Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christopher Magra, Professor of American History, University of Tennessee

A crowd gathered along the waterfront in New York City in the summer of 1776. The scene they witnessed was terrifying.

The largest expeditionary force in British history sailed into the American harbor. Over 300 ships brought 32,000 professional soldiers and Hessian mercenaries to crush a rebellion.

Nearby, Gen. George Washington’s army gathered to hear their commander read a document that would forever change the nature of their fight: the Declaration of Independence.

And contrary to how Americans now think of that document – as an inspiring declaration that detailed the grievances of Colonists against the British king and announced their independence from Great Britain – what Washington read to his army was also something else.

The Declaration of Independence was America’s first formal declaration of war. It planted a symbolic flag for Patriots to rally around. It transformed illegitimate rebels without hope of foreign aid into state-sponsored freedom fighters eligible for military alliances.

This foundational American text wasn’t just a philosophical breakup letter but a strategic move to secure vital support for the American war effort. America’s first declaration of war was a high-stakes geopolitical gamble essential to achieving independence.

Converting rebels into soldiers

As I and other military historians show in our forthcoming collection of essays, “America’s First War: The Military History of the Declaration of Independence,” the declaration was written within the confines of 18th-century legal standards that strictly governed diplomacy and warfare.

Thomas Jefferson, the foremost writer of the declaration, relied heavily on the Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel’s 1758 treatise “The Law of Nations.” Vattel stressed the fact that in the eyes of European courts, providing aid to rebels was a violation of sovereignty and a dangerous precedent.

Vattel argued that for foreign powers to intervene legally in conflicts, the oppressed party had to formally declare its independence and assume the status of a state. Jefferson kept Vattel’s treatise open while he was working on the Declaration of Independence to ensure he used the specific terminology required to transform the American rebellion into a just war.

By framing independence as “necessary,” Jefferson was not just waxing philosophical. He was satisfying the legal requirement set out by Vattel that all peaceful avenues for reconciliation had been exhausted, which justified war to the “Powers of the Earth.”

A formal declaration of war, approved by Congress, increased support for the American military here at home. It rallied a divided and wary population. Even as late as 1776, there were Americans who remained fence-sitters, uncertain about the risks of a total break with the British Empire.

The declaration functioned as a public rallying flag that allowed Americans to identify themselves as a legitimate, unified group. Like Thomas Paine’s widely read pamphlet “Common Sense,” the declaration educated the uncommitted on the inescapable necessity of breaking away from the British Empire:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the declaration reads, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

By framing the fight in the universal language of the preamble, Jefferson sought to inspire and unite disparate Americans through a shared vision of a better life.

In doing so, he helped transform localized resistance movements into a collective national mission. In the words of the declaration, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The declaration and the American army

This psychological shift was especially critical for the rank-and-file soldiers in the Continental Army.

That’s why, on July 9, 1776, Washington ordered the declaration to be read to his troops in New York. His aim: to provide a fresh incentive for the coming struggle.

This public address was intended to transform the nature of their service. They were no longer disloyal subjects in rebellion against a legitimate sovereign, but soldiers of a new nation defending their own homeland. Through Jefferson’s words and Washington’s address, the declaration fueled enthusiasm for a new political system and rededicated America’s soldiers to a cause that was not yet won.

Washington told the troops he hoped “this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms.”

America’s first declaration of war bolstered troop morale at a pivotal point in the conflict. The Continental Army was going to square off against the largest expeditionary force in British history in the summer of 1776. And Washington’s troops consisted of approximately 19,000 militiamen.

The British army had the British navy. Washington had only minimal naval support. The arrival of the first waves of Hessian mercenaries, auxiliaries for Britain, in July 1776 only deepened American resolve to seek out their own foreign military allies.

Forging alliances

The declaration helped bring about much-needed support for the American war effort among foreign governments.

The primary strategic target of the declaration was the Bourbon monarchies of France and Spain, Britain’s chief rivals. The Continental Congress understood that the fledgling United States could not withstand British military might without receiving overseas shipments of gold and gunpowder, in addition to warships, sailors and soldiers.

Silas Deane, the Americans’ first secret envoy, arrived in Paris in July 1776 with instructions to procure equipment for an army of 30,000 men and to inquire about a formal alliance once independence was declared.

Working with the French playwright Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, Deane established the shell company Roderigue Hortalez and Co. to funnel secret aid from the French government to America. This clandestine supply chain eventually provided thousands of muskets, field artillery and millions of pounds of gunpowder that made possible the 1777 victory at Saratoga and France’s subsequent formal alliance.

While France provided the bulk of the naval support, Spain’s role was equally critical to the American war effort.

Following the declaration, the Continental Congress intensified its appeals to Spain. Bernardo de Gálvez, the governor of Spanish Louisiana, became a central figure in this secret war. Even before Spain formally entered the war in 1779, Gálvez channeled over $70,000 worth of medicine, weapons and uniforms up the Mississippi River to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. This southern lifeline kept the American war effort viable in the Western theater and forced the British to maintain a defensive posture on multiple fronts.

Reframing the declaration as a strategic war measure highlights the Founding Fathers’ sophisticated understanding of power.

They recognized that each individual’s “unalienable rights” were a fantasy without the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, [and] contract Alliances.” Jefferson and the members of Congress understood that American freedom required support for the war effort at home and abroad.

By transforming a localized insurrection into a state-sponsored homeland defense and an international conflict, the declaration ensured that the American Revolution would not be a mere sound of one hand clapping, but a successful geopolitical struggle that brought about independence.

Christopher Magra 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. 1776’s Declaration of Independence inspired Washington’s troops to fight against the odds – and also helped bring in powerful allies – https://theconversation.com/1776s-declaration-of-independence-inspired-washingtons-troops-to-fight-against-the-odds-and-also-helped-bring-in-powerful-allies-278368

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John Broich, Associate Professor of History, Case Western Reserve University

Whiteness appears to be an official immigration credential in the eyes of the United States government.

The Trump administration in late 2025 slashed the annual cap on refugee admissions to 7,500 for budget year 2026, down from the 125,000 cap set in 2024 by the Biden administration. That’s a historic low that will shut out thousands of global refugees from war and persecution, such as the victims of Taliban repression in Afghanistan or the Rohingya minority in Myanmar facing documented mass violence.

The new refugee cap, however, will mostly benefit white South Africans, known as Afrikaners. The State Department is building infrastructure to process 4,500 refugee applications per month from Afrikaners, a pace that would easily exceed the administration’s global cap.

The Trump administration’s justification are claims of racial persecution.

Elon Musk, born in South Africa, posted on X in March 2025 that “there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide.” President Donald Trump agreed. “They’re being killed,” he said in May 2025. Casting blame on the news media, he said, “It’s a genocide that’s taking place that you people don’t want to write about.”

Tucker Carlson had spent years on Fox News pushing the claim that white South Africans were being murdered en masse. Trump had apparently been listening. The white genocide claim moved from fringe websites to cable television to the Oval Office.

