Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kenneth Andrew Andres Leonardo, Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government, Hamilton College

Pete Hegseth, the current defense secretary, has stressed what he calls the “warrior ethos,” while other Americans seem to have embraced a renewed interest in “warrior culture.”

Debate about these concepts actually traces back for thousands of years. Thinkers have long wrestled with what it means to be a true “warrior,” and the proper place of honor and virtue on the road to becoming one. I study the history of political thought, where these debates sometimes play out, but have engaged them in my own martial arts training, too. Beyond aimless brutality or victory, serious practitioners eventually look toward higher principles – even when the desire for glory is powerful.

Many times, “honor” and “virtue” are almost synonyms. If you acted righteously, you behaved “honorably.” If you’re moral, you’re “honorable.” In practice, chasing after honor can prompt not only the best behavior, but the worst. We all long for validation. At its best, that longing can motivate us toward virtue – but it can also lead in the opposite direction.

I am fascinated by the way two famous thinkers grapple with this paradox. They are teachers who lived centuries apart, on opposite sides of the world: Aristotle, the Greek philosopher; and Yamamoto Tsunetomo, a Japanese samurai and Buddhist priest.

The ‘prize of virtue’

In the age of Homer, the Greek poet who is thought to have composed “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey” around the 8th century B.C.E., being “good” meant attaining excellence in combat and military affairs, along with wealth and social standing.

According to classics scholar Arthur W.H. Adkins, the “quiet virtues” like justice, prudence and wisdom were seen as honorable, but were not needed for a person to be considered good during this time.

Several centuries later, though, those virtues became central to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – Greek thinkers whose ideas about character continue to influence how many people, both inside and outside academia, view ethics today.

Aristotle’s understanding of virtue is reflected not only in his works, but in the deeds of his reputed student, Alexander the Great. The Macedonian king is commonly held as the best military commander in antiquity, with an empire that extended from Greece to India. The Greek author Plutarch believed that philosophy provided Alexander with the “equipment” for his campaign: virtues including courage, moderation, greatness of soul and comprehension.

In Aristotle’s view, honor and virtue seem to be “goods” that people pursue in the search for happiness. He refers to external goods, like honor and wealth; goods related to the body, like health; and goods of the soul, like virtue.

Each moral virtue, such as courage and moderation, forms one’s character by maintaining good habits, Aristotle proposed.

Overall, the virtuous human being is one who consistently makes the correct choices in life – generally, avoiding too much or too little of something.

A courageous warrior, for example, acts with just the right amount of fear. True courage, Aristotle wrote, results from doing what is noble, like defending one’s city, even if it leads to a painful death. Cowards habitually flee what is painful, while someone who acts bravely because of excessive confidence is simply reckless. Someone who is angry or vengeful fights due to passion, not courage, according to Aristotle.

The problem is that people tend to neglect virtue in favor of other “goods,” Aristotle observed: things like riches, property, reputation and power. Yet virtue itself provides the way to acquire them. Honor, properly bestowed, is the “prize of virtue.”

Still, the impulse for honor can be overwhelming. Indeed, Aristotle called it the “greatest of the external goods.” But we should only care, he cautioned, when honor comes from people who are virtuous themselves. He even recognized two virtues – greatness of soul and ambition – that involve seeking the correct amount of honor from the right place.

Loyalty, even in the face of death

Two thousand years later, and half a world away, the samurai warriors of Japan also famously focused on honor.

One of them was Yamamoto Tsunetomo – a servant of Nabeshima Mitsushige, a feudal lord in southern Japan. After his lord’s death in 1700, Tsunetomo became a Buddhist priest.

Tsunetomo’s counsel can be found in the “Hagakure-kikigaki,” a collection of his teachings about how a samurai ought to live. Today, this text is considered one of the most notable discourses on “bushidō,” or the way of the warrior.

Tsunetomo’s samurai oath involved the following:

I will never fall behind others in pursuing the way of the warrior.

I will always be ready to serve my lord.

I will honor my parents.
I will serve compassionately for the benefit of others.

The road to becoming a samurai required developing habits that would enable the warrior to fulfill these oaths. Over time, those consistent habits would develop into virtues, like compassion and courage.

To merit honor, the samurai were expected to demonstrate those virtues until their end. Tsunetomo infamously stated that “the way of the warrior is to be found in dying.” Freedom and being able to fulfill one’s duties require living as a “corpse,” he taught. A warrior who cannot detach from life and death is useless, whereas “with this mind-set, any meritorious feat is achievable.”

A courageous death was integral to meriting honor. If one’s lord died, ritual suicide was considered an honorable expression of loyalty – an extension of the general rule that samurai should follow their lord. Indeed, it was considered shameful to become a “rōnin,” a samurai dismissed without a master. Nonetheless, it was possible to make amends and return. Lord Katsushige, the previous head of the Nabeshima domain, even encouraged the experience to truly understand how to be of service.

The path to virtue, then, might involve a period of dishonor. The “Hagakure” suggests that fear of dishonor should not lead a samurai to mindlessly follow his lord’s instructions. In some cases, a servant could correct their master as a sign of “magnificent loyalty.” Tsunetomo referred to the example of Nakano Shōgen, who brought peace after persuading his lord, Mitsushige, to apologize for not paying proper respect to certain families within the clan.

The “Hagakure” presents honor as something essential to the way of the warrior. But fame and power should only be pursued along a path aligned with virtue – a life in accord with the samurai’s core oath.

“A [samurai] who seeks only fame and power is not a true retainer,” according to the “Hagakure.” “Then again, he who doesn’t [seek them] is not a true retainer either.”

Honor matters in the pursuit of virtue, both Aristotle and Tsunetomo conclude, especially as a first source of motivation.

