Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Paul Bierman, Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Vermont

President Donald Trump’s insistence that the U.S. will acquire Greenland “whether they like it or not” is just the latest chapter in a co-dependent and often complicated relationship between America and the Arctic’s largest island – one that stretches back more than a century.

Americans have long pursued policies in Greenland that U.S. leaders considered strategic and economic imperatives. As I recounted in my 2024 book, “When the Ice is Gone,” about Greenland’s environmental, military and scientific history, some of these ideas were little more than engineering fantasies, while others reflected unfettered military bravado.

But today’s world isn’t the same as when the United States last had a significant presence in Greenland, decades ago during the Cold War.

Before charging headlong into this icy island again, the U.S. would be remiss not to learn from past failures and consider how Earth’s rapidly changing climate is fundamentally altering the region.

Early US plundering of Greenland’s metals

In 1909, Robert Peary, a U.S. Navy officer, announced that he had won the race to the North Pole – a spectacular claim debated fiercely at the time. Before that, Peary had spent years exploring Greenland by dogsled, often taking what he found.

In 1894, he convinced six Greenlanders to come with him to New York, reportedly promising them tools and weapons in return. Within a few months, all but two of the Inuit had died from diseases.

Peary also took three huge fragments of the Cape York iron meteorite, known to Greenlanders as Saviksoah. It was a unique source of metal that Greenlandic Inuit had used for centuries to make tools. The largest piece of the meteorite, Ahnighito, weighed 34 tons. Today, it sits in the American Museum of Natural History, which reportedly paid Peary US$40,000 for the space rocks.

World War II: Strategic location and minerals

World War II put Greenland on the map strategically for the U.S. military. In spring 1941, Denmark’s ambassador signed a treaty giving the U.S. military access to Greenland to help protect the island from Nazi Germany and contribute to the war effort in Europe. That treaty remains in effect today.

New American bases in western and southern Greenland became crucial refueling stops for planes flying from America to Europe.

Hundreds of American soldiers were garrisoned at Ivittuut, a remote town on the southern Greenland coast where they protected the world’s largest cryolite mine. The rare mineral was used for smelting aluminum, critical for building airplanes during the war.

And because Greenland is upwind from Europe, weather data collected on the island proved essential for battlefield forecasts as officers planned their moves during World War II.

Both the Americans and Germans built weather stations on Greenland, starting what historians refer to as the weather war. There was little combat, though allied patrols routinely scoured the east coast of the island for Nazi encampments. The weather war ended in 1944 when the U.S. Coast Guard, and its East Greenland dogsled patrol, found the last of four German weather stations and captured their meteorologists.

Cold War: Fanciful engineering ideas vs the ice

The heyday of U.S. military engineering dreams in Greenland arrived during the Cold War in the 1950s.

To counter the risk of Soviet missiles and bombers coming over the Arctic, the U.S. military transported about 5,000 men, 280,000 tons of supplies, 500 trucks and 129 bulldozers, according to The New York Times, to a barren, northwest Greenland beach – 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) from the North Pole and 2,752 miles (4,430 kilometers) from Moscow.

There, in one top-secret summer, they built the sprawling American air base at Thule. It housed bombers, fighters, nuclear missiles and more than 10,000 soldiers. The whole operation was revealed to the world the following year, on a September 1952 cover of LIFE magazine and by the U.S. Army in its weekly television show, “The Big Picture.”

But in the realm of ideas born out of paranoia, Camp Century and Project Iceworm were the pinnacle.

The U.S. Army built Camp Century, a nuclear-powered base, inside the ice sheet by digging deep trenches and then covering them with snow. The base held 200 men in bunkrooms heated to 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 Celsius). It was the center of U.S. Army research on snow and ice and became a reminder to the USSR that the American military could operate at will in the Arctic.

The Army also imagined hundreds of miles of rail lines buried inside Greenland’s ice sheet. On Project Iceworm’s tracks, atomic-powered trains would move nuclear-tipped missiles in snow tunnels between hidden launch stations – a shell game covering an area about the size of Alabama.

In the end, Project Iceworm never got beyond a 1,300-foot (400-meter) tunnel the Army excavated at Camp Century. The soft snow and ice, constantly moving, buckled that track as the tunnel walls closed in. In the early 1960s, first the White House, and then NATO, rejected Project Iceworm.

In 1966, the Army abandoned Camp Century, leaving hundreds of tons of waste inside the ice sheet. Today, the crushed and abandoned camp lies more than 100 feet (30 meters) below the ice sheet surface. But as the climate warms and the ice melts, that waste will resurface: millions of gallons of frozen sewage, asbestos-wrapped pipes, toxic lead paint and carcinogenic PCBs.

Who will clean up the mess and at what cost is an open question.

Greenland remains a tough place to turn a profit

In the past, the American focus in Greenland was on short-term gains with little regard for the future. Abandoned bases, scattered around the island today and in need of cleanup, are one example. Peary’s disregard of the lives of local Greenlanders is another.

History shows that many of the fanciful ideas for Greenland failed because they showed little consideration of the island’s isolation, harsh climate and dynamic ice sheet.

Trump’s demands for American control of the island as a source of wealth and U.S. security are similarly shortsighted. In today’s rapidly warming climate, disregarding the dramatic effects of climate change in Greenland can doom projects to failure as Arctic temperatures climb.

Recent floods, fed by Greenland’s melting ice sheet, have swept away bridges that had stood for half a century. The permafrost that underlies the island is rapidly thawing and destabilizing infrastructure, including the critical radar installation and runway at Thule, renamed Pituffik Space Base in 2022. The island’s mountain sides are crashing into the sea as the ice holding them together melts.

The U.S. and Denmark have conducted geological surveys in Greenland and pinpointed deposits of critical minerals along the rocky, exposed coasts. However, most of the mining so far has been limited to cryolite and some small-scale extraction of lead, iron, copper and zinc. Today, only one small mine extracting the mineral anorthosite, which is useful for its aluminum and silica, is running.

It’s the ice that matters

The greatest value of Greenland for humanity is not its strategic location or potential mineral resources, but its ice.

If human activities continue to heat the planet, melting Greenland’s ice sheet, sea level will rise until the ice is gone. Losing even part of the ice sheet, which holds enough water to raise global sea level 24 feet in all, would have disastrous effects for coastal cities and island nations around the world.

That’s big-time global insecurity. The most forward-looking strategy is to protect Greenland’s ice sheet rather than plundering a remote Arctic island while ramping up fossil fuel production and accelerating climate change around the world.

Paul Bierman receives funding from the US National Science Foundation.

– ref. US military has a long history in Greenland, from mining during WWII to a nuclear-powered Army base built into the ice – https://theconversation.com/us-military-has-a-long-history-in-greenland-from-mining-during-wwii-to-a-nuclear-powered-army-base-built-into-the-ice-273355

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Layla Bouzoubaa, Doctoral Student in Information Science, Drexel University

When you think of tools for studying substance use and addiction, a social media site like Reddit, TikTok or YouTube probably isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Yet the stories shared on social media platforms are offering unprecedented insights into the world of substance use.

In the past, researchers studying peoples’ experiences with addiction relied mostly on clinical observations and self-reported surveys. But only about 5% of people diagnosed with a substance use disorder seek formal treatment. They are only a small sliver of the population who have a substance use disorder – and until recently, there has been no straightforward way to capture the experiences of the other 95%.

Today, millions of people openly discuss their experiences with drugs online, creating a vast collection of raw narratives about drug use. As a doctoral student in information science with a background in public health, I use this material to better understand how people who use drugs describe their lives and make sense of their experiences, especially when it comes to stigma.

