios of a student’s best work.

One practice could involve students showing evidence of something they created, implemented or developed to address a challenge. Evidence could include constructing a small bridge to demonstrate how forces act on structures, pictures or a video of students using a water sampling device to check for pollution, or students designing and planting a community garden. AI might produce the steps needed to construct the project, but students would actually have to do the work.

Teachers can also use AI to create lessons tailored to students’ interests, quickly translate text to multiple languages, and recognize speech for students with hearing difficulties. AI can be used as a tutor to individualize instruction, provide immediate feedback and identify gaps in students’ learning.

When I was a school superintendent, I always asked applicants for teaching positions how they connected their classroom lessons to the real world. Most of them struggled to come up with concrete examples. On the other hand, I have found AI is helpful in this regard, providing answers to students’ perennial question of why they need to learn what is being taught.

Thought partner

Teachers in K-12 schools are using AI to help students develop their empathetic skills. One example is prompting an AI to “redesign the first-day experience for a relocated student entering a new middle school.” AI created the action steps and the essential questions necessary for refining students’ initial solutions.

In my own classroom, I’ve used AI to boost my graduate students’ critical thinking skills. I had my students imagine that they were college presidents facing the loss of essential federal funding unless they implemented policies limiting public criticism of federal agencies on campus. This proposed restriction, framed as a requirement to maintain “institutional neutrality,” requires students to develop a plan of action based on their knowledge of systems and design thinking. After each team developed their solution, I used AI to create questions and counterpoints to their proposed solution. In this way, AI becomes a critical thought partner to probe intended and unintended outcomes, gaps in students’ thinking and potential solutions that might have been overlooked.

AI researcher Ethan Mollick encourages educators to use AI as a springboard, similar to jazz musicians improvising, as a way to unleash new possibilities. Mollick advises people to partner with AI as co-intelligence, be the human in the loop, treat AI as a co-worker, albeit one that needs to be prodded for evidence, and to learn to use it well. I concur.

Changing perspectives on AI

Some early studies on the effects of using AI in education have raised concerns that the convenience of generative AI will degrade students’ learning and erode their critical thinking skills.

I think that further studies are needed, but I have found in my own work and in the work of my graduate students that AI can enhance human-produced work. For example, AI-powered teaching assistants, like Khanmigo or Beghetto Bots, use AI to help students solve problems and come up with innovative solutions without giving away the answers.

My experiences with other educators on the front lines show me that they are beginning to change their perspectives toward students using AI, particularly as teachers realize the benefit of AI in their own work. For example, one of my graduate students said his district is employing a committee of educators, students and outside experts to explore how AI can be used ethically and in a way that won’t erode students’ critical thinking skills.

Educators are starting to realize that AI isn’t going away anytime soon – and that it’s better to teach their students how to use it, rather than leave them to their own devices.

Michael G. Kozak 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. AI is taking hold in K-12 schools – here are some ways it can improve teaching – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-taking-hold-in-k-12-schools-here-are-some-ways-it-can-improve-teaching-259501

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Professor of Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi

The first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, decades later, landing on the Moon is old news. The new race is to build there, and doing so hinges on power.

In April 2025, China reportedly unveiled plans to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2035. This plant would support its planned international lunar research station.
The United States countered in August, when acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy reportedly suggested a U.S. reactor would be operational on the Moon by 2030.

While it might feel like a sudden sprint, this isn’t exactly breaking news. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent years quietly developing small nuclear power systems to power lunar bases, mining operations and long-term habitats.

As a space lawyer focused on long-term human advancement into space, I see this not as an arms race but as a strategic infrastructure race. And in this case, infrastructure is influence.

A lunar nuclear reactor may sound dramatic, but its neither illegal nor unprecedented. If deployed responsibly, it could allow countries to peacefully explore the Moon, fuel their economic growth and test out technologies for deeper space missions. But building a reactor also raises critical questions about access and power.