But both thinkers agree that honor is not the final end. Nor is moral virtue. Ultimately, they acknowledge something even higher: divine truth.

For Aristotle and Tsunetomo, it seems, the way of the warrior turns toward philosophy rather than unrestrained power and endless war.

Kenneth Andrew Andres Leonardo worked on some of the research presented here under the direction of Dr. Alexander Bennett at Kansai University (Osaka, Japan) through their “Scholars from Overseas” program. Professor Leonardo is an Instructor in Kali Method under Guro Jason Cruz. He also currently trains in Gracie Jiu Jitsu under Sensei Erik Soderbergh and in Judo at Brown’s School of Judo, Jujutsu, and Grappling. Previously, he studied Pangamot under Grandmaster Felix Pascua.

– ref. Seeking honor is a double-edged sword – from ancient Greece to samurai Japan, thinkers have wrestled with whether it’s the way to virtue – https://theconversation.com/seeking-honor-is-a-double-edged-sword-from-ancient-greece-to-samurai-japan-thinkers-have-wrestled-with-whether-its-the-way-to-virtue-262005

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Wayne Unger, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

Since the end of December, 2025, X’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok, has responded to many users’ requests to undress real people by turning photos of the people into sexually explicit material. After people began using the feature, the social platform company faced global scrutiny for enabling users to generate nonconsensual sexually explicit depictions of real people.

The Grok account has posted thousands of “nudified” and sexually suggestive images per hour. Even more disturbing, Grok has generated sexualized images and sexually explicit material of minors.

X’s response: Blame the platform’s users, not us. The company issued a statement on Jan. 3, 2026, saying that “Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” It’s not clear what action, if any, X has taken against any users.

As a legal scholar who studies the intersection of law and emerging technologies, I see this flurry of nonconsensual imagery as a predictable outcome of the combination of X’s lax content moderation policies and the accessibility of powerful generative AI tools.

Targeting users

The rapid rise in generative AI has led to countless websites, apps and chatbots that allow users to produce sexually explicit material, including “nudification” of real children’s images. But these apps and websites are not as widely known or used as any of the major social media platforms, like X.

State legislatures and Congress were somewhat quick to respond. In May 2025, Congress enacted the Take It Down Act, which makes it a criminal offense to publish nonconsensual sexually explicit material of real people. The Take It Down Act criminalizes both the nonconsensual publication of “intimate visual depictions” of identifiable people and AI- or otherwise computer-generated depictions of identifiable people.

Those criminal provisions apply only to any individuals who post the sexually explicit content, not to the platforms that distribute the content, such as social media websites.

Other provisions of the Take It Down Act, however, require platforms to establish a process for the people depicted to request the removal of the imagery. Once a “Take It Down Request” is submitted, a platform must remove the sexually explicit depiction within 48 hours. But these requirements do not take effect until May 19, 2026.

Problems with platforms

Meanwhile, user requests to take down the sexually explicit imagery produced by Grok have apparently gone unanswered. Even the mother of one of Elon Musk’s children, Ashley St. Clair, has not been able to get X to remove the fake sexualized images of her that Musk’s fans produced using Grok. The Guardian reports that St. Clair said her “complaints to X staff went nowhere.”

This does not surprise me because Musk gutted then-Twitter’s Trust and Safety advisory group shortly after he acquired the platform and fired 80% of the company’s engineers dedicated to trust and safety. Trust and safety teams are typically responsible for content moderation and initiatives to prevent abuse at tech companies.

Publicly, it appears that Musk has dismissed the seriousness of the situation. Musk has reportedly posted laugh-cry emojis in response to some of the images, and X responded to a Reuters reporter’s inquiry with the auto-reply “Legacy Media Lies.”

Limits of lawsuits

Civil lawsuits like the one filed by the parents of Adam Raine, a teenager who committed suicide in April 2025 after interacting with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are one way to hold platforms accountable. But lawsuits face an uphill battle in the United States given Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally immunizes social media platforms from legal liability for the content that users post on their platforms.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and many legal scholars, however, have argued that Section 230 has been applied too broadly by courts. I generally agree that Section 230 immunity needs to be narrowed because immunizing tech companies and their platforms for their deliberate design choices – how their software is built, how the software operates and what the software produces – falls outside the scope of Section 230’s protections.

In this case, X has either knowingly or negligently failed to deploy safeguards and controls in Grok to prevent users from generating sexually explicit imagery of identifiable people. Even if Musk and X believe that users should have the ability to generate sexually explicit images of adults using Grok, I believe that in no world should X escape accountability for building a product that generates sexually explicit material of real-life children.

Regulatory guardrails

If people cannot hold platforms like X accountable via civil lawsuits, then it falls to the federal government to investigate and regulate them. The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice or Congress, for example, could investigate X for Grok’s generation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material. But with Musk’s renewed political ties to President Donald Trump, I do not expect any serious investigations and accountability anytime soon.

For now, international regulators have launched investigations against X and Grok. French authorities have commenced investigations into “the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes” from Grok, and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Ireland have strongly urged Ireland’s national police to investigate the “mass undressing spree.” The U.K. regulatory agency Office of Communications said it is investigating the matter, and regulators in the European Commission, India and Malaysia are reportedly investigating X as well.

In the United States, perhaps the best course of action until the Take It Down Act goes into effect in May is for people to demand action from elected officials.

Wayne Unger 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. Grok produces sexualized photos of women and minors for users on X – a legal scholar explains why it’s happening and what can be done – https://theconversation.com/grok-produces-sexualized-photos-of-women-and-minors-for-users-on-x-a-legal-scholar-explains-why-its-happening-and-what-can-be-done-272861

Source: The Conversation – USA – By SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Politics, University of Virginia

As the bell struck midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, time ran out on Obamacare subsidies for over 24 million Americans. These subsidies, propped up through various legislative packages over the years, lowered the health insurance costs for Americans on the Obamacare exchange.