These online conversations are reshaping how researchers think about substance use, addiction and recovery. Advances in artificial intelligence are helping make sense of these conversations at a scale that wasn’t possible before.

The hidden population

The vast majority of people diagnosed with a substance use disorder address the issue informally – seeking support from their community, friends or family, self-medicating or doing nothing at all. But some choose to post about their drug use in dedicated online communities, such as group forums, often with a level of candor that would be difficult to capture in clinical interviews.

Their social media posts offer a window into real-time, unscripted conversations about substance use. For example, Reddit, which is comprised of topical communities called subreddits, contains over 150 interconnected communities dedicated to various aspects of substance use.

In 2024, my colleagues and I analyzed how participants in drug-related forums on Reddit connect and interact. We found that they focused on the chemistry and pharmacology of substances, support for drug users, recreational experiences such as festivals and book clubs, recovery help, and harm reduction strategies. We then selected a few of the most active communities to develop a system for categorizing different types of personal disclosures by labeling 500 Reddit posts.

Policymakers and public health experts have expressed concerns that social media encourages risky drug use. Our work did not assess that issue, but it did support the notion that platforms such as Reddit and TikTok often serve as a lifeline for people seeking just-in-time support when they need it most.

When we used machine learning to analyze an additional 1,000 posts, we found that most users in the forums we focused on were seeking practical safety information. Posters often posed questions such as how much of a substance is safe to take, what interactions to avoid and how to recognize signs of trouble.

We observed that these forums function as informal harm reduction spaces. People share not just experiences but warnings, safety protocols and genuine care for each other’s well-being. When community members are lost to overdose, the responses reveal deep grief and renewed commitments to keeping others safe. This is the everyday reality of how people navigate substance use outside medical settings – with far more nuance and mutual support than critics might expect.

We also explored TikTok, analyzing more than 350 videos from substance-related communities. Recovery advocacy content was the most common, depicted in 33.9% of the videos we analyzed. Just 6.5% of the videos showed active drug use. As on Reddit, we frequently saw people emphasizing safety and care.

Why AI is a game changer

Platforms like Reddit, TikTok and YouTube host millions of posts, videos and comments, many filled with slang, sarcasm, regional language or emotionally charged stories. Analyzing this content manually is time-consuming, inconsistent and virtually impossible to do at scale.

That’s where AI comes in. Traditional machine learning approaches often rely on fixed word lists or keyword matching, which can miss important contextual cues. In contrast, newer models – especially large language models like OpenAI’s GPT-5 – are capable of understanding nuance, tone and even the underlying intent of a message. This makes them especially useful for studying complex issues like drug use or stigma, where people often communicate through implication, coded language or emotional nuance rather than direct statements.

These models can identify patterns across thousands of posts and flag emerging trends. For example, researchers used them to detect shifts in how Canadians on X, the social media site formerly called Twitter, discussed cannabis as legalization approached – capturing shifts in public attitudes that traditional surveys might have missed.

In another study, researchers found that monitoring Reddit discussions can help predict opioid-related overdose rates. Official government data, like that from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, typically lags by at least six months. But adding near-real-time Reddit data to forecasting models significantly improved their ability to predict overdose deaths – potentially helping public health officials respond faster to emerging crises.

Bringing stigma into focus

One of the most difficult aspects of substance use to study – and to address – is the stigma.

It’s deeply personal, often invisible and shaped by a person’s identity, relationships and environment. Researchers have long recognized that stigma, especially when internalized, can erode self-worth, worsen mental health and prevent people from seeking help. But it’s notoriously hard to capture using traditional research methods.

Most clinical studies rely on surveys or interviews conducted at regular intervals. While useful, these snapshots can miss how stigma unfolds in everyday life. Stigma scholars have emphasized that understanding its full impact requires paying attention to how people talk about themselves and their experiences over time.

On social media platforms, people often discuss stigma organically, in their own words and in the context of their lived experiences. They might describe being judged by a health care provider, express shame about their own substance use or reflect on how stigma shapes their relationships. Even when posts aren’t directly naming the experience as stigma, they still reveal how stigma is internalized, challenged or reinforced.

Using large language models, researchers can begin to track these patterns at scale, identifying linguistic signals like shame, guilt or expressions of hopelessness. In recent work, my colleagues and I showed that stigma expressed on Reddit aligns closely with long-standing stigma theory – suggesting that what people share on social media reflects recognizable stigma processes, not something fundamentally new or separate from what researchers have long studied.

That matters because stigma is one of the most significant barriers to treatment for people with substance use disorder. Understanding how people who use drugs talk about stigma, harm, recovery and survival, in their own words, can complement surveys and clinical studies and help inform better public health responses.

By taking these everyday expressions seriously, researchers, clinicians and policymakers can begin to respond to substance use as it is actually lived — messy, evolving and deeply human.

Layla Bouzoubaa 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. Reddit and TikTok – with the help of AI – are reshaping how researchers understand substance use – https://theconversation.com/reddit-and-tiktok-with-the-help-of-ai-are-reshaping-how-researchers-understand-substance-use-241730

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bruce Schneier, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

Eighteen months ago, it was plausible that artificial intelligence might take a different path than social media. Back then, AI’s development hadn’t consolidated under a small number of big tech firms. Nor had it capitalized on consumer attention, surveilling users and delivering ads.

Unfortunately, the AI industry is now taking a page from the social media playbook and has set its sights on monetizing consumer attention. When OpenAI launched its ChatGPT Search feature in late 2024 and its browser, ChatGPT Atlas, in October 2025, it kicked off a race to capture online behavioral data to power advertising. It’s part of a yearslong turnabout by OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once called the combination of ads and AI “unsettling” and now promises that ads can be deployed in AI apps while preserving trust. The rampant speculation among OpenAI users who believe they see paid placements in ChatGPT responses suggests they are not convinced.

In 2024, AI search company Perplexity started experimenting with ads in its offerings. A few months after that, Microsoft introduced ads to its Copilot AI. Google’s AI Mode for search now increasingly features ads, as does Amazon’s Rufus chatbot.

As a security expert and data scientist, we see these examples as harbingers of a future where AI companies profit from manipulating their users’ behavior for the benefit of their advertisers and investors. It’s also a reminder that time to steer the direction of AI development away from private exploitation and toward public benefit is quickly running out.

The functionality of ChatGPT Search and its Atlas browser is not really new. Meta, commercial AI competitor Perplexity and even ChatGPT itself have had similar AI search features for years, and both Google and Microsoft beat OpenAI to the punch by integrating AI with their browsers. But OpenAI’s business positioning signals a shift.

We believe the ChatGPT Search and Atlas announcements are worrisome because there is really only one way to make money on search: the advertising model pioneered ruthlessly by Google.

Advertising model

Ruled a monopolist in U.S. federal court, Google has earned more than US$1.6 trillion in advertising revenue since 2001. You may think of Google as a web search company, or a streaming video company (YouTube), or an email company (Gmail), or a mobile phone company (Android, Pixel), or maybe even an AI company (Gemini). But those products are ancillary to Google’s bottom line. The advertising segment typically accounts for 80% to 90% of its total revenue. Everything else is there to collect users’ data and direct users’ attention to its advertising revenue stream.

After two decades in this monopoly position, Google’s search product is much more tuned to the company’s needs than those of its users. When Google Search first arrived decades ago, it was revelatory in its ability to instantly find useful information across the still-nascent web. In 2025, its search result pages are dominated by low-quality and often AI-generated content, spam sites that exist solely to drive traffic to Amazon sales – a tactic known as affiliate marketing – and paid ad placements, which at times are indistinguishable from organic results.