As a historian who has spent years studying how racial supremacy gets weaponized as policy, I’d say these claims are worth examining carefully. The numbers don’t support the claims.

Over a year in 2023-2024, AfriForum, an Afrikaner civil rights organization, recorded 49 murders of Afrikaners. That’s .2% of the 27,621 murders across the country. As the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria concluded, “The idea of a ‘white genocide’ taking place in South Africa is completely false.”

A useful fiction

White genocide is a contemporary rallying cry for a project that predates it by over a century: keeping English-speaking nations white. The claim persists because it’s useful. Claims of white genocide, partly rooted in the fear that nonwhite populations are growing while white ones are shrinking, has been a far-right organizing concept for decades. But that fear was called “replacement theory” well before that.

Afrikaner lobby groups have successfully embedded their cause within a transnational far-right network, projecting South Africa as a warning for the U.S. and Europe. The Afrikaner myth is supposed to be a warning: white people are already being crushed in South Africa, and the same fate awaits whites everywhere unless something is done.

This has a specific history, one I’ve traced in my latest book, “White Supremacy: A Short History.”

Some English-speaking settler colonies explicitly identified themselves as “white men’s countries.” And in the early 20th century they coordinated immigration restrictions to keep them that way through a succession of acts passed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States between 1901 and 1924.

These were pieces of a linked ideological network, as I trace in the book, with ideas and personnel circulating between countries that understood themselves as outposts of the same white civilization.

Australia passed immigration acts from 1901 onward that largely barred people from East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Pacific Islands. Attorney General Alfred Deakin justified the restrictions to Parliament in 1901 in the name of “the purity of race.”

In that same September 1901 debate, another member of the Australian House warned that Black political power in the United States offered a cautionary lesson: “The black people there have increased to such an extent, and have gained such power, that the jurists and statesmen there pause and look with fear upon them.”

Canada’s Immigration Act of 1910 gave the government authority to exclude “any race deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada,” implementing what historians call the “White Canada” policy. The aim was to limit immigration to “healthy, white, preferably British or American agriculturalists.” By the early 1920s, most nonwhite people were categorically excluded.

New Zealand’s Immigration Restriction Amendment Act of 1920 required entry permits for anyone “not of British or Irish parentage,” establishing what contemporaries called a “white New Zealand” policy.

The United States passed its own Immigration Act in 1924 to preserve what its proponents called an “unadulterated” and “Nordic breed,” restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe and barring most Asians entirely.

A shared fear

South Africa was part of this network. The career of one eugenicist, who promoted the theory that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations, shows how it worked.

Harold Fantham, who lived from 1876 to 1937, was educated in London, taught zoology at Cambridge, then moved to South Africa in 1917. There, he took a leading role in promoting racial immigration restrictions, arguing in the South African Journal of Science in 1924 that the goal was “safeguarding our nation from racial deterioration.”

He praised the U.S.’s 1924 act for barring “idiots, feeble-minded, paupers,” and admired Germany’s compulsory sterilization laws. He became president of the South African Association for the Advancement of Science. Fantham bore his ideas across the English-speaking world, picking up American and German models along the way.

Behind all these restrictions was a shared fear: that growing numbers of nonwhite people would overwhelm white populations. Eugenicists imagined a race to make babies that whites were losing. They believed democracy itself was a liability, because more nonwhite immigrants could mean more nonwhite votes.

Woodrow Wilson, who resegregated the federal civil service after taking office in 1913, agreed. His intellectual framework was plain. As he wrote in The Atlantic in 1889, only “races purged of barbaric passions” could be entrusted with self-governance.

Whiteness as proof of citizenship

The Afrikaner program reactivates this logic. It treats whiteness as a refugee status and frames a former colonial ruling class as victims. It sits alongside a deportation campaign targeting people the president says are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

The countries that coordinated a century ago to build white nations are doing the same work again, with the same tools.

The majority of people suffering violence in South Africa are Black South Africans. They are not invited to the United States as refugees.

And while the Trump administration builds a race-based welcome for white South Africans, it’s also building a race-based enforcement apparatus.

In September 2025, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo that federal agents could use “apparent race or ethnicity” as a factor when stopping people to check their immigration status. Critics call the resulting detentions “Kavanaugh stops,” after Brett Kavanaugh, the justice who wrote the concurrence.

As justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in dissent, “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.”

Whiteness is functioning as a credential on the streets of American cities. And white skin qualifies Afrikaners for expedited entry. Darker skin qualifies you for a stop.

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

– ref. US refugee policy for white South Africans is part of a century-long effort to keep some English-speaking nations white – https://theconversation.com/us-refugee-policy-for-white-south-africans-is-part-of-a-century-long-effort-to-keep-some-english-speaking-nations-white-277171

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

“¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba!”

Meaning “hurry up, let’s go,” the trademark slogan of Speedy Gonzales was, for generations of children, the first Spanish words they learned.

But by the 1980s, ABC had pulled his cartoons due to concerns that his dress, accent and characters like his cousin, Slowpoke Rodriguez, were insensitive toward Mexicans and Mexican Americans. The Cartoon Network followed suit in 1999.

I’ve studied and written about the history of animation, including how characters have been received around the world. Though rooted in a well-intentioned effort at cultural sensitivity, taking Speedy Gonzales off the air was a step too far for many viewers. He was one of the few cartoon characters rooted in Mexican identity, and he’d become a cultural icon across all of Latin America. The ensuing uproar in the wake of his cancellation prompted the Cartoon Network to reinstate the cartoon mouse in 2002.

With Warner Bros. greenlighting a new Speedy Gonzales movie in January 2026, the character’s redemption arc appears complete.

A speedy rise to stardom

“The fastest mouse in all of Mexico” first appeared in the 1953 animated short “Cat-Tails for Two.”

He was redesigned with his iconic yellow sombrero and red kerchief when he starred in his eponymous 1955 film, which won the Oscar for Best Animated Short.

The short film features the general framework for future plots: Speedy helps members of his border community – a place inspired by Ciudad Juarez, just south of El Paso, Texas – evade the conniving Sylvester the Cat.

It opens with a town of starving mice looking longingly at the AJAX cheese factory through a fence establishing an “international border.” They try to determine who will try to outrun Sylvester, the factory’s guard. One of the mice says that his sister is friends with Speedy Gonzales. (Another pipes in that Speedy is friends with everybody’s sister, signaling Speedy as something of a Don Juan.) After they call on Speedy, he uses his speed and smarts to outrun and outwit Sylvester.

The basic premise also appears in a number of cartoons, from Tom and Jerry to Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote: An antagonist is consistently thwarted by a clever protagonist who avoids increasingly complicated traps and attempts at capture.

Speedy Gonzales is unique, though, in that he was the first cartoon star to be from a Latin American country.

In the 1940s, with the European and Asian markets cut off due to World War II, Disney had turned to the Latin American market. The studio produced “Saludos Amigos” in 1942 and “The Three Caballeros” in 1944 to abide by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy, which aimed to leverage diplomacy, trade and cultural exchange to improve relations with Latin America.