Following the expiration of these subsidies, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing for around 90% of Americans who use health insurance from the exchange. For many Americans, the new year means a choice between paying exorbitant costs or taking the risk of no health insurance at all.

But unlike other policy challenges that Congress may face in 2026, the expiration of health insurance subsidies was not unexpected.

The extension of health care subsidies was the pivotal disagreement that ultimately led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history in the fall of 2025. Democratic members, in support of extending the subsidies, faced off against the majority party in Congress: Republicans who wanted a short-term legislative fix that did not fund subsidies.

Republicans ultimately won the shutdown battle. And while Democrats attempted a last-gasp vote in December to reform and extend health care subsidies, the health care debate was yet again punted into the next year.

Congress has reconvened, and Democratic members – joined by four Republican members – used the best possible procedural tool at the minority party’s disposal, the discharge petition, to force congressional leaders to allow votes on an extension of Obamacare subsidies during its first week back in session. But overcoming congressional leadership is an immense challenge: Even if the House is successful, Senate Republican leadership has made clear that there is no future for the legislation in that chamber.

The challenge of passing meaningful solutions to rising health care costs is not unique to this year or to this Congress. It has been a decades-long argument among lawmakers that shows no sign of being resolved.

Why is it so hard for Congress to lower the cost of health care for the people who sent them to Washington?

Like many policy problems, partisanship is partly to blame. But the sprawling complexities of the American health care system pose a particular challenge to members of Congress. As my own research finds, the outsized power and resources of congressional leaders means that for Congress’ most intricate issues, rank-and-file members do not have the time, resources or, frankly, the interest to dedicate to meaningful problem-solving.

Government ‘dips its toe’

Americans face some of the highest health care costs in the world. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long campaigned on addressing exorbitant costs and equitable access.

Progressive politicians proposed the idea of national health insurance as early as the 1900s, but efforts were limited to women and children, and any policy successes were moderate and temporary.

Following the Great Depression and the advent of Social Security in the 1940s, Congress had warmed to the idea of the federal government providing social services. But attempts at widespread health care coverage failed to gain traction.

During the 1950s, as Americans began to expect more services from their tax dollars, formal coalitions formed in support of, and in opposition to, government-supported health care. Workers and unions, bolstered by Congress and the Supreme Court, used the power of collective bargaining to push for employee benefits such as health insurance. Doctors and medical providers, enjoying their current – and profitable – position, coordinated campaigns against national health insurance proposals.

The tension held until 1956, when the government dipped its toe into federally funded health care, enacting the first “Medicare” government-funded program for dependents of the armed forces.

In the private sector, employee demands and employer tax incentives led to a convoluted web of employer-based insurance programs. But for many Americans, particularly the retired and elderly and those with low-paying jobs, there remained few, if any, insurance options available.

Enter: Medicare and Medicaid

In the 1960s, under Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s vision for a “Great Society,” and with a bipartisan vote in Congress, the federal government took the greatest step forward in providing federal health assistance for Americans: Medicare and Medicaid. The programs helped with the cost of health care via federal health insurance for those who were elderly and low-income, and they ushered in a new era of federal health policy.

This was a watershed moment for policymakers. With health care coverage now under the umbrella of the federal government, domestic policymaking responsibility expanded to match. For lawmakers, this meant not only new debates but also new federal agencies, new congressional committees, new lobbying firms and new interest group coalitions.

In the decades that followed, Congress’ responsibility for health care policy continued to expand: Coverage amounts and eligibility requirements were tweaked, programs were expanded to include prescription drugs and vaccines, health savings accounts were introduced, and more.

Yet still, the web of private and federal health insurance programs left millions of Americans uninsured. It wasn’t until 2010, under President Barack Obama, that the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare,” to close that gap. But as evident from the 2025 government shutdown, this solution was far from perfect – and quite expensive.

Why, despite centuries of attention, does health care coverage remain one of – if not the most – perplexing and challenging domestic issues that Congress faces?

Consensus becomes more difficult

Part of this is a uniquely American problem: Like many services, the American health care system is based on economic incentives, and the foundational ideal of American liberalism means the government is inclined to let capitalism thrive.

As a former congressional staffer and now a scholar of Congress, I know that nowhere is the tension of societal support and personal freedom more apparent than the debate over health care access.

But the issue is also immensely complex, and today’s Congress does not have the resources to meet the challenge, particularly in the face of a sprawling executive branch.

Over time, as policies were adopted by the federal government, the scope of potential solutions expanded. To put it another way, as more cooks enter the policymaking kitchen, consensus became more difficult. The history of American health care is populated by private industries, powerful interest groups, federal officials and concerned citizens.

And the web of federal funding and private insurance companies across 50 states has resulted in a policy landscape that is easier to tweak, rather than whole-scale reform.

This is further stymied by the limited resources and expertise of the modern Congress. My research has shown that rank-and-file members are increasingly reliant on party leaders to take the lead on policymaking and problem-solving. Negotiating across coalitions and parties is unpleasant, and communicating policy changes on such a complex issue is difficult.

The result? Tepid policy tweaks made for partisan messaging.

And as ideological divisions on government support and personal autonomy become crystallized by the two parties in Congress, partisan policy solutions diverge even further. Collaboration becomes harder every year.

The continuing resolution passed late in 2025 funded the government only until Jan. 30, 2026, which means Congress is facing a Groundhog Day rather than a clean slate for the new year. With millions of Americans facing exploding health care costs, the question becomes who will Congress follow: party leadership or concerned constituents?

SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor 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. Congress takes up health care again − and impatient voters shouldn’t hold their breath for a cure – https://theconversation.com/congress-takes-up-health-care-again-and-impatient-voters-shouldnt-hold-their-breath-for-a-cure-271998

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Laura M. MacLatchy, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan

Adolescents are known for risky behavior, with teenagers in the U.S. more likely than younger children to die from injury. But what’s responsible for this uptick in risk-taking around puberty?

Our new observations of physical risk-taking in chimpanzees suggests that the rise in risk-taking in human adolescence isn’t due to a new yen for danger. Rather, a decrease in supervision gives teens more opportunities to take risks.

We study locomotion in chimpanzees, one of humans’ closest relatives. It’s difficult to study physical risk-taking in people because it is not ethical to put anyone in danger. Chimpanzees are good alternative study subjects, since wild chimps of all ages need to move through the trees, often at great heights.

While working with us, Bryce Murray, an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan, noticed that some of the movements that chimpanzees perform in the trees are more dangerous than others.

Typically, chimpanzees climb or swing while keeping a secure grip on branches. However, they also leap across gaps and sometimes let go of a branch entirely, dropping down to another branch or the ground. Unfortunately, they don’t always nail the landing. Years of observations in the wild have shown that falls are a major source of injury and even death among chimpanzees.

After watching these behaviors in chimpanzees, Bryce began to wonder whether their physical risk-taking follows the same patterns we see in humans. Do chimpanzees start taking more risks – like leaping and dropping from branches – once they enter puberty? Since there is evidence that human males take more risks than females, although this varies across cultures, we also wondered whether male chimpanzees are bigger risk-takers than females.

Young chimpanzee daredevils

Our study group consisted of over 100 wild chimpanzees ranging from 2 to 65 years old from Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda.

We found that chimpanzees engaged in their most daring locomotion during later infancy (ages 2-5), with rates of leaping and dropping steadily declining as they aged. Compared with adults (over 15 years), older infants were three times more likely to perform risky behaviors. Juveniles (ages 5-10) were 2.5 times more likely, and adolescents (ages 10-15) were twice as likely. Infants younger than age 2 spend most of their time clinging to their moms, so we didn’t include them in our study.

Thus, adolescence does not represent a peak in risk-taking for chimps, but rather a point within a gradual age-related decline. Additionally, there were no significant sex differences in risk-taking at any age, consistent with our prior work showing that male and female chimpanzees do not differ much in how they move through the trees.

Our findings fit with past lab studies that focus on gambling risks rather than physical ones. Experimenters ask chimpanzees to choose between safe and risky options – say, a box that is guaranteed to contain an OK snack, like peanuts, versus a mystery box that may have either a highly desirable treat, such as a banana, or a boring option, like cucumber. Chimpanzees are more likely to choose the sure bet – the peanuts – as they age. A similar pattern occurs in people, becoming more risk averse with age.

In both contexts, in the trees and in the lab, chimpanzees did not show a peak in risk-taking when they reach puberty.

Implications for human risk-taking

Chimpanzee mothers cannot effectively restrict their offsprings’ behavior beyond the age of 2. By that age, infants cling less frequently to their mothers and are no longer in consistent contact. In our observations of leaping and dropping, 82% of the infants were out of arm’s reach of their mother.

In contrast, human children are tracked with care by their parents and what social scientists call “alloparents”: other adult caregivers such as grandparents and older children, especially siblings. Although approaches to parenting vary a lot worldwide, across cultures children are consistently supervised and restrictions loosen as they become adolescents.

We hypothesize that if parents and other caregivers watched children less closely, younger kids would take more physical risks even before they become teenagers. Our study of chimpanzees thus helps us understand how supervision may shape physical risk-taking in people.

What still isn’t known

It’s important to consider other factors that may influence chimpanzees’ taking fewer physical risks as they mature. For example, this pattern may reflect a need for adults to be more careful. Even though younger primates break bones from falls more often, adults are heavier and have less flexible bones, so injuries from falls are usually more deadly.

Studying chimpanzees offers insight into the roles that both evolution and culture play in human development.

Balancing parental supervision with children’s need for play is tricky. Although concerns about injuries in children are valid, minor injuries may be a normal part of development. Play during childhood, when bones are more resilient, may let kids practice risky behaviors more safely. Some anthropologists argue for increasing children’s access to thrill-seeking play – including the old-fashioned monkey bars – as a way to help them develop motor skills and skeletal strength.

Laura M. MacLatchy receives funding from the Leakey Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan.

Lauren Sarringhaus receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the Leakey Foundation, and James Madison University.

– ref. Risks young chimps take as they swing through the trees underscore role of protective parenting in humans – https://theconversation.com/risks-young-chimps-take-as-they-swing-through-the-trees-underscore-role-of-protective-parenting-in-humans-272787

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aaron Pilkington, Fellow at the Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver

Perhaps no one outside of Venezuela or Cuba should care more about the U.S. capture of nominal President Nicolás Maduro than the Islamic Republic of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei and his regime are in trouble, and it’s not clear how they would survive should the Trump administration decide to support the millions who want a new government system without Khamenei and his ilk.

Iran has no state allies that would be willing to intervene militarily on its behalf. Further, its once-powerful network of partner and proxy militias – Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and other members of the Axis of Resistance – has been rendered incapable or reluctant to get involved. And Iran’s economy is in shambles in the midst of an ongoing water crisis with no relief in sight.

Further, the Iranian people have again taken to the streets to air their grievances against harsh economic conditions as well as government corruption, mismanagement and hypocrisy, echoing similar conditions to Venezuela in recent years.

Lastly, President Donald Trump has returned his attention to Iran. On Jan. 2, Trump warned Khamenei that if his forces violently suppress protesters, Iran would be “hit very hard” by the U.S.