Plenty of advertisers and observers seem to think AI-powered advertising is the future of the ad business.

Highly persuasive

Paid advertising in AI search, and AI models generally, could look very different from traditional web search. It has the potential to influence your thinking, spending patterns and even personal beliefs in much more subtle ways. Because AI can engage in active dialogue, addressing your specific questions, concerns and ideas rather than just filtering static content, its potential for influence is much greater. It’s like the difference between reading a textbook and having a conversation with its author.

Imagine you’re conversing with your AI agent about an upcoming vacation. Did it recommend a particular airline or hotel chain because they really are best for you, or does the company get a kickback for every mention? If you ask about a political issue, does the model bias its answer based on which political party has paid the company a fee, or based on the bias of the model’s corporate owners?

There is mounting evidence that AI models are at least as effective as people at persuading users to do things. A December 2023 meta-analysis of 121 randomized trials reported that AI models are as good as humans at shifting people’s perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. A more recent meta-analysis of eight studies similarly concluded there was “no significant overall difference in persuasive performance between (large language models) and humans.”

This influence may go well beyond shaping what products you buy or who you vote for. As with the field of search engine optimization, the incentive for humans to perform for AI models might shape the way people write and communicate with each other. How we express ourselves online is likely to be increasingly directed to win the attention of AIs and earn placement in the responses they return to users.

A different way forward

Much of this is discouraging, but there is much that can be done to change it.

First, it’s important to recognize that today’s AI is fundamentally untrustworthy, for the same reasons that search engines and social media platforms are.

The problem is not the technology itself; fast ways to find information and communicate with friends and family can be wonderful capabilities. The problem is the priorities of the corporations who own these platforms and for whose benefit they are operated. Recognize that you don’t have control over what data is fed to the AI, who it is shared with and how it is used. It’s important to keep that in mind when you connect devices and services to AI platforms, ask them questions, or consider buying or doing the things they suggest.

There is also a lot that people can demand of governments to restrain harmful corporate uses of AI. In the U.S., Congress could enshrine consumers’ rights to control their own personal data, as the EU already has. It could also create a data protection enforcement agency, as essentially every other developed nation has.

Governments worldwide could invest in Public AI – models built by public agencies offered universally for public benefit and transparently under public oversight. They could also restrict how corporations can collude to exploit people using AI, for example by barring advertisements for dangerous products such as cigarettes and requiring disclosure of paid endorsements.

Every technology company seeks to differentiate itself from competitors, particularly in an era when yesterday’s groundbreaking AI quickly becomes a commodity that will run on any kid’s phone. One differentiator is in building a trustworthy service. It remains to be seen whether companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic can sustain profitable businesses on the back of subscription AI services like the premium editions of ChatGPT, Plus and Pro, and Claude Pro. If they are going to continue convincing consumers and businesses to pay for these premium services, they will need to build trust.

That will require making real commitments to consumers on transparency, privacy, reliability and security that are followed through consistently and verifiably.

And while no one knows what the future business models for AI will be, we can be certain that consumers do not want to be exploited by AI, secretly or otherwise.

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

– ref. Could ChatGPT convince you to buy something? Threat of manipulation looms as AI companies gear up to sell ads – https://theconversation.com/could-chatgpt-convince-you-to-buy-something-threat-of-manipulation-looms-as-ai-companies-gear-up-to-sell-ads-272859

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Grant Tremblay, Federal Astrophysicist and External Relations Lead at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Smithsonian Institution

In 2026, astronauts will travel around the Moon for the first time since the Apollo era, powerful new space telescopes will prepare to survey billions of galaxies, and multiple nations will launch missions aimed at finding habitable worlds, water on the Moon and clues to how our solar system formed.

Together, these launches will mark a turning point in how humanity studies the universe – and how nations cooperate and compete beyond Earth. Coming from one of the world’s largest astrophysical research institutes, I can tell you, the anticipation across the global space science community is electric.

Mapping the cosmos at unprecedented scales

Several of the most ambitious missions slated for launch in 2026 share a common goal: to map the universe on the largest possible scales and reveal how planets, galaxies and the largest cosmic structures evolved over billions of years.

The centerpiece of this effort is NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Construction completed on the Roman telescope in December at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and if all goes well, it could launch as early as fall 2026.

What makes Roman more special than NASA’s other flagship space telescopes is not just what it will see, but how much of the sky it can see at once. Its 300-megapixel camera can capture regions of sky about 100 times larger than the Hubble Space Telescope’s field of view while maintaining comparable sharpness – like switching from studying individual tiles to surveying the entire mosaic at once.

During its five-year primary mission, Roman is expected to discover more than 100,000 distant exoplanets, map billions of galaxies strewn across cosmic time and help scientists probe dark matter and dark energy – the invisible scaffolding and mysterious forces that together account for 95% of the cosmos.

Roman also carries a coronagraph, a pathfinder instrument that can block out a star’s blinding light to directly photograph planets orbiting around it. The technology could pave the way for future missions, like NASA’s planned Habitable Worlds Observatory, capable of searching for signs of life on Earth-like worlds.

Over in Europe, the European Space Agency’s PLATO mission, short for PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of stars mission, is scheduled to launch in December 2026 aboard Europe’s new Ariane 6 rocket. PLATO will monitor about 200,000 stars using an array of 26 cameras, searching for small, rocky planets in their stars’ habitable zones, while also determining the stars’ ages.

For China, 2026 is expected to mark a milestone of a different kind: the launch of its first large flagship space telescope dedicated to astrophysics. The Xuntian space telescope, also known as the Chinese space station telescope, is currently expected to launch in late 2026. Xuntian will survey enormous regions of the sky with image quality comparable to Hubble’s, but with a field of view more than 300 times larger.

Like NASA’s Roman Space Telescope, Xuntian is designed to tackle some of modern cosmology’s biggest questions. It will hunt for dark matter and dark energy, survey billions of galaxies and trace how cosmic structure evolved over time. Uniquely, Xuntian will co-orbit with China’s Tiangong space station, allowing astronauts to service and upgrade it and, potentially, extending its life for decades.

Together with the new Vera C. Rubin Observatory on the ground, which will repeatedly scan the entire southern sky to capture how the universe changes over time, the Roman, PLATO and Xuntian space telescopes will study the cosmos not just as it is but as it evolves.

Global milestones in human spaceflight

While robotic observatories quietly expand our view of the cosmos, 2026 will also mark a major step forward for human spaceflight.

NASA’s Artemis II mission, now readying for launch as early as April 2026, will send four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the Moon and back. It will be the first time humans have traveled beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in December 1972.

Across the globe, India is preparing to reach a similarly historic milestone. Through its Gaganyaan program, the Indian Space Research Organisation is planning a series of uncrewed test flights in 2026 as it works toward sending astronauts to space. If that happens, India would become only the fourth nation to achieve human spaceflight on its own – a significant technological and symbolic achievement.

Meanwhile, China will continue regular crewed flights to its Tiangong space station in 2026, part of a broader effort to build the experience, infrastructure and technologies needed for its planned human missions to the Moon later in the decade.

In parallel, NASA is relying increasingly on commercial spacecraft to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, freeing the agency to focus its own human spaceflight efforts on deep-space missions beyond Earth.