Speedy ended up appearing in 45 theatrical shorts. In 1969, Warner Bros. shut down its animation studio, but the character lived on in Saturday morning cartoon anthologies like “The Bugs Bunny Show,” which repackaged older cartoons for younger audiences.

Animation’s racial reckoning

The Cartoon Network pulled Speedy Gonzales from the air at a time when networks and studios were starting to reassess animated characters from earlier eras.

Many early cartoon characters, including Mickey Mouse, had been modeled after blackface minstrel characters. Warner Bros.‘ first star, Bosko, was originally patented as “Negro Boy.”

Since racist tropes were ubiquitous in early-20th-century animation, films and shorts like Disney’s “Dumbo,” “Mickey’s Mellerdrammer” or Warner Bros.’ “All This and Rabbit Stew” were either pulled, edited or updated to feature a content warning.

But after The Cartoon Network pulled Speedy Gonzales from the air in 1999, there was unexpected pushback from the Hispanic American community and the character’s Latin American fans. Groups like League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, declared Speedy a cultural icon and requested that his cartoons return to the air.

Back when Speedy Gonzales was first introduced to audiences, Hollywood had been filming more movies in Mexico and at the U.S.-Mexico border. However, most of these films depicted Latinos as either incompetent or villains.

In this regard, Speedy represented something different. Though the character’s English speech and accent reflected stereotypes – and he was voiced by a white actor, Mel Blanc – the character was ultimately a clever, quick-witted and good-natured protagonist. And the Spanish dubbing of his cartoons in Latin America had removed the stereotypical accent altogether.

Let the people decide

The trajectory of Speedy Gonzales resembles that of another controversial cartoon character: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon from “The Simpsons.”

An Indian immigrant who earned his Ph.D. in computer science in his home country, Apu becomes the manager of a convenience store in the U.S.

Some critics viewed Apu’s depiction as problematic; voiced by a white actor, Hank Azaria, Apu’s exaggerated Indian-American accent and catchphrase – “Thank you, come again” – was routinely mimicked and mocked by viewers of the show. Others, however, saw Apu as the embodiment of the American Dream: He was intelligent, hardworking and morally grounded.

Cultural theorists like Jacques Derrida and Stuart Hall have written about the complexities of how audiences understand – and either resist or embrace – what they read and watch. They ultimately argue that viewers and readers often interpret media however they see fit, regardless of the creators’ intent. For example, many minority groups who are underrepresented or misrepresented in popular culture will nonetheless find their own meaning and inspiration in characters, even if those characters weren’t supposed to represent those groups in the first place.

This happened with “The Goofy Movie.” Some audiences went on to describe the 1995 film as Disney’s first “Black” animated feature, despite the fact that the characters’ race is never mentioned. There were hints, of course: Black R&B singer Tevin Campbell played the movie’s fictional pop star, Powerline, and the themes of fatherhood and generational tensions eerily echo those in the play “Fences,” written by Black playwright August Wilson.

Of course, in the case of a character like Speedy Gonzales, depictions can become more nuanced as cultural norms and sensitivities change. Jorge R. Gutiérrez is set to direct the animated feature. If his work on films like “The Book of Life” is any indication, he’ll be well-equipped to bring cultural awareness to the animated feature – even if Speedy continues to sport his big, floppy sombrero.

Jared Bahir Browsh 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. ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! Speedy Gonzales set to make his triumphant return to the silver screen – https://theconversation.com/andale-arriba-speedy-gonzales-set-to-make-his-triumphant-return-to-the-silver-screen-278753

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Matthew Cordes, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Arizona

Spiders are among Earth’s most resourceful predators, nabbing prey by any means necessary. Orb weavers spin webs for capture. Wolf spiders ambush on the ground at night. Almost all spiders use venom when they hunt.

But each spider’s venom is a cocktail of ingredients as varied as their hunting behavior. Some venom ingredients can harm people, while others do not. As a result, only a few spiders threaten human health, while most are harmless and even beneficial for pest control.

In the United States, spiders that are dangerous to people include the brown recluse, which carries a necrotic toxin that destroys tissue, and the black widow, which has a special neurotoxin that damages nerve cells.

But how do these toxins work? My laboratory, in collaboration with my colleague Greta Binford, has been studying venom toxins for over two decades. In newly published research led by my former student Alexandra Sundman, we captured the structure of the recluse toxin made by the six-eyed sand spider, a relative of the brown recluse that is found in Chile. Our findings provide new clues for developing new treatments for spider bites.

Mowing down the cell’s surface

The toxin in recluse venom is an enzyme, which is a protein that makes certain chemical reactions go faster.

The recluse toxin binds to the surface of cells and scoots along it like a lawn mower, clipping the heads off molecules on this surface. While working in my lab, my former student Dan Lajoie discovered that the toxin transforms these surface molecules into unusual ring structures. When the immune system attacks these damaged and fragile cells, it can lead to widespread tissue death called necrosis.

For reasons researchers still don’t understand, these toxins cause necrosis in humans but seem to primarily affect the nerve cells of insect prey. Both effects probably result from damaged or rearranged cell membranes.

To better understand how spider venom damages cells, my team and I crystallized and took X-rays of a toxin from a Chilean six-eyed sand spider as it binds to target molecules found in cell membranes. We were amazed to behold a structure that reveals how the toxin binds to cell surfaces. Clearly visible in the mouth of the enzyme were the cell surface molecules, positioned in a way that showed how the enzyme cuts the head off and turns it into a ring.

When we compared the structure of the toxin when it’s bound to its target molecules to its structure when it is not, we saw changes that suggest it gets activated when it binds to cell surfaces. That is, it begins to damage cells once it attaches to their surface.

Uncovering the recluse

True to their name, recluses tend to reside in dark, covered places such as woodpiles, closets and pillowcases, and they may accidentally come into contact with people. They are not aggressive, but they do bite when threatened. The most common symptom is a serious skin wound that may require grafts, but the toxin may also damage red blood cells and cause life-threatening kidney failure.

Recluse spider lesions can be misdiagnosed due to their similarity to sores from bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus. There are no approved treatments in the U.S., though antivenoms are available in South America.

Our hope is that this work can guide scientists in developing new ways to treat spider bites and block the effect of their toxins, by either interfering with their ability to bind to the surface of cells or to chemically alter them.

Matthew Cordes has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Bio5 Institute.

– ref. How does spider venom damage human cells? Researchers uncover the killer mechanism of recluse spider toxin – https://theconversation.com/how-does-spider-venom-damage-human-cells-researchers-uncover-the-killer-mechanism-of-recluse-spider-toxin-279903

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Aya S. Chacar, Professor of International Business, Florida International University

The global energy crisis caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is only the beginning of the economic cost of the war with Iran.

I study how institutions affect businesses and supply chains, and I expect food prices to rise next, with high prices lasting even after whatever point hostilities end.