The legal framework already exists

Nuclear power in space isn’t a new idea. Since the 1960s, the U.S. and the Soviet Union have relied on radioisotope generators that use small amounts of radioactive elements – a type of nuclear fuel – to power satellites, Mars rovers and the Voyager probes.

The United Nations’ 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, a nonbinding resolution, recognizes that nuclear energy may be essential for missions where solar power is insufficient. This resolution sets guidelines for safety, transparency and international consultation.

Nothing in international law prohibits the peaceful use of nuclear power on the Moon. But what matters is how countries deploy it. And the first country to succeed could shape the norms for expectations, behaviors and legal interpretations related to lunar presence and influence.

Why being first matters

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major spacefaring nations including the U.S., China and Russia, governs space activity. Its Article IX requires that states act with “due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.”

That statement means if one country places a nuclear reactor on the Moon, others must navigate around it, legally and physically. In effect, it draws a line on the lunar map. If the reactor anchors a larger, long-term facility, it could quietly shape what countries do and how their moves are interpreted legally, on the Moon and beyond.

Other articles in the Outer Space Treaty set similar boundaries on behavior, even as they encourage cooperation. They affirm that all countries have the right to freely explore and access the Moon and other celestial bodies, but they explicitly prohibit territorial claims or assertions of sovereignty.

At the same time, the treaty acknowledges that countries may establish installations such as bases — and with that, gain the power to limit access. While visits by other countries are encouraged as a transparency measure, they must be preceded by prior consultations. Effectively, this grants operators a degree of control over who can enter and when.

Building infrastructure is not staking a territorial claim. No one can own the Moon, but one country setting up a reactor could shape where and how others operate – functionally, if not legally.

Infrastructure is influence

Building a nuclear reactor establishes a country’s presence in a given area. This idea is especially important for resource-rich areas such as the lunar south pole, where ice found in perpetually shadowed craters could fuel rockets and sustain lunar bases.

These sought-after regions are scientifically vital and geopolitically sensitive, as multiple countries want to build bases or conduct research there. Building infrastructure in these areas would cement a country’s ability to access the resources there and potentially exclude others from doing the same.

Critics may worry about radiation risks. Even if designed for peaceful use and contained properly, reactors introduce new environmental and operational hazards, particularly in a dangerous setting such as space. But the U.N. guidelines do outline rigorous safety protocols, and following them could potentially mitigate these concerns.

Why nuclear? Because solar has limits

The Moon has little atmosphere and experiences 14-day stretches of darkness. In some shadowed craters, where ice is likely to be found, sunlight never reaches the surface at all. These issues make solar energy unreliable, if not impossible, in some of the most critical regions.

A small lunar reactor could operate continuously for a decade or more, powering habitats, rovers, 3D printers and life-support systems. Nuclear power could be the linchpin for long-term human activity. And it’s not just about the Moon – developing this capability is essential for missions to Mars, where solar power is even more constrained.

A call for governance, not alarm

The United States has an opportunity to lead not just in technology but in governance. If it commits to sharing its plans publicly, following Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirming a commitment to peaceful use and international participation, it will encourage other countries to do the same.

The future of the Moon won’t be determined by who plants the most flags. It will be determined by who builds what, and how. Nuclear power may be essential for that future. Building transparently and in line with international guidelines would allow countries to more safely realize that future.

A reactor on the Moon isn’t a territorial claim or a declaration of war. But it is infrastructure. And infrastructure will be how countries display power – of all kinds – in the next era of space exploration.

Michelle L.D. Hanlon is affiliated with For All Moonkind, Inc. a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on protecting cultural heritage in outer space.

– ref. NASA plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon – a space lawyer explains why, and what the law has to say – https://theconversation.com/nasa-plans-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-a-space-lawyer-explains-why-and-what-the-law-has-to-say-262773

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Thom Reilly, Professor and Co-Director of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy, Arizona State University

As dissatisfaction with the two-party system grows in the United States, the idea of an alternative, however unlikely, gains traction. Elon Musk’s recent call for an America Party may be unserious, but it speaks to something real.