Together, Artemis II, Gaganyaan and China’s ongoing crewed space station missions reflect a renewed global push toward human exploration beyond Earth orbit – one in which governments and commercial partners alike are laying the groundwork for longer missions and a sustained human presence in space.

The origin and geology of the Moon and Mars

Another set of 2026 missions focuses on a more grounded question: how rocky worlds – and the resources they contain – came to be.

Japan’s Martian Moons eXploration mission, slated to launch in late 2026, will travel to Mars, spend three years studying both of its small, potato-shaped moons – Phobos and Deimos – and collect a surface sample from Phobos to bring back to Earth by 2031.

Scientists still debate whether these moons originated as captured asteroids or debris from an ancient giant impact with Mars. Returning pristine material from Phobos could finally settle that question and reshape our understanding of how the inner solar system evolved.

China’s Chang’e 7 mission, expected to launch in mid-2026, will head to the Moon’s south pole, a region of intense scientific and strategic interest. The mission includes an orbiter, lander, rover and a small flying “hopper” designed to leap into permanently shadowed craters, where sunlight never reaches. These craters are thought to harbor water ice, a resource that could one day support astronauts or be converted into rocket fuel for deeper-space missions.

The Chinese and Japanese missions both highlight how planetary science and exploration are becoming increasingly intertwined, as understanding the geology of nearby worlds also informs future human activity.

It’s the Sun’s solar system, we’re just living in it

In 2025, powerful solar storms forced airlines to reroute and ground flights, disrupted radio communications and pushed vivid auroras far beyond their usual polar haunts – lighting up skies as far south as Florida. These events are reminders that space is not a distant abstraction: Activity on the Sun can have immediate consequences here on Earth.

Not all of 2026’s major missions look outward into deep space. Some are focused on understanding the dynamic space environment that surrounds our own planet.

In a notable example of international cooperation, the solar wind magnetosphere ionosphere link explorer, SMILE – a joint mission between the European Space Agency and the Chinese Academy of Sciences – is scheduled for launch in spring 2026.

SMILE will provide the first global images of how Earth’s magnetic field responds to the constant stream of charged particles flowing from the Sun. That interaction drives space weather, including solar storms that can disrupt satellites, navigation systems, power grids and communications.

Understanding those interactions is critical not only for protecting modern infrastructure on Earth but also for safeguarding astronauts and spacecraft operating beyond the planet’s protective magnetic shield.

At a time of growing geopolitical tension in space, the mission also stands out as a rare and consequential example of sustained scientific cooperation between Europe and China.

The global stakes

These missions unfold against a complex geopolitical backdrop. The United States and China are both racing to return humans to the Moon by the end of the decade.

Yet for all the competition, space science remains profoundly collaborative. Japan’s Martian Moons eXploration mission carries instruments from NASA, ESA and France. International teams share data, expertise and the sheer wonder of discovery. The universe, after all, belongs to no one nation.

Having spent my career studying the universe, I see 2026 as a year that reflects both the rivalries and the shared ambitions of space exploration today. Competition is real, but so is cooperation at a scale that would have been hard to imagine a generation ago. From the search for habitable worlds around distant stars to plans for returning humans to the Moon, the work is global – and the sky is shared by all.

Grant Tremblay receives funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

– ref. From a new flagship space telescope to lunar exploration, global cooperation – and competition – will make 2026 an exciting year for space – https://theconversation.com/from-a-new-flagship-space-telescope-to-lunar-exploration-global-cooperation-and-competition-will-make-2026-an-exciting-year-for-space-272010

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

Texas A&M University told philosophy professor Martin Peterson in early January 2026 that he could not teach some of Greek philosopher Plato’s writings that touch on “race and gender ideology.”

The university’s local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, an organization of professors and academics in the U.S., quickly denounced this requirement.

Peterson, in response to his university’s direction, replaced the Plato readings with material on free speech and academic freedom.

Silencing a professor from teaching a certain subject fits within what experts have long recognized as encroaching on academic freedom.

In another high-profile incident at Texas A&M in September 2025, a student filmed an exchange with an English literature professor, Melissa McCoul, who was talking about gender identity.

The student said that McCoul was violating President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order that recognized “women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” As a result, the student told her professor, as seen in her video, “I’ve already been in touch with the president of A&M, and I have a meeting with him in person to show all of my documentation tomorrow.” Her video went viral.

This represents a growing threat to academic freedom: Students who act as informants and police their classes and professors for signs of political incorrectness.

A 2023 study found that 75% of college students feel free to report their professors if they say something objectionable. Self-identified liberal students were more likely than conservative students to report their professors to the administration.

As someone who teaches politically charged subjects, I am very much aware of the need to teach in inclusive ways and respect the diversity of student views. I have also written about how academic freedom is changing, given new external threats and political realities. I recognize that students will play an important role in determining the future of academic freedom.

Academic freedom is not the same as free speech

Academic freedom is a complex concept that is often confused with freedom of speech.

The American Association of University Professors offers one definition: Academic freedom is focused on ensuring that professors can say, teach, discuss and write about any issue within their field, without “interference from administrators, boards of trustees, political figures, donors, or other entities.”

As law professor Stanley Fish has argued, freedom of speech – meaning the right to express oneself without restraint – has no place in college classrooms.

As Fish notes, college classrooms are about the pursuit of truth.

In Fish’s view, this is true in both public and private colleges and universities, even though the Supreme Court has held that free speech applies in any public higher education institution.

I believe that Christopher Eisgruber, president of Princeton University, made a mistake when he said in November 2025, “Colleges get free speech right through millions of conversations … that take place in dorm rooms or dining hall tables or at public events or classrooms in colleges and universities across the U.S. every year.”

Dorms, dining halls, public events, yes. Classrooms, no.

As the American Association of University Professors’ preamble says, higher education institutions depend “upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” It goes on to say, “Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research.”

While that statement is not legally binding, it establishes a set of standards that are widely endorsed throughout higher education.

The September 2025 incident at Texas A&M is so worrisome because it suggests that faculty are being required to adhere to a political ideology, rather than allowed to pursue the truth as they see it.

Self-censorship on the rise

Despite most colleges and universities embracing academic freedom, a rising number of college professors are today censoring themselves in their classrooms.

Approximately 58% of faculty interviewed in a national survey in 2024 reported “regularly self-censoring in … conversations with students outside of class and in classroom conversations.”

In addition, a 2024 study done at Harvard University found that “Many Harvard faculty members and instructors … reported reluctance to discuss controversial subjects inside and outside the classroom.”

Such pervasive fear has a clear chilling effect in controlling what professors teach and say.

Meanwhile, a 2024 report from the American Enterprise, a conservative think tank, explains that faculty self-censorship “increases when faculty engage with students who could record and circulate words, in or out of context, to the world in a matter of seconds.”

Students’ rights to record classroom discussions

The legal landscape concerning the rights of students to record what happens in a college classroom is complex.

In some states, like Alabama and Maine, people can record someone without their consent, if they are directly part of the conversation being documented. In other states, like California and Massachusetts, all people part of the conversation need to consent to being recorded.

Many universities have their own rules regarding recording. Some limit it in classes, except as necessary to accommodate students with particular disabilities.

Harvard, for example, prohibits any member of a course from posting identifiable classroom statements on social media without people’s written consent.

Protecting academic freedom

The September Texas A&M controversy resulted in the university firing McCoul. Texas A&M President Mark A. Welsh III also stepped down from his position in September.

In November, a faculty committee then determined that the university did not have good reason to fire McCoul – though she has not been reinstated to her position.