Along with about 20% of the world’s crude oil trade and a similar share of the world’s liquefied natural gas shipments, shipping traffic through the strait also carries roughly a third of internationally traded fertilizer, which is key to bountiful crops around the world.

Modern agriculture depends on precise timing of delivering nutrients to plants. When fertilizer arrives late or becomes too expensive to buy in sufficient quantities, farmers are left to either reduce the amount they use, plant fewer crops or switch to crops that need less fertilizer. Each option reduces overall productivity, cutting supplies of basic foods, feed for livestock and key ingredients used in a wide range of food products.

Ultimately, with corn prices rising, summer barbecues may taste a bit different or cost more. Corn on the cob may not be cheap, nor will corn-fed beef. In addition, many store-bought condiments, soft drinks and other food products are made with high-fructose corn syrup and will also cost more.

3 main crops, 3 nutrients needed

Three staple crops – corn, wheat and rice – supply more than half of the world’s dietary calories.

To maximize production, those crops need three main nutrients: nitrogen, phosphate and potassium. Nitrogen helps plants grow. Phosphorus helps transport energy within plant cells and is critical for early root growth and the formation of seeds and fruit. Potassium helps plants conserve water and boosts protein content.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has reduced the supply and increased the cost of all three.

Natural gas, which determines 70% to 90% of the cost of producing nitrogen fertilizer, has seen a 20% drop in production due to the war and price increases up to 70%. To preserve its own supplies, Russia has suspended exports of ammonium nitrate, another nitrogen source for fertilizer.

In a similar effort, China, the world’s largest phosphate producer, has blocked phosphate exports, removing 25% of the global supply.

Potash, the potassium-rich component of fertilizers, has also been in short supply in recent years, in part because of economic sanctions on Belarus and Russia, which are major potash producers.

As a consequence, fertilizer prices have risen globally. In the U.S., some fertilizers rose more than 40% in just one month after the war’s start in late February 2026.

Affecting farmers first

Cereal plants absorb the vast majority of their nitrogen needs during their early growth. Applying fertilizer later in the growth cycle is less effective.

Reducing nitrogen application by 10% to 15%, or delaying application by two to four weeks, can reduce corn yields by 10% to 25%.

Producing less corn and wheat reduces not only food available for humans but also food for livestock. Increased fertilizer costs and reduced grain supplies increase the price of raising livestock, making meat and animal products more expensive.

When feed costs become unsustainable, farmers may be forced to kill or sell off the breeding cows and sows that represent the future of the food supply. In the U.S., a combination of persistent drought and high costs in 2022 forced producers to kill 13.3% of the national beef cow herd, the highest proportion ever. As a result, the U.S. beef cattle inventory shrank to its lowest level since 1962, a problem that restricts beef supplies for years.

Ultimately, the costs are passed to consumers. In 2012, when a historic Midwest drought slashed corn yields by 13%, it triggered a surge in feed prices, and U.S. poultry prices rose 20%.

More money can’t fix this problem

In mid-March 2026, the U.S. fertilizer supply was around 75% of normal levels. That’s right at the beginning of the time when Corn Belt farmers typically prepare their soil for planting, including the first applications of fertilizer. Subsequent fertilizer applications typically come from mid-April to early May and between late May and mid-June.

Farmers who fear not being able to optimize their corn yields may decide to plant less corn or switch crops and plant soybeans, which need less fertilizer. Either would reduce the corn supply.

Government loan guarantees and aid packages may help farmers cover higher costs, but they cannot address timing if enough fertilizer simply isn’t available when it is needed.

Hitting home

American consumers aren’t facing the gas and food shortages or power outages other countries are seeing from the war, but they will be hit in the pocketbook. U.S. prices for gas and jet fuel are already climbing. The effects on the food supply take longer to appear, but they are coming.

Even when crops are bountiful in the U.S., consumers are not immune to global economic forces. A smaller 2026 crop, with rising demand for livestock feed in some of the most populous countries, including China and India, will put pressure on global corn prices, affecting everyone regardless of their nationality.

In March 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture used data from before the Iran war to project a 3.1% average increase for all food prices.

The question for consumers is how much of the rise in corn prices will be passed to the consumer, and how fast.

USDA research shows that the speed and extent of changes in food prices vary widely by food category and the level of processing involved in making the food. Other factors also play a role, such as inventory levels, perishability and market competition. When farm prices change, wholesale prices usually adjust within the first month, but retail prices often take longer – sometimes two to four months.

Corn tortillas and other relatively lightly processed corn foods are more likely to show price responses within a few months after corn prices increase. Adjustments to cereals or poultry prices will take a little longer. Changes in the cost of livestock products such as beef will take longer, because there are more steps between the purchase of feed corn and the sale of the meat to consumers.

Other indirect costs, related to the cost of fuel and packaging, tend to hit later. Producers often absorb the price increases in the short term, but some increases are already in the works. For instance, transport companies are adding fuel surcharges on freight shipments.

Food price hikes hit low-income households harder than high-income households, because people with lower incomes spend larger shares of their money on food and housing. For these households, even relatively affordable proteins, such as chicken, may become harder to purchase regularly.

A global food emergency

The cost and availability of fertilizer will affect the whole world. More than 300 million people worldwide already do not have enough food. The U.N. World Food Program predicts an additional 45 million could join them by the end of 2026 if the conflict in the Middle East continues into the middle of the year.

Crop yields in India and Brazil in 2026 are expected to be lower than normal. East African farmers
struggled to afford fertilizer even before the crisis and will likely have to make do with even less.

These problems may seem removed for most Americans, but food prices are global in nature, and people in the U.S. will soon face these additional costs of the war.

Aya S. Chacar 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. Hormuz closure threatens the global food supply – why grocery price hikes are coming – https://theconversation.com/hormuz-closure-threatens-the-global-food-supply-why-grocery-price-hikes-are-coming-279899

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Sharlette A. Kellum, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Texas Southern University

When I checked my 10-year-old daughter’s TikTok messages in early February 2026, I expected to find the usual mix of dance challenges, school jokes and anime clips. Instead, I saw a stranger ask her, “Do you like children?” She responded to the stranger: “I’m not a MAP.”

I had never heard the term before. When I asked her what “MAP” meant, she simply answered that it stands for minor-attracted person. In that moment, I realized something unsettling but important: Children are encountering coded language online long before many parents even know it exists.

Why I’m writing about this

In my broader research on online harms to children and teens, I examine how the design and governance of websites and apps influence real‑world safety outcomes.

My forthcoming research explores how social media platforms, messaging apps and gaming communities succeed and fail at protecting young people from grooming attempts, unwanted contact and other forms of online exploitation.

That’s why my daughter’s response stopped me cold.

Despite months of research on how major digital platforms like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube shape online safety, I had never encountered the term MAP. However, after only two months of chatting on TikTok, she had.

The terms parents should know

MAP is a term that appears in some academic literature related to child protection policy and sexual exploitation prevention, and in online spaces such as forums, Reddit communities and niche social media groups. But it remains unfamiliar to many parents and caregivers.