Trump’s warning and show of solidarity will likely embolden protesters, which will almost certainly cause Iran’s internal security to crack down harder, as has happened in the past. Such U.S. intervention could lead to the overthrowing of the ayatollah, intended or not. Furthermore, Maduro’s fate demonstrates that the Trump administration is willing to use military force for that purpose if deemed necessary.

As an analyst of Middle East affairs focusing on Iran, I believe that these conditions place Khamenei’s regime under greater threat today than perhaps any other time in its 46-year history.

Growing threats, internal and external

If Khamenei hopes to survive politically or mortally, I believe he has three options.

First, he could capitulate to U.S. demands to halt Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Second, Iran could sprint toward a nuclear bomb. Lastly, he could flee.

In hopes of restoring deterrence, Khamenei could also continue rebuilding his country’s military capabilities, which were significantly degraded during the June 2025 12-day war in which Israel and the U.S. aimed to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.

Israel is eager to stifle Iran’s reconstitution plans, protests are spreading and growing more intense, and Trump – through hostile rhetoric and offensive military action – has put Khamenei on notice.

Khameini’s problems aren’t his alone. The revolutionary theocratic system of government that he leads is in danger of falling. And his military and internal security apparatus may not have the time or ability to address its growing and interrelated internal and external threats simultaneously.

There are two fundamental factors analysts like me consider when assessing enemy threats: offensive capability to inflict damage and hostile intentions to use these capabilities to harm enemies.

Determining offensive capability involves evaluating the quality of a country or organization’s complete arsenal – air, ground, maritime, cyber and space capabilities – and how trained, disciplined, integrated and lethal their forces might be. Determining intentions involves evaluating if, when and under what conditions offensive capabilities will be used to achieve their goals.

If states hope to survive when they come under such pressure, their defense strategy should account for differences between their own military capability and the enemy’s, especially if enemies intend to attack. Or states need to convince enemies to be less hostile, if possible.

Maduro’s mistake was his inability to defend against a far superior U.S. military capability while believing that U.S. leaders would not remove him from office. Maduro gambled and lost.

Bad choices

Iran’s supreme leader faces a similar conundrum: First, there is no foreseeable path that allows Tehran to produce or acquire the military capabilities necessary to deter Israel or defeat the United States, unless Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

And decades of mutual hostility, the memory of Iran’s once-clandestine nuclear weaponization program and recent Iranian lawmaker calls to develop nuclear bombs minimizes the prospect that U.S. leaders view Khamenei’s intentions as anything but hostile.

But as the clear weaker party, it is in Tehran’s interest to change Trump’s mind about Tehran’s hostile intent. The way to do that would be by abandoning nuclear enrichment.

In terms of threat analysis, the regime’s oft-repeated chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” perhaps have sent an easily misinterpreted message: that Iran’s hostile leaders intend to destroy the U.S. and Israel. But they simply lack the capability, for now.

President Theodore Roosevelt famously said “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” Today, he might say that Khamenei is unwise for speaking with such vitriol considering the size of Iran’s stick. The United States and Israel possess military capabilities far superior to Iran’s – as demonstrated by the 12-day war – but they did not then share the same intent. Though both Israel and the U.S. operations shared the objective of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capability, Israel’s objectives were more broad and included targeting senior Iranian leaders and destabilizing the regime.

To Khamenei’s momentary personal and institutional fortune, Trump immediately called for a ceasefire following U.S. B-2 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, delineating the United States’ narrower objectives that at the time did not include regime change in Iran.

But that was before U.S. forces removed Maduro from Caracas and before the outbreak of protests in Iran, both of which coincide with Israel’s signaling preparations for Round 2 against Iran.

Iran without Khamenei?

During Trump’s Dec. 29 press conference at Mar-a-Lago with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he warned that the U.S. could “knock the hell” out of Iran if the country reconstitutes its nuclear facilities.

This is separate from the ominuous warning that the U.S. could intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters; it would almost certainly differ in scale.

Nevertheless, a potential U.S. intervention could embolden protesters and further undermine and destabilize the Islamic Republic regime. Khamenei has predictably scoffed at and dismissed Trump’s warning.

I believe this is a serious mistake.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Jan. 3, 2025, that Khameini should not “play games” as Maduro did. Khamenei, Rubio said, should take Trump’s warnings seriously. I agree.

If Iran refrains from violent crackdowns on protesters, there is a chance that anti-government protestors overthrow the government. But the supreme leader’s chances of surviving a popular uprising are probably greater than surviving an unbridled U.S. or Israeli military intent on ushering in a new – post-Islamic Republic – Iran.

Otherwise, Khamenei has to address superior U.S. and Israeli military capability, quickly. But Iran is broke, and even if sanctions were not continuously strangling Iran economically, the country could probably never purchase its way to military parity with the U.S. or Israel.

Alternatively, Iran could determine that it must move quickly to develop a nuclear weapon to mitigate U.S. and Israeli military capabilities and deter future aggression. However, it is extremely unlikely Iran could do this without U.S. and Israeli intelligence discovering the project, which would immediately trigger an overwhelming military campaign that would likely expedite regime change in Iran.

And like Maduro, the supreme leader is utterly alone. None of Maduro’s closest partners – China, Russia, Cuba and even Iran – were willing to fight in his defense, despite weeks of forewarning and U.S. military buildup near Venezuela.

Under these circumstances, it may be impossible for Khamenei to address overwhelming U.S. and Israeli military capabilities. He could, however, reduce the threat by doing what is necessary to ensure the United States’ objectives for Iran remain narrow and focused on the nuclear program, which may also keep Israel at bay.