I believe that colleges, universities and groups like the American Association for University Professors need to think about academic freedom differently than they did in 1940, when the association first adopted its academic freedom statement.

This will require colleges and universities to take steps to protect faculty from direct attempts by the government, or outside groups, to punish them for saying something that the government or others deem controversial.

But protecting faculty is also about establishing new norms to govern the classroom.

Adopting the think tank Chatham House’s rules, which say that people during meetings cannot attribute anything said to a specific speaker without their consent, is a possible path.

I have gone one step further. I now begin my classes by discussing my own classroom compact that covers academic freedom, academic integrity and the values that will inform and guide the work we will do.

Students are also required to pledge that they will not post anything about my class, or anything said in it, on social media with or without attribution. And I remind them that Massachusetts legally requires the consent of all people part of a conversation when it comes to recording.

Helping students understand the meaning and value of academic freedom and enlisting them to help protect it is not an easy task. However, the future of that value may depend on it.

Austin Sarat 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. There’s an intensifying kind of threat to academic freedom – watchful students serving as informants – https://theconversation.com/theres-an-intensifying-kind-of-threat-to-academic-freedom-watchful-students-serving-as-informants-273182

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Amy Myers Jaffe, Director, Energy, Climate Justice, and Sustainability Lab, and Research Professor, New York University; Tufts University

In the wake of U.S. forces’ arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, U.S. President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is taking over Venezuelan oil production.

In addition, the U.S. has blockaded Venezuelan oil exports for a few weeks and seized tankers that reportedly escaped from the blockade.

To understand what’s happening and what it means for U.S. consumers and the American energy industry, The Conversation U.S. checked in with Amy Myers Jaffe, a research professor at New York University and senior fellow at Tufts University who studies global energy markets and the geopolitics of oil.

What is the state of Venezuela’s oil industry and how did it get to this point?

Venezuela’s oil industry has experienced profound turmoil over its history, including a steady downward spiral beginning in 1998. That’s when a worldwide economic downturn took global oil prices below $10 per barrel at the same time as the Venezuelan public’s growing interest in reasserting local control of the country’s oil industry ushered in populist President Hugo Chávez.

In April 2002, Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the appointment of Chávez loyalists to replace the top brass of the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela. The chaos culminated in an attempted coup against Chavez, who managed to retake power in a matter of days. Petróleos de Venezuela’s workers then went out on strike, prompting Chávez to purge close to 20,000 top management and oil workers. That began a brain drain that would last for years.

In 2007, Chávez, standing in front of a banner that read “Full Oil Sovereignty, The Road to Socialism,” took over ExxonMobil’s and ConocoPhillips’ oil-producing assets in Venezuela. The companies had declined to accept new oil contracts at radically less profitable terms than they had in previous years.

After Chávez’s death in 2013, national economic chaos accelerated. By 2018, reports began to surface that roving gangs, as well as some oil workers struggling to survive, were stripping the industry of its valuable materials – computers, copper wiring, and metals and machinery – to sell on the black market.

U.S. sanctions added to the mix over the years, culminating in a drop in Venezuelan oil production to 840,000 barrels a day in 2025, down from the 3.5 million barrels a day it was able to produce in 1997.

A handful of international oil companies remained in the country throughout the turmoil, including U.S.-based Chevron, French-Indonesian firm Maurel and Prom, Spanish firm Repsol, and Italian firm ENI. But the political chaos, sanctions and technical mismanagement of the oil industry have taken a heavy toll.

Some estimates say that the country wouldn’t need a lot of investment to increase production to about 1 million barrels a day by 2027. But other analysts say that immediate investment of as much as $20 billion could only raise Venezuela’s production to 1.5 million barrels a day.

Most of the oil in Venezuela is very heavy oil and requires expensive processing to be able to be refined into usable products. The country’s leaders have claimed to have 300 billion-plus barrels of reserves.

What effect does Venezuela’s production have on prices that U.S. consumers pay for gasoline, natural gas, gas-fired electricity and other petroleum products?

In general terms, U.S. gasoline prices are influenced by global crude oil market levels. Sudden changes in export rates from major oil-producing countries can alter the trajectory for oil prices.

However, Venezuela’s recent export levels have been relatively small. So the immediate effect of changes in Venezuelan oil export levels is likely to be limited. Overall, the global oil market is oversupplied at the moment, keeping prices relatively low and in danger of falling further, even though China is stockpiling large oil reserves.

Venezuela did not export any natural gas. In the long run, a fuller restoration of Venezuela’s oil and gas industry could mean oil prices will have difficulty rising as high as past peaks in times of volatility and could potentially fall if oil demand begins to peak. And Royal Dutch Shell and Trinidad and Tobago National Gas Company have plans to develop Venezuela’s offshore Dragon natural gas field, adding to an expected glut of liquefied natural gas, often called LNG, in global markets in the coming years.

How much oil is coming to the U.S. now, and how would more imports of Venezuelan oil affect U.S. refiners?

The U.S. Gulf Coast refining center is known for its capability to process heavy, low-quality oil like Venezuela’s into valuable products such as gasoline and diesel. Already, refineries owned by Chevron, Valero and Phillips 66 are bringing in Venezuelan oil.

Before the U.S. seized Maduro, most of Venezuela’s exports were going to China, though about 200,000 barrels a day were coming to the United States under Chevron’s special license.

Trump has said the U.S. will get between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil from Venezuela, to be used “to benefit the people” of both countries. That’s about two or three days’ worth of U.S. oil production, and between one and two months’ worth of Venezuelan production. What effects could that have for the U.S. or Venezuela?

Some 20 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil is currently piled up in Venezuela’s storage tanks and ships in the aftermath of the U.S. blockade. Exports needed to resume quickly before storage ran out to prevent oil production facilities from needing to shut down, which could then require lengthy and expensive restart procedures.

The United States has been a major exporter of petroleum products in recent years, reaching 7.7 million barrels a day at the end of 2025.

Processing more Venezuelan oil might help make U.S. Gulf Coast refineries a bit more profitable by making more money on their refined products exports. But since there was no shortage of products in the U.S. market, I don’t expect consumers to see much savings.

But U.S. refineries only have so much capacity to refine heavy oil like Venezuela’s. And they have long-term contracts for oil from other suppliers. So they won’t be able to handle all of those 30 million to 50 million barrels. Some of it will either have to be sold abroad or put in the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.

How does a potential increase in Venezuelan oil production affect U.S. domestic oil producers?

Over time, the impact of the restoration of Venezuelan oil production on oil prices is hard to predict. That’s because it will likely take a decade or more before Venezuela’s oil production levels could be fully restored. Long-term oil prices are notoriously tricky to forecast.

Generally speaking, U.S. shale production rates and profitability benefit when oil prices are above $50 a barrel, as they have been since 2021. U.S. oil production rose to 13.8 million barrels per day for the week ending Dec. 26, 2025, up slightly from the end of 2024. Forecasts suggest a slight increase in 2026 as well, if oil prices stay relatively flat.

Longer term, all bets are off, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC – a group of countries that coordinate global petroleum production and sales – has a history of telling members not to increase production when they add new oil fields, which sometimes leads to so much disagreement that a price war erupts.

The last time Venezuela moved to increase its production significantly, in the 1990s, oil prices sank below $10 a barrel. Major OPEC members like the United Arab Emirates have been expanding capacity in recent years, and others with large reserves like Libya and Iraq aspire to do the same in the coming decade as well. The UAE has been asking the group for permission to increase its production, causing difficulties in the group’s efforts to agree on what their total production and target oil price should be. That could be good news for consumers, if OPEC disunity leads to higher supplies and falling prices.