Fact-checking organizations like Snopes have addressed the term MAP repeatedly because of how often it surfaces without explanation.

MAP exists within a wider ecosystem of euphemisms and coded references. Being able to recognize these terms early can help parents identify potentially dangerous interactions and understand when someone online may be attempting to mask harmful intent. Awareness of this language gives adults a clearer sense of when to step in and support their children’s safety on social media.

Parents and their children may see or hear these terms on popular apps and sites like TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Discord and Reddit. These terms include:

• NOMAP/Non-offending MAP and Anti contact MAP: Labels used by people who identify as minor attracted and claim they do not act on their attraction to children but still seek legitimacy or community.

• 764, or 7 6 4: A numerical code used in certain forums, including niche Reddit threads and specialized message boards, to signal attraction to minors without using explicit language.

• Age of Attraction, or AOA: A term used by MAPs to relay their age preference – typically starting at 11 years old.

• Adult-Minor Sexual Contact, or AMSC: A term used by people who believe children should have sexual autonomy and can decide whether they want to engage in sexual activity with an adult – a position widely rejected by child protection experts.

• Adult Friend and Young Friend, or AF/YF: Identifies people that are in MAP relationships.

Why kids encounter this language first

Children and teens spend substantial amounts of time online. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that roughly 1 in 5 U.S. teens say they are on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube almost constantly, with YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat among the most widely used platforms.

Young people are remarkably good at picking up meaning from context. They notice tone, repetition and how others react. They may not fully understand where a term came from, but they understand how it functions socially, meaning what it signals, when it’s a joke and when it’s a warning.

Journalists and linguists describe this phenomenon as algospeak: language shaped by algorithmic moderation rather than clarity or transparency.

Adults, by contrast, often encounter these terms only after something alarming happens. By then, the language may already feel normalized to kids.

How harmful interactions slip past moderation

Most major social media platforms rely heavily on automated moderation systems. These systems are effective at catching explicit words or previously flagged phrases.

Research and reporting show that when moderation falls behind evolving terminology, harmful interactions – especially those involving adults initiating contact with children or teens – often follow a predictable progression:

The first step includes people using euphemisms instead of explicit terms. “MAP” is less likely to trigger moderation or be flagged for removal than the word “pedophile” it often replaces.

People also often use numbers or emojis to communicate their meaning indirectly. Codes like “764” or certain emoji combinations can signal meaning without using recognizable words.

Some people embed terms in memes, jokes or ironic commentary. This makes harmful language appear harmless or funny.

Other people use aesthetic camouflage, meaning anime avatars, pastel color schemes or cute usernames to appear harmless or youth-friendly.

Adults may also move conversations to private messages. Initial contact often happens in public comments, but the real conversation shifts to private direct messages, or DMs.

Finally, another warning sign is when people online create backup accounts. When one account is flagged, another appears quickly.

Proactive parental education

Most online safety advice is reactive: Adults are encouraged to respond after a term appears or after a child feels uncomfortable.

Research increasingly shows that effective protection often begins earlier, with parents helping children understand how digital environments work. Studies on youth digital literacy suggest that children benefit from understanding that algorithms reward attention, repetition and engagement rather than safety.

Knowing that the app thinks you like something if you stop and watch it helps young users see content as something pushed toward them, not something they sought out.

Some families introduce general conversations about coded language early during late elementary or early middle school. Discussing why people use euphemisms online prepares children to pause and ask questions when unfamiliar terms appear. Research on parental mediation also finds that rehearsed responses help children disengage from uncomfortable interactions. Simple scripts such as “I don’t want to talk about that,” “I’m blocking you” or “I’m logging off now” can help reduce hesitation.

Parents spending time with their kids as they interact with others on apps and websites – not to police them but to interpret what they are seeing – can also help children and teens learn how to analyze digital behavior the same way they analyze peer pressure offline.

Studies also show that children and teens who understand they don’t owe strangers politeness, personal details or continued conversation are less vulnerable to manipulation.

Awareness, not alarm, is a powerful tool for families navigating online spaces where harmful language and intent are often hidden in plain sight. When adults stay engaged and proactive, children are better equipped to recognize when something feels wrong and to talk about it with the people they trust.

Sharlette A. Kellum 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. Teenagers and younger kids are learning coded predator phrases like ‘MAP’ online, long before their parents have even heard of it – https://theconversation.com/teenagers-and-younger-kids-are-learning-coded-predator-phrases-like-map-online-long-before-their-parents-have-even-heard-of-it-277460

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Annette Nellen, Professor of Tax and Accounting, San José State University

About 1 in 10 American workers are earning a living as a gig worker. That means they find their customers through Lyft, DoorDash, TaskRabbit and other digital platforms, or do another form of what the IRS and others call “on-demand work.”

As a certified public accountant, attorney and tax professor, I study how new tax rules affect businesses and individuals, as well as the complexities that narrowly tailored tax breaks that apply to only certain groups of taxpayers bring about.

The big tax reform package that President Donald Trump signed into law in July 2025 included two changes that affect many gig workers. One is a new tax break on money that workers earn through tips, whether they are self-employed or work as an employee. The other is a change to the rules guiding the information that gig workers and the IRS must receive about how much workers earn from platforms like Uber.

Maximum deduction is $25,000

Trump promised a new tax deduction for tips during his 2024 presidential campaign. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, his opponent, echoed that pledge, but she paired it with a pledge to double the federal minimum wage to US$15 an hour.

This new deduction allows up to $25,000 in tip income to be subtracted from a worker’s taxable income during the 2025, 2026, 2027 and 2028 tax years. The new tax break can provide significant savings for some employees and self-employed people.

The savings will vary widely depending on income.

For example, a tipped worker in the 24% tax bracket eligible for the maximum $25,000 tip deduction would save $6,000 on their yearly tax bill. People who earn less and are in a lower tax bracket, and who earn less in tips than the maximum deduction allowed, would not save as much.

An example of that would be a tipped worker in a 12% tax bracket who earns $7,000 through tips. They would save only $840 on their taxes after deducting their tip income. But this is a savings other workers who earn the same amount of income – but without any of it in tips – will not receive.

The new tax break is computed and reported on a new federal form, Schedule 1-A, Additional Deductions.

House Republicans estimate that this tax break will, on average, save tipped workers $1,300 a year.

Rules and regulations

As with all tax breaks, there are lots of rules in place that can determine if someone is eligible for a deduction, and if so, how big.

Only restaurant servers, barbers, house cleaners, babysitters and other workers in occupations where tips are customary are eligible for the tip-related tax break. As required by Congress, the IRS created a list of traditionally tipped occupations. It includes rideshare drivers, pet sitters and several others.

Customers must have voluntarily paid all tax-deductible tips.

That means if a gig worker or their employer computes a tip amount and requires customers to pay it, that tip isn’t tax-deductible. Also, the tip must be paid in cash or by credit, debit or gift card.

Tips paid with cryptocurrency, lottery tickets or any other form of property don’t generate a tip deduction.