Surveys consistently show that millions of American voters feel they lack real choices. They believe the two major parties don’t reflect their values, and they are exhausted by the constant polarization.

The bigger question isn’t whether Musk succeeds. As a public policy scholar, I think it’s why the U.S. political system is so hostile to new voices and ideas in the first place.

Why third parties rarely succeed

If he follows through on his idea, can Musk’s America Party actually take off? Probably not. History isn’t on his side.

That’s because the U.S. political system is structurally rigged against third parties, with deeply entrenched legal and procedural barriers that make it nearly impossible for new parties to gain traction.

In most states, getting a new party on the ballot is a formidable task. It involves gathering thousands of signatures, meeting stringent deadlines and complying with obscure filing requirements.

Even if a party gets on the ballot in one state, replicating that effort nationally is extremely hard. Each state has different laws, deadlines, signature requirements and legal demands.

Ballot access, campaign finance, media coverage and election rules overwhelmingly favor the existing Republican and Democratic parties. Even the Federal Election Commission is designed for partisan deadlock with an even number of members from each of the two major parties.

In a 2025 article on election administration in America, my colleagues and I analyzed all 50 state election codes. We found widespread legal and administrative barriers that systematically exclude independents and minor parties.

In 45 states, only major party members can serve on election boards, local or state bodies responsible for overseeing the administration of elections. In 27 states, judges must be registered with a major party. Campaign finance laws, access to voter data and registration rules also tilt the field to the major parties.

These structural barriers exist in both red and blue states. We found no statistical correlation between partisan leanings and these restrictions. That’s telling. It suggests that both parties, regardless of their ideological differences, are united in protecting their duopoly.

The founders’ warning

This entrenched two-party control runs contrary to the vision of the U.S. Constitution’s framers, who intentionally excluded political parties from the founding document.

This was no accident. The founders viewed parties as “factions” that had no legitimate place in the republic.

George Washington in 1796 warned that parties would inflame animosity and that the nation could not do enough to protect itself from this. John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton feared parties as “the most fatal disease” of government and hoped America could dispense of such groups.

An appetite for alternatives

Enter Elon Musk. His suggestion to create the America Party taps directly into a growing national frustration with the two-party entrenchment.

Public trust in major political parties is at historic lows, particularly among young voters and independents, who do not identify with any major party and may register as “no party preference,” “unaffiliated” or “independent” depending on state laws.

Despite Musk being widely unpopular, prone to conspiracy theories and exhibiting erratic and unpredictable politics, his proposal resonates with many Americans. An October 2024 poll found that 58% of U.S. adults say a third party is needed.

Additionally, the number of American voters identifying as politically independent continues to exceed each of the major political parties.

What do Americans really want?

Even if Musk never follows through, the idea of a new party highlights how undemocratic U.S. elections have become. It opens the door to conversations about reforms that give independents and third parties a fair shot and reflects the growing demand for alternatives to the two-party system.

Voters are frustrated by limited choices that fail to capture their full range of political views.

There are models to learn from. Most democracies use a nonpartisan election administration and don’t let political parties control the rules.

In the U.S., partisans referee contests in which members of their party directly compete. That conflict of interest would be unacceptable in business or sports. So why is it tolerated in elections?

Structural reforms and designs have been implemented to varying degrees in the U.S. with a goal of making democracy more responsive, fair, transparent and representative.

Reforms such as open primaries, which allow voters of any party affiliation to participate in any party’s primary election, proportional representation in places such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon, where political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive, and independent redistricting commissions have helped create more competitive electoral districts by reducing partisan gerrymandering.

So, too, have ranked-choice voting and fusion voting. In ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates by preference. If no one gets a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone wins. In fusion voting, multiple political parties can endorse the same candidate, who then appears on the ballot under each endorsing party’s line.

However, implementation of such reforms has been limited. Opposition to these reforms by the Democratic and Republican parties has, in many cases, been fierce.

It’s the system

The two-party system has insulated itself from competition.