Some commentators have suggested China could be the biggest loser if shipments of Venezuelan oil shift West and away from discounted sales to China. How does the current situation affect China’s energy security and geostrategic considerations?

China’s oil imports have been averaging about 11 million barrels per day, with about 500,000 to 600,000 of that coming from Venezuela. Iran and Russia are among China’s largest oil suppliers, and both countries’ industries face tightening U.S. sanctions. There is enough oil available on the global market to provide China with what it wants, even if it doesn’t come from Venezuela.

The real question is about China’s overall response to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Beijing’s initial reaction to Maduro’s removal was fairly muted. In a Dec. 31, 2025, speech, however, China’s President Xi Jinping said China’s defense capabilities and national strength had “reached new heights” and called for the “reunification of our motherland.” In light of the U.S. intervention in the Americas, China may see a justification to move more aggressively toward Taiwan.

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

– ref. Why unlocking Venezuelan oil won’t mean much for US energy prices – https://theconversation.com/why-unlocking-venezuelan-oil-wont-mean-much-for-us-energy-prices-273194

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tarah Williams, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Allegheny College

Each year on the holiday that bears his name, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his immense contributions to the struggle for racial equality. What is less often remembered but equally important is that King saw the fight for racial equality as deeply intertwined with economic justice.

To address inequality – and out of growing concern for how automation might displace workers – King became an early advocate for universal basic income. Under universal basic income, the government provides direct cash payments to all citizens to help them afford life’s expenses.

In recent years, more than a dozen U.S. cities have run universal basic income programs, often smaller or pilot programs that have offered guaranteed basic incomes to select groups of needy residents. As political scientists, we have followed these experiments closely.

One of us recently co-authored a study which found that universal basic income is generally popular. In two out of three surveys analyzed, majorities of white Americans supported a universal basic income proposal. Support is particularly high among those with low incomes.

King’s intuition was that white people with lower incomes would support this type of policy because they could also benefit from it. In 1967, King argued, “It seems to me that the Civil Rights Movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income … which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro’s economic problem and the economic problem with many other poor people confronting our nation.”

But there is one notable group that does not support universal basic income: those with higher levels of racial resentment. Racial resentment is a scale that social scientists have used to describe and measure anti-Black prejudice since the 1980s.

Notably, in our research, whites with higher levels of racial resentment and higher incomes are especially inclined to oppose universal basic income. As King well knew, this segment of Americans can create powerful opposition.

Economic self-interest can trump resentment

At the same time, the results of the study also suggest that coalition building is possible, even among the racially resentful.

Economic status matters. Racially resentful whites with lower incomes tend to be supportive of universal basic income. In short, self-interest seems to trump racial resentment. This is consistent with King’s idea of how an economic coalition could be built and pave the way toward racial progress.

Income is not the only thing that shapes attitudes, however. Some of the strongest supporters of universal basic income are those who have higher incomes but low levels of racial resentment. This suggests an opportunity to build coalitions across economic lines, something King believed was necessary. “The rich must not ignore the poor,” he argued in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, “because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny.” Our data shows that this is possible.

This approach to coalition building is also suggested by our earlier research. Using American National Election Studies surveys from 2004-2016, we found that for white Americans, racial resentment predicted lower support for social welfare policies. But we also found that economic position mattered, too.

Economic need can unite white Americans in support of more generous welfare policies, including among some who are racially prejudiced. At a minimum, this suggests that racial resentment does not necessarily prevent white Americans from supporting policies that would also benefit Black Americans.

Building lasting coalitions

During his career as an activist in the 1950s and 1960s, King struggled with building long-term, multiracial coalitions. He understood that many forms of racial prejudice could undermine his work. He therefore sought strategies that could forge alliances across lines of difference. He helped build coalitions of poor and working-class Americans, including those who are white. He was not so naive as to think that shared economic progress would eliminate racial prejudice, but he saw it as a place to start.

Currently, the nation faces an affordability crisis, and artificial intelligence poses new threats to jobs. These factors have increased calls for universal basic income.

Racial prejudice continues to fuel opposition to universal basic income, as well as other forms of social welfare. But our research suggests that this is not insurmountable.

As King knew, progress toward economic equality is not inevitable. But, as his legacy reminds us, progress does remain possible through organizing around shared interests.

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

– ref. Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in pushing for universal basic income – https://theconversation.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-ahead-of-his-time-in-pushing-for-universal-basic-income-272963

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bruce Weinberg, Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University

The most exciting landmark scientific achievements don’t happen without researchers sharing and collaborating with others outside their field. When people first landed on the Moon in 1969, Neil Armstrong’s first footsteps marked the realization of a century-long vision that integrated a variety of scientific fields. Landing on the Moon required expertise in electrical, mechanical, chemical and computer engineering, as well as astronomy and physics.

Similarly, the advances in genetics that have made the biotechnology revolution possible involved contributions from disciplines as far ranging as biology, mathematics and statistics, chemistry and computer science.

Today, some of the biggest challenges that scientists face are interdisciplinary in nature – from studying the effects of climate change to managing generative artificial intelligence.

Climate change isn’t only an environmental problem, just like the impact of AI isn’t solely technological. Scientists in a variety of disciplines can independently come up with ways to examine these issues, but as research has shown, the most effective approaches often integrate multiple fields.

Our own interdisciplinary team of researchers in economics and informatics – itself an interdisciplinary field focused on technology, information and people – explored the career hurdles that many interdisciplinary researchers face in a study published in July 2024. We studied how these challenges affect their careers and the production of interdisciplinary research.

Infrastructure and interdisciplinary work

Government and private funders alike have introduced programs to support interdisciplinary work. Universities foster interdisciplinary research through joint appointments, hiring multiple faculty at once, centers that span disciplines, and graduate programs that join different fields.

With these efforts, you might expect a high demand and exceptional career outcomes for interdisciplinary researchers. However, this does not appear to be the case. The American academic system is still very much dominated by disciplines and academic departments. A researcher whose work doesn’t fit neatly into a category can easily fall through the cracks.

The structure of distinct disciplines and departments is deeply embedded in universities. Many researchers have trouble finding a journal willing to publish interdisciplinary papers or a department willing to offer interdisciplinary classes. Students interested in this work have difficulty finding mentors.

When interdisciplinary researchers apply for jobs, promotion and tenure, hiring committees made up of members of a single discipline may have difficulty evaluating their work. That issue can put these researchers at a disadvantage, compared to candidates with more traditional backgrounds.

Interdisciplinary centers, institutes and programs are often less permanent structures than departments. Sometimes they’re devised as solutions to fill in the cracks between the work done in different departments or to address real-world problems. These centers are a kind of borderlands – they can attract scientists, especially established ones, who want to identify and pivot toward new research problems. But they’re not generally designed to support scientists’ careers long term.

Career challenges

Our 2024 study focused on biomedical research, which can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach because of the complexity of biological processes and human behavior.

To start, we wanted to understand whether researchers with interdisciplinary training had longer careers publishing their research than those without. The results were stark.

Interdisciplinary researchers stopped publishing much earlier than researchers who stuck to a single discipline. The most interdisciplinary researchers – those whose work draws the most on other disciplines beyond their primary field – had the shortest careers. Half of the most interdisciplinary researchers – the top 1% in terms of the interdisciplinarity of their work as graduate students – stopped publishing within eight years of graduation. Moderately interdisciplinary and single-discipline researchers kept publishing for more than 20 years.