Tips must be reported to the workers and IRS

Self-employed people will need to confirm they received a 1099 form and that their tip income is included in the total income shown on that form. For 2025, they will need to use their own records to determine how much tip income they earned, only counting tips that customers voluntarily paid. Gig workers should be able to find this detail in the records the platform company keeps in the worker’s online account.

Gig workers who find customers through online platforms usually receive a Form 1099-K from those companies, which shows the total amount charged to all customers – including tips – before the platform company’s fee is subtracted.

For 2025, employers and platforms that issue 1099 forms to gig workers do not have to separately show the tip income on the 1099 forms. But they will need to do so in 2026, 2027 and 2028.

An exception to the new rule

Self-employed workers need to be aware of a restriction on the new no-tax-on-tips rule: You can’t deduct so much in tips from your taxable income that it results in a loss for your business.

Many self-employed people do earn enough income to get the $25,000 maximum tip deduction, assuming they have at least $25,000 of qualified tip income. But others with high expenses relative to what they earn may not be able to deduct all of their tip income.

Another restriction that some tip earners may soon face is that they can’t earn tips in what Congress calls a “specified service trade or business,” such as performing arts or a business where the reputation or skill of the owner is a significant aspect of the business.

For example, a self-employed pianist who gets tips when they play at a bar still has to pay tax on their tips as was required for everyone prior to 2025 – no tip deduction.

The IRS plans to issue more details on this restriction in 2026, but in the meantime, it can be ignored for 2025, and that hypothetical pianist can deduct the tips they earned in 2025 up to $25,000.

Here are three more caveats:

Only workers who have Social Security numbers can deduct tips from their taxable income.

Married workers must file as married filing jointly, rather than separately.

Finally, single people with incomes over $150,000 and married couples earning more than $300,000 will see their tip income deduction phase down.

New reporting thresholds

Gig workers are also affected by another change in the tax and spending package of 2025.

As noted earlier, Form 1099-K is the typical reporting form gig workers receive from platforms that handle the collection of payments from customers and transfer the worker’s share to them. As of 2025, the gig work company only needs to issue the form to the worker and to the IRS if they processed payments for the worker that exceeded $20,000 and involved more than 200 transactions.

Before 2025, these companies, as well as payment systems like Venmo and PayPal, were required to issue the 1099-K form if over $600 of payments were processed for the sale of goods and services, regardless of how many transactions occurred.

A few states set the thresholds for issuing a 1099-K form below what the federal government mandates. For example, workers making at least $600 through a platform in Maryland and Virginia must be issued a 1099-K.

Uber, Lyft and other platforms can voluntarily issue a Form 1099-K that has a total of the income the worker earned that’s below the filing threshold. Because a tip income deduction is only allowed if the tips are reported on a 1099 form, it is likely that platform companies will issue the forms to all gig workers who found work through them so the workers can claim the tip deduction.

What’s staying the same

To be sure, some things have not changed for gig workers. Because they are self-employed, they can deduct what they spend on their businesses, such as software subscriptions and travel, to lower their taxable income – reducing what they spend on taxes.

But unlike employees who pay income taxes throughout the year through payments their employers withhold from every paycheck to cover their federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes, self-employed Americans must compute and make quarterly estimated tax payments.

Also, self-employed workers can still claim a deduction for the miles they drive for work, which rose from 70 cents per mile in 2025 to 72.5 cents in 2026. Additional tax deductions for the self-employed include any insurance needed to cover their business, and some retirement plan options.

Many gig workers will find that their state income tax bills mostly stay the same. That’s because some states, such as California and Massachusetts, don’t allow the deduction of income from tips on state income tax returns.

Like most tax breaks, the new deduction for tips can be more complicated than you might expect, particularly for self-employed people. But the IRS does offer some resources that can help gig workers, and others eligible to claim it, compute what they can or can’t deduct from their taxable income – at least until tax rules change again.

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

– ref. What gig workers and employees who get tips need to know about the new no-tax-on-tips tax break – https://theconversation.com/what-gig-workers-and-employees-who-get-tips-need-to-know-about-the-new-no-tax-on-tips-tax-break-276824

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Paul Sanchez Ruiz, Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship, Iowa State University

Entrepreneurs displaying narcissistic behavior are better able to convince investors to give them money when their grandiosity comes across as confidence as opposed to defensiveness or arrogance.

That’s what we learned from watching 12 seasons of the popular reality TV show “Shark Tank” to better understand how an entrepreneur’s psychological profile affects their ability to secure funding.

My research focuses on how entrepreneurs respond to challenges, including how personality affects their work. My colleagues and I based our study off the concept that there are two distinct “flavors” of narcissism: narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry.

Narcissistic admiration means wanting others to like you and think highly of you, while its more contentious counterpart, narcissistic rivalry, refers to putting others down to feel better about yourself.

Our research, published in Organization Science last year, analyzed 789 pitches featured on “Shark Tank.” For each pitch in our sample, professional psychologists used a validated psychometric scale to score the founder-CEO’s admiration and rivalry behaviors. We then measured investors’ immediate reactions by analyzing the emotional tone of their response – how positive or negative their language was – and linked that sentiment to funding outcomes.

Narcissism was then measured for each CEO using our coding approach, producing continuous scores that range from lower to higher levels of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Our analyses leverage this variation, particularly higher levels, but the sample itself was not constructed based on narcissism.

We concluded that founders who displayed narcissistic admiration were more likely to secure funding.

For example, in a pitch, it’s the charming founder weaving a compelling story about the company (“Let me impress you”) and the future (“I can lead us there”).

Meanwhile, founders displaying narcissistic rivalry were less likely to nail down a deal, even if their business plan was solid. Their defensive style can look like arrogance or hostility. In pitches we reviewed, this was the founder who bristled at questions (“Don’t challenge me”) or talked down to the investor.

In other words: Not all “confidence” plays the same in the pitch room.

Why it matters

Narcissism is common among leaders in executive roles, and it’s often treated as either a secret advantage or a dangerous flaw. Our findings suggest the more useful question is: Which version shows up when the pressure is on?

“Shark Tank” offers a rare window into the inner workings of early-stage investing. Entrepreneurs make short pitches to experienced investors, who weigh market trends and financial projections that may be only educated guesses. The products are sometimes still in the prototype stage.

The investors, or “sharks,” must rely on quick interpersonal cues about the founder, and the pitch itself captures the interaction they are reacting to in the moment. Then there is an observable outcome: deal or no deal, and the amount invested.

For entrepreneurs, confidence and bold vision can be assets, but only when paired with openness and composure. Investors seem to respond well to founders who can sell a big idea without turning challenging questions into showdowns.

And this isn’t just about reality television. Venture capital meetings, accelerator demo days and even corporate board presentations often hinge on short, high-stakes interactions where impressions of the leader quickly become impressions of the venture.

What’s next

Going forward, we want to test whether the same dynamics hold in less public settings, such as private venture capital meetings where the camera isn’t running.

We also want to understand whether rivalry-based behavior is ever rewarded (for example, in highly adversarial negotiations), and whether different investors interpret the same behavior differently.