The consequence is that today America has an impenetrable two-party system, the very scenario the framers and reformers feared most. Rather than focusing solely on Musk’s ambitions, the more pressing question is how to build an electoral system that reflects a modern, diverse democracy.

If Americans want more choices, and polling suggests they do, then they may want to examine the legal and procedural barriers that lock in the current system, which fails to address and accommodate their political preferences.

Thom Reilly 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. Elon Musk’s plans for a new political party will likely be derailed by a US political system hostile to new voices – https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-plans-for-a-new-political-party-will-likely-be-derailed-by-a-us-political-system-hostile-to-new-voices-261334

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brian Jansen, Assistant Professor of English and Media Studies, University of Maine

Hulk Hogan’s death by heart attack at age 71 came as a shock to many fans of the larger-than-life wrestler who’d earned the nickname “The Immortal.”

But in many respects, the real surprise was that Hogan, born Terry Gene Bollea, lived as long a life as he did.

Despite the staged nature of its combat, professional wrestling is a notoriously dangerous career. Studies rank it among the riskiest professions. Wikipedia even maintains a comprehensive list of premature wrestler deaths.

The reasons for professional wrestling’s dangers are largely tied up in the industry’s working conditions. And part of Hogan’s legacy may be his complicity in those conditions. In 1986, he allegedly played a key role in undercutting a unionization effort – arguably the closest pro wrestling has come to unionizing.

‘The Body’ sticks his neck out

WWE’s first WrestleMania was held in 1985. The pay-per-view event was enormously successful and established the company – then known as WWF – as the nation’s preeminent wrestling promotion.

During the buildup to WrestleMania 2 the following year, wrestler Jesse “The Body” Ventura understood that performers had more leverage than they’d ever had. He began advocating behind the scenes for a wrestling union.

The story, as recounted by Ventura, goes like this: An acquaintance of Ventura’s in the NFL encouraged him to start organizing behind the scenes. WWE was behind the ball: In 1956, the NFL became the first American pro sports league to have its union recognized. It was followed by the NBA in 1957, MLB in 1966 and the NHL in 1967.

It helped that Ventura had little to lose. He’d be appearing in the forthcoming “Predator” film; should he get blackballed from wrestling for trying to form a union, he could probably earn a living as an actor. (Few could have predicted that he would go on to be elected governor of Minnesota in 1998.)

As Ventura brought together his peers to hash out the details of what a pro wrestling union might look like, he also included the promotion’s reigning champion, Hogan, with the thinking that the support of the WWF’s biggest star would boost the cause and insulate others from retaliation.

Instead, WWF owner Vince McMahon got wind of the effort and called his performers individually, threatening their jobs. The unionization effort sputtered, and McMahon eventually pushed Ventura out of wrestling.

Ventura went on to sue the WWF over unpaid royalties. During the discovery process, Ventura testified that he had learned it was Hulk Hogan who snitched to McMahon and effectively sabotaged the union drive.

Hogan never publicly admitted to telling McMahon about the rumblings of a union. The WWE has never confirmed nor denied the series of events.

Either way, there have been no unionization campaigns in professional wrestling since then.

‘Do the job’

Today’s WWE performers are legally classified as “independent contractors.” They’re responsible for their own travel, training, costuming and insurance, even as their employer owns their likeness and is indemnified from liability due to injury or death.

One of pro wrestling’s paradoxes is that the top promotion’s wrestlers aren’t unionized, even as its audience has historically skewed low income and blue collar. Wrestling has long been a family business, and most wrestlers are part-timers working additional jobs – often in blue-collar, union positions. Many of them are truck drivers and warehouse employees, construction workers and bouncers.

Wrestler-turned-scholar Laurence de Garis has written about how the language of wrestling is rich with references to labor. A “work” in wrestling is a staged storyline; to “do the job” is to lose a match. The goal of many performers is to be considered a “good worker” by peers, and WWE performers wrestle as many as 300 nights per year. The company has no offseason.