Many interdisciplinary researchers left academia early in their career, by the point when most scholars transition into faculty positions and start to get promoted or receive tenure.

Many researchers who leave do important work in industry and other sectors. However, the high attrition rate of these researchers in biomedicine means that few senior scientists remain in academia to conduct interdisciplinary research or train future interdisciplinary researchers.

Researchers who started out as interdisciplinary tended to become more focused on one discipline early in their careers, as if recognizing that disciplinary work is the smoothest route to success.

However, we also found that over the 40-year period our study examined, biomedical research became more interdisciplinary overall. Ironically, single-discipline researchers, whose interdisciplinary work tends to be lower quality, drove that growth, becoming more interdisciplinary as their careers progressed.

But our study found that these researchers usually didn’t have specialized training in interdisciplinary research. They may have become more interdisciplinary through collaborations with researchers in other fields.

So, even though the overall level of interdisciplinarity in the field increased, trained interdisciplinary researchers left academia, and the single-discipline researchers without the same training were the ones conducting much of the interdisciplinary work.

Consequences for research

Our findings indicate another striking trend: Researchers entering the research community tended to be less interdisciplinary than the ones already in it.

Studies have shown that early career researchers often do the most innovative work. But at this formative career stage, they do not lend their talents to interdisciplinary work as frequently.

While many people in the academic community say they want to see more interdisciplinary research, the new, more discipline-focused scholars joining the system aren’t conducting this work.

Our analysis suggests that finding ways for universities, departments and funders to support early career interdisciplinary researchers could keep these scholars from leaving and increase the output of interdisciplinary work.

Many difficult societal problems will require research that cuts across the lines of established disciplines to solve. Right now, academia rewards scholars who work within disciplinary boundaries and climb the departmental career ladder.

To remedy this issue, universities and funding agencies could create better incentives for collaboration and research that addresses critical problems regardless of the discipline. These changes could create space for interdisciplinary researchers to thrive and become mentors for future generations of scientists.

Bruce Weinberg receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Ewing Marion Kauffman and Alfred P. Sloan Foundations, as well as the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Enrico Berkes received funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health while a postdoctoral researcher at The Ohio State University.

Monica Marion has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

Staša Milojević received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

– ref. Research institutions tout the value of scholarship that crosses disciplines – but academia pushes interdisciplinary researchers out – https://theconversation.com/research-institutions-tout-the-value-of-scholarship-that-crosses-disciplines-but-academia-pushes-interdisciplinary-researchers-out-254034

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Nothaft, Director of Data and Analysis, Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan, University of Michigan

For Detroit homeowners over 65 who overwhelmingly live on fixed incomes, unexpected costs – increases in grocery prices, rising health care premiums or an emergency repair – heighten their risk of financial instability and can even lead to them falling into poverty.

I am a policy researcher at Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan. Our initiative uses action-based research, an approach that seeks to understand real-world problems and inform policy changes that could make life work better for people with low incomes. The center recently examined data from the 2023 American Community Survey to explore how low-income seniors in Detroit are affected by declining housing values and high housing costs compared to seniors across Michigan.

Federal, state and local programs to help seniors with these costs are already strained. As the population of older adults in metro Detroit continues to grow, demand for support services, such as caregiving and healthy meal programs, will likely increase.

Housing cost burdens are more acute for Detroit seniors

The poverty rate of senior-headed households in Detroit is nearly twice as high as the rate statewide.

Detroit seniors, both owners and renters, are more likely to be housing cost-burdened than Michigan seniors overall, with 45% paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs compared to 31% of seniors statewide. This is partially driven by lower median incomes in the city compared to the state.

Even when we focus on the seniors who would be considered the most financially stable, those who own their homes free and clear, the proportion burdened by housing costs is twice as high as the state: 32% versus 16%.

Detroit seniors pay more for property taxes and utilities

Lower incomes aren’t the only thing driving the higher housing cost burden. Detroit seniors pay more for all homeownership costs, including utilities – not only as a proportion of home values and income, but also in terms of real costs.

Detroiters face higher rates for auto insurance, and they pay more for utilities, compared to others in the state, adding to a situation where many residents, especially seniors on fixed incomes, struggle to make ends meet.

While the cost of living in urban areas is often higher compared to suburban and rural places, my analysis found that comparative costs for insurance, water, electricity and gas are lower in cities such as Milwaukee and Pittsburgh, which points to systemic issues that might be unique to Detroit.

Insurance and property taxes are also higher for seniors in Detroit compared to seniors across the state, especially relative to median home values. Detroit seniors pay the same or slightly more for these essentials despite living in homes that are worth less, based on the analysis.

The median house value for senior property owners in Detroit is $65,000, compared to $170,000 for seniors in Michigan.

High property taxes and insurance rates drive costs

Detroit lost over half a million residents between 1980 and 2020, causing an oversupply of single-family housing stock and a steady drop in home prices.

As residents left and businesses followed, the property tax base eroded. To generate the same revenue as cities with a richer tax base, Detroit levies property taxes at relatively high rates. Detroiters face a property tax rate close to 3%, significantly higher than the national average of 1.38%.

The housing market in Detroit has seen such large declines in property values that a disconnect has emerged. The replacement cost of a home, which is the actual expense required to reconstruct the dwelling, is often substantially higher than its current market value. This makes the cost of homeowner’s insurance disproportionately expensive relative to the market value of a home in Detroit.

A property’s condition and the condition of neighboring properties also raises the cost of homeowner’s insurance because insurance premiums are primarily influenced by the risk associated with insuring a property. Poor property and neighborhood conditions limit the availability of homeowner’s insurance, driving those who want homeowner’s insurance to purchase costly policies from insurers of last resort, or companies that provide coverage to people who cannot obtain it through other means due to high insurance risks.

The high cost drives many Detroit residents to forgo homeowner’s insurance. According to my analysis, almost 35% of Detroit seniors do not insure their homes, putting their main financial asset at risk.

Big utility bills

Utility bills in Detroit are higher compared to those statewide for two reasons: higher use and higher rates. The housing stock in Detroit is significantly older, with 88% of Detroit seniors living in houses built before 1960, compared to 34% of seniors in the rest of the state. These older homes use more energy because they often lack modern insulation and have single-paned windows, outdated appliances, older plumbing fixtures and poor seals around windows and doors.

Detroiters and others in Michigan served by DTE Energy, a utility provider, pay gas and electricity rates that are higher than others in the state. Detroiters also pay more for utilities due to a 5% “utility users tax” added to their gas and electricity bills. This surcharge isn’t new. It stems from legislation originally passed in the 1970s, and the funds collected flow to the Public Lighting Authority, which is responsible for improving and maintaining street lights in the city, and to the Detroit Police Department.

In the wake of Detroit’s bankruptcy filing in 2013, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department carried out widespread shut-offs. From 2014 to 2020, the shut-offs affected as many as 141,000 Detroit residents, mostly those with low incomes. The crisis garnered national and international attention.

The initial crisis has passed, yet the cost of water continues to increase across the entire state, with those in the metro Detroit area served by the Great Lakes Water Authority seeing substantially higher rate increases than the state overall to cover deferred maintenance and infrastructure costs.

Costs are compounded by social isolation

Costs stemming from isolation and disability exacerbate the financial strain Detroit seniors already face.

Several factors contribute to older adults living alone, including increased life expectancy for women as well as children and family members moving farther away from each other. Older adults living alone are also more likely to be poorer than older adults who are a part of a larger household.