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

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

– ref. What I learned from analyzing 789 ‘Shark Tank’ pitches: Narcissists get funding if they’re not arrogant or defensive – https://theconversation.com/what-i-learned-from-analyzing-789-shark-tank-pitches-narcissists-get-funding-if-theyre-not-arrogant-or-defensive-276803

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Samuel Perry, Associate Professor of Rhetoric, Baylor University

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s conservative evangelical religious beliefs drew attention even before his confirmation hearings in January 2025. He is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – CREC – whose beliefs have been influenced by a 20th-century movement called Christian Reconstructionism.

Many CREC leaders call for the implementation of biblical law and a theocratic state structured on Christian patriarchy. Theocratic states are ruled according to religious laws, which in the case of the CREC means a conservative evangelical understanding of Christianity.

The CREC website claims to have over 160 churches and parishes spread across North America, Europe, Asia and South America.

Hegseth’s use of religious language and prayers has raised questions about his religious beliefs in relation to his role as secretary of defense. At a prayer service on March 25, 2026, during the current war in Iran, Hegseth said, “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.” He went on to add: “Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

As a scholar of the Christian right, I have studied the CREC. To understand Hegseth’s rhetoric, it is helpful to understand what the CREC is and its controversial leadership.

What is the CREC?

The CREC church is a network of churches across the globe. It is associated with the congregation of Doug Wilson, the pastor who founded Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Christ Church is the flagship church of the CREC and operates as a denominational headquarters. Wilson grew up in the town, where his father was an evangelical minister.

Wilson co-founded the CREC in 1993 and is the public figure most associated with the network of churches. Christ Church operates as the hub for Logos Schools, Canon Press and New Saint Andrews College, all located in Moscow.

Logos is a set of private schools and homeschooling curriculum; Canon Press is a publishing house and media company; and New Saint Andrews College is a university. All of these were founded by Wilson and associated with Christ Church. All espouse the view that Christians are at odds with – or at war with – secular society.

While he is not Hegseth’s pastor, Wilson is the most influential voice in the CREC, and the two men have spoken approvingly of one another.

Hegseth invited Wilson to give a prayer service at the Pentagon in February 2026. Wilson told the assembled military members, “If you bear the name of Jesus Christ, there is no armor greater than that. Not only so, but all the devil’s R&D teams have not come up with armor-piercing anything.” In other words, Wilson tied the success and safety of military members and their missions to a belief in Jesus Christ and the military’s enemies as agents of the devil.

As Wilson steadily grew Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, he and its members sought to spread their message by making Moscow a conservative town and establishing churches beyond it. Of his hometown, Wilson plainly states, “Our desire is to make Moscow a Christian town.”

The CREC doctrine is opposed to religious pluralism or political points of view that diverge from its theology. On its website, the CREC says it is “committed to maintaining its Reformed faith, avoiding the pitfalls of cultural relevance and political compromise that destroys our doctrinal integrity.”

CREC churches adhere to a highly patriarchal and conservative interpretation of Scripture. Wilson has said that in a sexual relationship, “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

Church-state separation

In a broader political sense, CREC theology includes the belief that the establishment clause of the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The most common reading of the establishment clause is that freedom of religion prohibits the installation of a state religion or religious tests to hold state office.

According to scholar of religion Julie Ingersoll, in this religious community there is “no distinction between religious issues and political ones.”

The CREC broadly asserts that the government and anyone serving in it should be Christian. For Wilson, this means Christians and only Christians are qualified to hold political office in the United States.

‘Church planting’

Scholar of religion Matthew Taylor explained in an interview with the Nashville Tennessean, “They believe the church is supposed to be militant in the world, is supposed to be reforming the world, and in some ways conquering the world.”

While the CREC may not have the name recognition of some large evangelical denominations or the visibility of some megachurches, it boasts churches across the United States and internationally.

Like some other evangelical denominations, the CREC uses “church planting” to grow its network. Planted churches do not require a centralized governing body to ordain their founding. Instead, those interested in starting a CREC congregation contact the CREC. The CREC then provides materials and literature for people to use in their church.

CREC controversies

As the church network has grown, it has drawn attention and scrutiny. In 1996, Wilson published a book positively depicting slavery and claiming slavery cultivated “affection among the races.”

Accusations of sexual abuse and the church’s handling of it have also brought national news coverage. Vice media’s Sarah Stankorb interviewed many women who talked about a culture, especially in marriage, where sexual abuse and assault was common. That reporting led to a podcast that details the accounts of survivors. In interviews, Wilson has denied any wrongdoing and said that claims of sexual abuse would be directed to the proper authorities.

Hegseth’s actions in May and June of 2025 as secretary of defense concerning gender identity and banning trans people from serving in the military, in addition to stripping gay activist and politician Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, brought more attention to the CREC.

Hegseth’s religious rhetoric

As the Trump administration engages in military conflicts around the globe, Hegseth often uses religious language to justify them.

In a March 5, 2026, speech to South American and Central American leaders, Hegseth justified intervention in Venezuela, the blockade of Cuba and the attacks on boats across the region by invoking a shared Christian identity.

Hegseth said, “We share the same interests, and, because of this, we face an essential test – whether our nations will be and remain Western nations with distinct characteristics, Christian nations under God, proud of our shared heritage with strong borders and prosperous people, ruled not by violence and chaos but by law, order, and common sense.”

Hegseth’s comments about Iran since bombing began on Feb. 28 have also invoked religion. Some of these invocations align with Hegseth’s recurring references to the Crusades in the Middle Ages – a centuries-long holy war between Christians and Muslims. Hegseth has a tattoo that says “Deus Vult” – “God wills it” – the rallying cry of Crusaders, another with the Arabic word for infidel, and the Jerusalem cross, a prominent Christian nationalist symbol. He also published a book titled “American Crusade.”

In framing the use of overwhelming force in Iran, Hegseth said, “We’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon.”

As long as Hegseth remains the secretary of defense, his affiliation with the CREC and religious language will likely provide insight into how these conflicts are managed at home and abroad.

This is an updated version of a piece first published on June 20, 2025.

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

– ref. What is CREC and how does it shape Pete Hegseth’s religious rhetoric? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-crec-and-how-does-it-shape-pete-hegseths-religious-rhetoric-279637

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Derek Arnold, Instructor in Communication, Villanova University

How conspiracies spread has changed immensely over the history of the United States, as technology and media have evolved. But the nature of conspiracies has not.

I teach communications courses at Villanova University, 12 miles from Philadelphia, on how conspiracy theories are created and disseminated.

As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, I have been thinking about the early history of Philadelphia and the controversial people, stories and ideas, including conspiracies, that permeated the city during the second half of the 1700s.

Conspiracy theories describe alternative versions of events – such as the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001 – that contrast with the official, accepted versions of events. Conspiracies, however, involve small groups of people who act in secret for their own gain and against the common good. Examples of conspiracies include the Watergate scandal by President Richard Nixon and members of his administration, or the Tuskegee experiments in which U.S. public health professionals treated unsuspecting African Americans with syphilis with a placebo.