The steroid, painkiller and alcohol abuse that has been endemic to the industry may well stem from pressures on wrestlers to perform night after night, even if they’re in pain, for fear of losing their position. In the 1990s, Hogan himself confessed to extensive steroid use, which is known to contribute to heart disease.

You’d think that these harsh working conditions would make wrestlers ripe for a union. Why that hasn’t happened is up for debate. WWE bought out its competition in the early 2000s; perhaps its status as the last remaining major wrestling promotion in the nation has weakened the leverage of wrestlers. Or maybe the testosterone-driven, masculine nature of the sport makes solidarity seem like weakness.

Workers left holding the bag

The story of Ventura’s failed unionization bid is a story of what could have been. But in some sense, I see the story of the WWE as part of a broader story of the U.S. economy.

After a period of relative stability after World War II, American work since the 1980s has become dominated by mergers, buyouts, deregulation and financialization. Profits are increasingly generated by financial means such as interest and capital gains instead of through offering genuine goods or services. Layoffs and precarious work have become the norm.

WWE’s profits exploded in the 1990s and 2000s. The company went public in 1999 – though the McMahon family retained majority control – and dipped its toes into film production, reality television and online streaming.

In 2023, WWE merged with UFC’s parent company Endeavor to form TKO Group Holdings. TKO’s revenue was more than US$2.8 billion in 2024.

Meanwhile, Endeavor has been spun off as a Hollywood talent agency and was acquired by a private equity firm. The fruits of these new revenue streams and mergers haven’t trickled down to its in-ring performers. So far in 2025, WWE has laid off or released more than 30 wrestlers and at least 10 employees from the company’s corporate wing.

Much as professional wrestlers have remained independent contractors, this arrangement has become normalized in the broader American economy, with more than 36% of Americans participating in the gig economy. In 2022, Stanford researchers identified gig work as a “social determinant of health,” since most gig workers lack employer-sponsored health care, paid time off or sick days.

All for one and none for all

In today’s economy, luck or happenstance, rather than merit, seem more likely to influence who achieves financial security and who scrapes by, living paycheck to paycheck.

Hulk Hogan, as professional wrestling’s biggest star for 20 years, certainly believed he earned his place at the top of the industry. But without diminishing his talents, it’s worth noting he arrived at precisely the correct moment in history to become that star. For many years, a wrestler was expected to have “shoot” skills – that is, actual wrestling expertise – should an opponent ever go rogue and turn a staged performance into a real fight.

But as McMahon’s power and influence expanded, the look, the sound and the character of the wrestler became most important. How well could a wrestler perform for the camera? How well could he sell T-shirts to young fans?

Despite Hogan’s limitations as a technical in-ring performer, his mullet, mustache and “24-inch pythons” – the nickname given to his enormous biceps – made him the right person at the right time.

Hogan also succeeded because his opponents in the ring were willing to make him look like a star. They were able to “do the job” and do it safely.

Another paradox of professional wrestling is that it requires performers to appear as if they are hurting one another. But their primary goal, in fact, is keeping one another safe.

To me, that sounds a lot like solidarity.

Brian Jansen 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. Hulk Hogan and the unraveling of worker solidarity – https://theconversation.com/hulk-hogan-and-the-unraveling-of-worker-solidarity-262178

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Oliver L. Haimson, Assistant Professor of Information, University of Michigan

AI seems to be well on its way to becoming pervasive. You hear rumbles of AI being used, somewhere behind the scenes, at your doctor’s office. You suspect it may have played a role in hiring decisions during your last job search. Sometimes – maybe even often – you use it yourself.

And yet, while AI now influences high-stakes decisions such as what kinds of medical care people receive, who gets hired and what news people see, these decisions are not always made equitably. Research has shown that algorithmic bias often harms marginalized groups. Facial recognition systems often misclassify transgender and nonbinary people, AI used in law enforcement can lead to the unwarranted arrest of Black people at disproportionately high rates, and algorithmic diagnostic systems can prevent disabled people from accessing necessary health care.