This issue is more pronounced in Detroit, where 54.7% of seniors live alone compared to the 43.2% statewide average. Living alone increases the risk of social isolation, which is linked to poorer health outcomes. Detroit seniors also have higher rates of disability than other seniors in the state of Michigan, which can lead to higher health care costs, decreased mobility and increased social isolation.

Less funding could create more hardship

Historically the demand for support outstrips the available resources, with only a small proportion of eligible households receiving energy assistance. And now, programs that help vulnerable seniors with the costs of utilities are at risk of funding cuts.

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department’s Lifeline Plan, launched in 2022, ran out of state and federal money in October 2025.

Meanwhile, the entire staff that administers the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, was cut in April 2025. While the program is funded in the continuing resolution passed on Nov. 12, 2025, it is zeroed out in the president’s fiscal year 2026 proposed budget.

Even before funding uncertainties emerged, Detroit seniors who own their homes faced institutional barriers accessing property tax relief, putting many at risk of tax foreclosure. Additionally, Detroiters struggle to keep up with home repair costs, heightened by the needs of older homes and because the home repair assistance system is fragmented and difficult to access.

Without these programs, Detroit seniors will be left without an essential lifeline.

Amanda Nothaft 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. Nearly half of Detroit seniors spend at least 30% of their income on housing costs − even as real estate values fall – https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-of-detroit-seniors-spend-at-least-30-of-their-income-on-housing-costs-even-as-real-estate-values-fall-268075

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Despite public support in the U.S. for deposing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump is unlikely to find that level of support for fighting an actual war in that country.

Even as Trump tries to work through Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president and now the acting leader of the country, to manage Venezuela, there are echoes of President George W. Bush in Iraq with Trump saying that the United States will “run” Venezuela and “nurse it back to health” with Venezuelan oil wealth. None of that – which requires a lot of control by Washington and a major presence on the ground – can or will happen without a significant commitment of U.S. military forces, however, which Trump hasn’t ruled out.

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

Yet U.S. citizens have been and remain deeply skeptical of military action in Venezuela. From Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush, history shows that leaders often pay a high political price – and costs to their legacy, too – when wars they start or expand become unpopular.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that every major U.S. war since 1900 – especially those that involved regime change – was buoyed at its outset by a big story with a grand purpose or objective. This helped galvanize national support to bear the costs of these wars.

During the Cold War, a story about the dangers of Soviet power to American democracy and the need to combat the spread of communism brought strong public support, at least initially, for wars in Korea and Vietnam, along with smaller operations in the Caribbean and Latin America.

In the 2000s and 2010s, the dominant narrative about preventing another Sept. 11 and quelling global terrorism generated strong initial public support for wars in Iraq – 70% in 2003 – and Afghanistan, 88% in 2001.

A big problem Trump now faces is that no similar story exists for Venezuela.

What national interest?

The administration’s justifications for war cover a hodgepodge of reasons, such as stopping drugs that flow almost exclusively to Europe, not the U.S.; seizing oil fields that benefit U.S. corporations but not the wider public; and somehow curtailing China’s efforts to build roads and bridges in Latin America.

All these are unrelated to any story-driven sense of collective mission or purpose. Unlike Korea or Afghanistan at the start, Americans don’t know what war in Venezuela will bring them and whether it is worth the costs.

This lack of a holistic story or broad rationale shows up in the polls. In November, only 15% of Americans saw Venezuela as a national emergency. A plurality, 45%, opposed an overthrow of Maduro. After Maduro was removed in early January 2026, Americans’ opposition to force in Venezuela grew to 52%. No rally around the flag here.

Americans also worry about where things are heading in Venezuela, with 72% saying Trump has not clearly explained plans going forward. Few want the mantle of regime change, either. Nine in 10 say Venezuelans, not the United States, should choose their next government. And more than 60% oppose additional force against Venezuela or other Latin American countries.

Only 43% of Republicans want the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere, indicating Trump’s foreign policy vision isn’t even popular in his own party.

Overall, these numbers stand in sharp contrast to past U.S. wars bolstered by big stories, where there was generally a deep, bipartisan consensus behind using force.

For the moment, 89% of Republicans support removing Maduro. But 87% of Democrats and 58% of independents are opposed.

Reflecting the national skepticism – and in a rebuke of Trump – the U.S. Senate advanced a measure to final vote requiring Trump to get congressional approval before taking further military action in Venezuela. Five Senate Republicans joined all Democratic senators in voting for the measure.

All told, the U.S. political system is flashing red when it comes to war in Venezuela.

Hubris can turn deadly

Research shows that U.S. regime change wars almost never go as planned. Yet, the hubris of U.S. leaders sometimes causes them to ignore this fact, which can result in deadly trouble. In Iraq, influential Vice President Dick Cheney told one interviewer, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.” We weren’t, and U.S. forces got bogged down in a bloody insurgency war.

Experts say the same trouble could come in Venezuela.

What might stop the United States from rolling into a deeper war that’s not in line with how the public views U.S. interests? My research shows that the answer lies with U.S. leaders taking steps to back away from owning what comes next in Venezuela.

This turns a lot on presidential rhetoric. When leaders make robust commitments to action, it often boxes them in politically later on to follow through, even if they don’t want to do so. Their words create what political scientists call “audience costs,” which are domestic political setbacks, or punishment, that leaders will face if they fail to follow through on what they promised to do.

Audience costs can even form in a case like Venezuela, because despite limited public support for force, the media along with proponents of war inside and outside government often pick up on a president’s words and produce a churning conversation. That conversation is visible now in the news cycle, with leading Republicans and other prominent voices calling for more robust action. It’s the “you broke it, you fix it” discussion.

This churn raises questions about the president’s credibility that sometimes makes leaders feel boxed in to act, even when public support is questionable.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised to devote greater attention and resources to the war in Afghanistan. When he got in office, Obama’s words came back to bite him. Political pressure generated by his campaign pledge made it almost impossible for Obama to avoid surging troops into Afghanistan at a much higher level than what he intended.

While presidents should always strive to keep the public informed of the direction policy is headed, research shows that leaders can avoid the trap of audience costs by remaining relatively vague and noncommittal, which the public now prefers, about future military actions.

On Venezuela, Trump has done some of this vague language work already by sidestepping specifics about when and if force will be used again, and by also downplaying talk of U.S.-led democracy promotion. If he stops talking about “running” Venezuela and adopts the more measured language used by advisers such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who says the goal is to “move (Venezuela) in a certain direction” but not run the country, Trump could take another step away from being boxed in to do more militarily.

Events on the ground in Venezuela might also factor into future U.S. policy. Obama would not have faced the political pressure for the surge that he did when coming to office if the Afghan war had been going in a more positive direction.

Venezuela is close to economic collapse, according to some experts, due to Caracas’ inability to reap the profits of selling oil abroad. If that happens, political chaos could follow and leave Trump, like Obama in Afghanistan, feeling lots of pressure to act militarily, especially if Trump is still saying he “runs” Venezuela.

Again, Americans don’t want that, which means taking steps, such as loosening the current oil embargo, to alleviate economic pain in Venezuela might make sense for Trump. Otherwise, if American troops are sent in by Trump and deaths mount, even a president deemed virtually untouchable by scandal and failure could find himself finally paying a political price for his decisions.

Charles Walldorf is affiliated with Defense Priorities.

– ref. Wars without clear purpose erode presidential legacies, and Trump risks political consequences with further military action in Venezuela – https://theconversation.com/wars-without-clear-purpose-erode-presidential-legacies-and-trump-risks-political-consequences-with-further-military-action-in-venezuela-273199