Colonial America was rife with perceived conspiratorial agendas. Many of these stemmed from the uneasy coexistence of political parties with religion – which was newly protected by the First Amendment – and with the Catholic Church in particular.

Freemasons in the cradle of liberty

Philadelphia was the country’s political center during the American Revolution, which began in 1775.

After the war ended in American victory in 1781, Philadelphia served as the capital of the U.S. beginning in 1790, until Washington, D.C., was chosen as America’s permanent capital in 1800.

During this period, the U.S. depended on contributions from its political and civic figures to develop future leaders with skills and intelligence. Among this group and some of the country’s leaders were Freemasons, the independent “brethren” of skilled stonemasons.

In England, landowners or even royalty owned many masons, but some masons were self-sufficient and enjoyed their freedom to work as they wished. When they made their way to America by the 1720s, their high standards of workmanship, fair trade and reason as they taught their craft made them influential in society.

Being a Freemason was a mark of sophistication. Freemasons were high-status, wealthy men. The fraternity provided a forum for networking – not just for stone shapers but other men who were successful in business, trade or even Colonial administration.

By the late 1740s, almost all of Philadelphia’s Freemasons were also merchants, shipowners or successful artisans. They were considered political, intellectual and creative leaders in Colonial Philadelphia.

Freemasons built notable structures throughout the Philadelphia and southern New Jersey areas as well as in New York, Boston and other parts of New England.

But because the group’s rituals and oaths were shielded from public view and performed in clandestine sessions in Masonic temples, rumors spread about their activities. Some people believed Freemasons secretly conspired against American values – especially religion.

Freemasons believed in principles such as rationalism, which views science and logic – rather than sensory experiences – as the foundations of knowledge. Freemasons also held that everything in the universe is the result of natural causes rather than the supernatural or divine.

They treated all religions equally. They allowed participation in them but believed no faith was to be favored as possessing the one true God. This was in contrast with religions that argued their doctrine exclusively expressed the truth. In 1738, Pope Clement XII banned Freemasons from joining the Catholic Church, a prohibition that still exists today.

The ‘godless’ Illuminati

“Another “secret society” also peaked at this time in various parts of Europe, and it drew suspicion among Americans that members exerted influence over the new nation.

Members of the Illuminati, a movement that started in Germany in 1776, promoted Enlightenment values and ideas, including logic, secularism and education. Like Freemasons, they rejected superstition. Unlike Freemasons, however, they also rejected religion and its influence on society.

Europe mostly outlawed the movement before 1790 due to the group’s attempts to greatly lessen religious influence. The Illuminati occupied key roles in the educational system and government of Bavaria, where they weakened clerical authority.

The normally secretive Illuminati attracted attention through their attempts to attend and participate within Masonic temples. They used Freemason ideas along with their own ideas to recruit followers through these networks, hoping to promote an even stronger “one-world” government led by reason instead of religion and spiritualism.

As a result, religious – and specifically Catholic – leaders suspected an association between the philosophically consistent Illuminati and Freemasons.

In a letter to George Washington in 1798, Rev. G. W. Snyder from Maryland attempted to awaken Washington to the danger of the Illuminati and their influence on Freemasons. He wrote about a recently published book by the Scottish physicist John Robison called “Proofs of a Conspiracy” that, according to Snyder, “gives a full Account of a Society of Freemasons, that distinguishes itself by the name ‘of Illuminati,’ whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural; and who endeavour to eradicate every Idea of a Supreme Being.”

Even today, conspiracy theories still promote the Illuminati’s existence, even after they were formally outlawed in Europe. Such theories suggest the Illuminati still work to degrade religious influence through civil upheaval. A myth survives that the Illuminati still operate secretly, support a world government and guide various governments on how to economically control the world.

But the Illuminati in the late 1700s seemed to dovetail with what people assumed were the basic ideas and agenda of Freemasons in America. Some in America suspected without obvious evidence that Freemasons used their status to boost fellow Freemasons to various governmental positions. They worried this would drive America to become godless, or even Satanic.

Concerns about the influence of Freemasons persisted in part because American presidents Washington and James Monroe were Freemasons. The American public was suspicious that these members reached high levels of government due to the influence of Freemasons. In fact, as many as 25 of the 55 men who attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were Freemasons. Founding father Benjamin Franklin was a devout Freemason for over 50 years. Thomas Jefferson was widely thought to be a Freemason, though there is little evidence to support this.

Many of these American leaders, including Franklin, John Adams and Jefferson, had spent time in Europe, especially France, during the late 1700s. Americans feared that European Illuminati members could directly access these political leaders and gain power and influence over the U.S. None of the leaders admitted to having any connection with the Illuminati.

Conspiracy fears climax

Fears around the Freemasons and Illuminati came to a head in the dramatic and vitriolic U.S. presidential elections of 1796 and 1800.

In the 1796 election, Jefferson’s Republican Party accused Adams of wanting to be a king and also grooming his son, John Quincy Adams, to become president immediately after his father.

Adams’ Federalist Party and an anonymous writer in newspapers – suspected to be Alexander Hamilton writing under the pseudonym “Phocion” – spread rumors attacking Jefferson. Phocion suggested that while Jefferson was U.S. secretary of state in France during Washington’s presidency, the Illuminati influenced him in ways that would cause him to turn his back on religion.

Phocion also accused Jefferson of fathering children with an enslaved woman, Sally Hemings, whom he “kept as a concubine” when he returned with her from France in 1789. Historians believe Jefferson did, in fact, have up to six children with Hemings. The accusations also said Jefferson would free all enslaved people in America if elected.

Adams won in 1796 by just three electoral votes, but Jefferson defeated him in 1800.

Freemasons today

Freemasons today have largely shrunk from their once quite prestigious influence in American society. Today they are a mostly philanthropic organization that supports many causes, such as children’s hospitals, homes for the aged and community services.

There are about 1 million members in America, according to an estimate from 2020. That’s down from a high of over 4 million in 1959.

Relics of the era

Visitors to Philadelphia might consider two stops where they can be reminded of the conspiracy theories that circulated 250 years ago.

A marker at 175 Front St. notes where Tun Tavern, one of America’s first brew houses, stood from 1691 until it burned down in 1781. It was a hangout for Freemasons, including Franklin and other famous patrons such as John Adams.

Most of the Masonic lodges the city constructed early in its history do not exist today. The first Masonic temple built in Philadelphia was erected in 1809 on Chestnut Street, between 7th and 8th streets, but burned down in 1819.

The current grand lodge for all of Pennsylvania was built in 1873. It faces City Hall and remains a major Masonic base today. The site is very popular among tourists and offers hourly tours Wednesday to Saturday, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Derek Arnold 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. Philadelphia’s founding years were rife with conspiracy fears about ‘godless’ Freemasons and the Illuminati – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-founding-years-were-rife-with-conspiracy-fears-about-godless-freemasons-and-the-illuminati-275192