These inequalities raise a question: Do gender and racial minorities and disabled people have more negative attitudes toward AI than the general U.S. population?

I’m a social computing scholar who studies how marginalized people and communities use social technologies. In a new study, my colleagues Samuel Reiji Mayworm, Alexis Shore Ingber, Nazanin Andalibi and I surveyed over 700 people in the U.S., including a nationally representative sample and an intentional oversample of trans, nonbinary, disabled and racial minority individuals. We asked participants about their general attitudes toward AI: whether they believed it would improve their lives or work, whether they viewed it positively, and whether they expected to use it themselves in the future.

The results reveal a striking divide. Transgender, nonbinary and disabled participants reported, on average, significantly more negative attitudes toward AI than their cisgender and nondisabled counterparts. These results indicate that when gender minorities and disabled people are required to use AI systems, such as in workplace or health care settings, they may be doing so while harboring serious concerns or hesitations. These findings challenge the prevailing tech industry narrative that AI systems are inevitable and will benefit everyone.

Public perception plays a powerful role in shaping how AI is developed, adopted and regulated. The vision of AI as a social good falls apart if it mostly benefits those who already hold power. When people are required to use AI while simultaneously disliking or distrusting it, it can limit participation, erode trust and compound inequities.

Gender, disability and AI attitudes

Nonbinary people in our study had the most negative AI attitudes. Transgender people overall, including trans men and trans women, also expressed significantly negative AI attitudes. Among cisgender people – those whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth – women reported more negative attitudes than men, a trend echoing previous research, but our study adds an important dimension by examining nonbinary and trans attitudes as well.

Disabled participants also had significantly more negative views of AI than nondisabled participants, particularly those who are neurodivergent or have mental health conditions.

These findings are consistent with a growing body of research showing how AI systems often misclassify, perpetuate discrimination toward or otherwise harm trans and disabled people. In particular, identities that defy categorization clash with AI systems that are inherently designed to reduce complexity into rigid categories. In doing so, AI systems simplify identities and can replicate and reinforce bias and discrimination – and people notice.

A more complex picture for race

In contrast to our findings about gender and disability, we found that people of color, and Black participants in particular, held more positive views toward AI than white participants. This is a surprising and complex finding, considering that prior research has extensively documented racial bias in AI systems, from discriminatory hiring algorithms to disproportionate surveillance.

Our results do not suggest that AI is working well for Black communities. Rather, they may reflect a pragmatic or hopeful openness to technology’s potential, even in the face of harm. Future research might qualitatively examine Black individuals’ ambivalent balance of critique and optimism around AI.

Policy and technology implications

If marginalized people don’t trust AI – and for good reason – what can policymakers and technology developers do?

First, provide an option for meaningful consent. This would give everyone the opportunity to decide whether and how AI is used in their lives. Meaningful consent would require employers, health care providers and other institutions to disclose when and how they are using AI and provide people with real opportunities to opt out without penalty.

Next, provide data transparency and privacy protections. These protections would help people understand where the data comes from that informs AI systems, what will happen with their data after the AI collects it, and how their data will be protected. Data privacy is especially critical for marginalized people who have already experienced algorithmic surveillance and data misuse.

Further, when building AI systems, developers can take extra steps to test and assess impacts on marginalized groups. This may involve participatory approaches involving affected communities in AI system design. If a community says no to AI, developers should be willing to listen.

Finally, I believe it’s important to recognize what negative AI attitudes among marginalized groups tell us. When people at high risk of algorithmic harm such as trans people and disabled people are also those most wary of AI, that’s an indication for AI designers, developers and policymakers to reassess their efforts. I believe that a future built on AI should account for the people the technology puts at risk.

Oliver L. Haimson receives funding from National Science Foundation.

– ref. Transgender, nonbinary and disabled people more likely to view AI negatively, study shows – https://theconversation.com/transgender-nonbinary-and-disabled-people-more-likely-to-view-ai-negatively-study-shows-260397