However, Khamenei would have to demonstrate unprecedented restraint from cracking down violently on protesters and a willingness to give up nuclear enrichment. Due to historical animosity and distrust toward the U.S., both are unlikely, increasing, I believe, the probability of a forthcoming Iran without Khamenei.

Dr. Aaron Pilkington is a U.S. Air Force Senior Analyst of Middle East affairs and a Fellow at the University of Denver’s Center for Middle East Studies. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Department of War, the Department of the Air Force, or any other organizational affiliation.

– ref. Today Venezuela, tomorrow Iran: can the Islamic Republic survive a second Trump presidency? – https://theconversation.com/today-venezuela-tomorrow-iran-can-the-islamic-republic-survive-a-second-trump-presidency-272693

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christopher Neubert, Deputy Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State University

With Congress back in session, legislators will take up a set of issues they haven’t comprehensively addressed since 2018 – the year the last farm bill passed.

Farm bills are massive pieces of legislation that address a diverse constellation of topics, including agricultural commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, rural development, energy, forestry and more. Because of their complexity, farm bills are difficult to negotiate in any political environment. And as the topics have expanded since the first iteration in 1933, Congress has generally agreed to take the whole thing up once every five years or so.

However, the most recent farm bill’s provisions expired in 2023. They have been renewed one year at a time ever since, but without the comprehensive overhaul that used to accompany farm bills.

As former federal employees handling agriculture policy who now study that topic, it’s unclear to us whether a comprehensive, five-year farm bill can be passed in 2026, or ever again.

The July 2025 enactment of the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the Trump administration’s budget priorities in the tax and spending bill, revised funding levels for many programs that were historically handled in the farm bill. For instance, that law included a 20% cut in funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which helps low-income families buy food. And it doubled support for the largest farm subsidy programs.

Those changes and current divisions in Congress mean the nation’s food and agriculture policy may remain stuck in limbo for yet another year.

Cuts to SNAP used for farm subsidies

For decades, political conventional wisdom has held that sweeping federal farm bills are able to pass only because farmers seeking subsidies and anti-hunger advocates wanting increased SNAP dollars recognize the mutual advantage in working together. That’s how to build a broad, bipartisan consensus strong enough to garner the 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to avoid a filibuster and actually pass a bill.

But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax and spending law did not create a compromise between those competing interests. It slashed SNAP spending by US$186 billion over the next decade. At the same time, it boosted price support for farmers who grow key crops like corn, soybeans and wheat by $60 billion, in addition to a $10 billion economic relief package passed at the end of 2024 to address high costs of seeds, fertilizer and other farming supplies.

Supporters of anti-hunger programs are furious that these funds for farmers are being paid for by cutting SNAP benefits to families.

In addition, about one-third of the SNAP cuts came by shifting the program’s cost to state budgets. States have always carried some of the costs to administer SNAP, but they have never before been required to fund billions of dollars in benefits. Many states will be unable to cover these increased costs and will be forced to either reduce benefits or opt out of SNAP altogether, dramatically cutting the help available to hungry Americans.

Groups that support SNAP are unlikely to help pass any bill relating to food or farm policy that does not substantially reverse the cuts to SNAP.

And farmers who receive money under the two largest farm subsidy programs are not even required to grow the specific crops those programs are meant to support. Rather, they must simply own farmland that was designated in 1996 as having grown that crop in the early 1980s.

Farmers have repeatedly said they would prefer federal farm policies that support markets and create conditions for stable, fair commodity prices. And evidence shows that spending more money on farm subsidies does little to actually improve underlying economic conditions affecting the costs of farming or the prices of what is grown.

And yet, in early December 2025, the Department of Agriculture released an additional $12 billion to help offset losses farmers experienced when Trump’s tariffs reduced agricultural exports. In mid-December, the National Farmers Union said that money still wasn’t enough to cover losses from consistently low commodity prices and high seed and fertilizer costs.

A regular five-year farm bill may be out of reach

The success of any bill depends on political will in Congress and outside pressure coming together to deliver the required number of votes.

Some leaders in Congress remain optimistic about the prospects of a farm bill passing in 2026, but major legislation is rare with midterm elections looming, so meaningful progress appears unlikely. It seems to us more likely that the ongoing stalemate will continue indefinitely.

In September 2025, Politico reported that instead of a complete five-year farm bill, the House and Senate committees on agriculture might take up a series of smaller bills to extend existing programs whose authorizations are expiring. Doing so would be an effective declaration that a permanent five-year farm bill is on indefinite hold.

Prospects for sustainable farm policy

By using financial incentives cleverly, Congress has shifted farming practices over time in ways that lawmakers determined were in the public’s interest.

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, allocated $20 billion over four years to encourage farmers to reduce or offset carbon emissions, which the Agriculture Department calls “climate-smart agriculture.” Those funds, along with a separate Department of Agriculture initiative with similar aims, were well received by American farmers. Farmers applied for far more money than was actually available.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax and spending law cut those funds and repurposed them for traditional Agriculture Department programs for farmers who want to implement conservation practices on their land.

But unexpectedly, the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, agenda contains some ideas that climate-smart advocates have previously advanced. These include scathing indictments of the effects of conventional agriculture on Americans’ health, including concerns over pesticide use and the so-far-undefined category of “ultra-processed foods.”

The MAHA agenda could be an opportunity for organic farmers to secure a boost in federal funding. In December, the Agriculture Department committed $700 million toward “regenerative” practices, but that’s a trifling amount compared with the billions commodity farmers received in 2025.

And the administration’s allies who support conventional agriculture have already expressed concerns that MAHA efforts might reduce the nation’s agricultural productivity. The administration may end up caught between the MAHA movement and Big Ag.

Overall, in this new political environment, we believe advocates for changes in agriculture and food aid will likely need to rethink how to advance their agendas without the promise of a farm bill coming anytime soon.

Neubert was previously staff on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (2023-2025) and on the Senate Committee on the Budget (2021-2023).

Merrigan was USDA deputy secretary and COO (2009-2013) and staff on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (1987-1992).

– ref. Why 2026 could see the end of the Farm Bill era of American agriculture policy – https://theconversation.com/why-2026-could-see-the-end-of-the-farm-bill-era-of-american-agriculture-policy-270722

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Yifang Zhu, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles

When wildfires began racing through the Los Angeles area on Jan. 7, 2025, the scope of the disaster caught residents by surprise. Forecasters had warned about high winds and exceptionally dry conditions, but few people expected to see smoke and fires for weeks in one of America’s largest metro areas.

Environmental health scientist Yifang Zhu studies air quality at UCLA and began collecting samples from inside and outside homes the day after the fires began. In this Q&A, she describes findings by her team, a consortium of universities and local projects, that are painting a picture of the health risks millions of Los Angeles-area residents faced.

Their research offers both a warning and steps people everywhere can take to protect their homes and themselves from wildfire smoke in the future.

What made the LA fires unusual?

Urban fires are unique in a sense that it’s not just trees and other biomass burning. When homes and vehicles catch fire, plastics, electronics, cleaning chemicals, paints, textiles, construction material and much more burns, releasing chemicals and metals into the air.

More than 16,000 buildings burned in LA. Electric vehicles burned. A dental clinic burned. All of this gets mixed into the smoke in complicated ways, creating complex mixtures that can have definite health risks.

One thing we’ve found that is especially important for people to understand is that the concentration of these chemicals and metals can actually be higher inside homes compared with outside after a fire.

What are your health studies trying to learn?

To understand the health risks from air pollution, you need to know what people are exposed to and how much of it.

The LA Fire HEALTH Study, which I’m part of, is a 10-year project combining the work of exposure scientists and health researchers from several universities who are studying the long-term effects of the fire. Many other community and health groups are also working hard to help communities recover. A local program called CAP.LA, or Community Action Program Los Angeles, is supporting some of my work, including establishing a real-time air quality monitoring network in the Palisades area called CAP AIR.

During an active wildfire, it’s extremely difficult to collect high-quality air samples. Access is restricted, conditions change quickly, and research resources are often limited and take time to assemble. When the fires broke out not far from my lab at UCLA, my colleagues and I had been preparing for a different study and were able to quickly shift focus and start collecting samples to directly measure people’s exposure to metals and chemicals near and around the fires.

My group has been working with people whose homes were exposed to smoke but didn’t burn and collecting samples over time to understand the smoke’s effects. We’re primarily testing for volatile organic compounds off-gassing from soft goods – things like pillows, textiles and stuffed animals that are likely to absorb compounds from the smoke.

Our testing found volatile organic compounds that were at high levels outdoors during the active fire were still high indoors in February, after the fires were contained. When a Harvard University team led by environmental scientist Joe Allen took samples in March and April, they saw a similar pattern, with indoor levels still high.

What health risks did your team find in homes?

We have found high levels of different kinds of volatile organic compounds, which have different health risks. Some are carcinogens, like benzene. We have also found metals like arsenic, a known carcinogen, and lead, which is a neurotoxin.

Mike Kleeman, an air quality engineer at the University of California Davis, found elevated levels of hexavalent chromium in the nanometer-size range, which can be a really dangerous carcinogen. In March, he drove around collecting air samples from a burn zone. That was testing which government agencies would not have routinely done.

Fires have a long list of toxic compounds, and many of them aren’t being measured.

What do you want people to take away from these results?

People are exposed to many types of volatile organic compounds in their daily lives, but after wildfires, the indoor VOC levels can be much, much higher.

I think that’s a big public health message from the LA fires that people really need to know.

In general, people tend to think the outdoor air is worse for their health, particularly in a place like LA, but often, the indoor air is less healthy because there are several chemical emission sources right there and it’s an enclosed space.

Think about cooking with a gas stove, or burning candles or spraying air fresheners. All of these are putting pollutants into the air. Indoor pollution sources like cleaning fluids and PFAS from furniture and carpets are all around.

We often hear from people who are really worried about the air quality outside and its health risk during fires, but you need to think about the air indoors too.

What are some tips for people dealing with fires?

The LA fires have given us lots of insights into how to restore homes after smoke damage and what can be cleaned up, or remediated. One thing we want to do is develop an easy-to-follow decision tree or playbook that can help guide future fire recovery.

When the fires broke out, even I had to think about the actions I should take to reduce the smoke’s potential impact, and I study these risks.

First, close all your windows during the wildfire. If you have electricity, keep air purifiers running. That could help capture smoke that does get into the home before it soaks into soft materials.

Once the outside air is clean enough, then open those windows again to ventilate the house. Be sure to clean your HVAC system and replace filters, because the smoke leaves debris. If the home is severely impacted by smoke, some items will have to be removed, but not in every case.

And you definitely need to do testing. A home might seem fine when you look at it, but our testing showed how textiles and upholstery inside can continue off-gassing chemicals for weeks or longer.

But many people don’t have their homes tested after wildfires. They might not know how to read the results or trust the results. Remediation can also be expensive, and some insurance companies won’t cover it. There are probably people who don’t know whether their homes are safe at this point.

So there needs to be a clear path for recovery, with contamination levels to watch for and advice for finding help.

This is not going to be the last fire in the Los Angeles area, and LA will not be the last city to experience fire.

Yifang Zhu is working with CAP.LA (Community Action Project Los Angeles), which is funded by the R&S Kayne Foundation, and the LA Fire Health Study, which is funded by private philanthropists, including the Speigel Family Fund. Her work has also been partially funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Danhakl Family Foundation, and the California Air Resources Board.

– ref. LA fires 1 year later: Chemicals from smoke lingered inside homes long after the wildfires were out – studies tracked the harm – https://theconversation.com/la-fires-1-year-later-chemicals-from-smoke-lingered-inside-homes-long-after-the-wildfires-were-out-studies-tracked-the-harm-272473

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Emily Wanderer, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh

When a grizzly bear attacked a group of fourth- and fifth-graders in western Canada in late November 2025, it sparked more than a rescue effort for the 11 people injured – four with severe injuries. Local authorities began trying to find the specific bear that was involved in order to relocate or euthanize it, depending on the results of their assessment.

The attack, in Bella Coola, British Columbia, was very unusual bear behavior and sparked an effort to figure out exactly what had happened and why. That meant finding the bear involved – which, based on witness statements, was a mother grizzly with two cubs.

Searchers combed the area on foot and by helicopter and trapped four bears. DNA comparisons to evidence from the attack cleared each of the trapped bears, and they were released back to the wild. After more than three weeks without finding the bear responsible for the attack, officials called off the search.

The case highlights the difficulty of identifying individual bears, which becomes important when one is exhibiting unusual behavior. Bears tend to look a lot alike to people, and untrained observers can have a very hard time telling them apart. DNA testing is excellent for telling individuals apart, but it is expensive and requires physical samples from bears. Being trapped and having other contact with humans is also stressful for them, and wildlife managers often seek to minimize trapping.

Recent advances in computer vision and other types of artificial intelligence offer a possible alternative: facial recognition for bears.

As a cultural anthropologist, I study how scientists produce knowledge and technologies, and how new technology is transforming ecological science and conservation practices. Some of my research has looked at the work of computer scientists and ecologists making facial recognition for animals. These tools, which reflect both technological advances and broader popular interest in wildlife, can reshape how scientists and the general public understand animals by getting to know formerly anonymous creatures as individuals.

New ways to identify animals

A facial recognition tool for bears called BearID is under development by computer scientists Ed Miller and Mary Nguyen, working with Melanie Clapham, a behavioral ecologist working for the Nanwakolas Council of First Nations, conducting applied research on grizzly bears in British Columbia.

It uses deep learning, a subset of machine learning that makes use of artificial neural networks, to analyze images of bears and identify individual animals. The photos are drawn from a collection of images taken by naturalists at Knight Inlet, British Columbia, and by National Park Service staff and independent photographers at Brooks River in Katmai National Park, Alaska.

Bears’ bodies change dramatically from post-hibernation skinny in the spring to fat and ready for winter in the fall. However, the geometry of each bear’s face – the arrangement of key features like their eyes and nose – remains relatively stable over seasons and years.

BearID uses an algorithm to locate bear faces in pictures and make measurements between those key features. Each animal has a unique set of measurements, so a photograph of one taken yesterday can be matched with an image taken some time ago.

In addition to helping identify bears that have attacked humans or are otherwise causing trouble for people, identifying bears can help ecologists and wildlife managers more accurately estimate bear population sizes. And it can help scientific research, like the behavioral ecology projects Clapham works on, by allowing individual tracking of animals and thus better understanding of bear behavior.

Miller has built a web tool to automatically detect bears in the webcams from Brooks River that originally inspired the project. The BearID team has also been working with Rebecca Zug, a professor and director of the carnivore lab at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito, to develop a bear identification model for Andean bears to use in bear ecology and conservation research in Ecuador.

Animal faces are less controversial

Human facial recognition is extremely controversial. In 2021, Meta ended the use of its face recognition system, which automatically identified people in photographs and videos uploaded to Facebook. The company described it as a powerful technology that, while potentially beneficial, was currently not suitable for widespread use on its platform.

In the years following that announcement, Meta gradually reintroduced facial recognition technology, using it to detect scams involving public figures and to verify users’ identities after their accounts had been breached.

When used on humans, critics have called facial recognition technology the “plutonium of AI” and a dangerous tool with few legitimate uses. Even as facial recognition has become more widespread, researchers remain convinced of its dangers. Researchers at the American Civil Liberties Union highlight the continued threat to Americans’ constitutional rights posed by facial recognition and the harms caused by inaccurate identifications.

For wildlife, the ethical controversies are perhaps less pressing, although there is still potential for animals to be harmed by people who are using AI systems. And facial recognition could help wildlife managers identify and euthanize or relocate bears that are causing significant problems for people.

A focus on specific animals

Wildlife ecologists sometimes find focusing on individual animals problematic. Naming animals may make them “seem less wild.” Names that carry cultural meaning can also frame people’s interpretations of animal behavior. As the Katmai rangers note, humans may interpret the behaviors of a bear named Killer differently than one named Fluffy.

Wildlife management decisions are meant to be made about groups of animals and areas of territory. When people become connected to individual animals, including by naming them, decisions become more complicated, whether in the wild or in captivity.

When people connect with particular animals, they may object to management decisions that harm individuals for the sake of the health of the population as a whole. For example, wildlife managers may need to move or euthanize animals for the health of the broader population or ecosystem.

But knowing and understanding bears as individual animals can also deepen the fascination and connections people already have with bears.

For example, Fat Bear Week, an annual competition hosted by explore.org and Katmai National Park, drew over a million votes in 2025 as people campaigned and voted for their favorite bear. The winner was Bear 32, also known as “Chunk.” Chunk was identified in photographs and videos the old-fashioned way, based on human observations of distinguishing characteristics – such as a large scar across his muzzle and a broken jaw.

In addition to identifying problematic animals, I believe algorithmic tools like facial recognition could help an even broader audience of humans deepen their understanding of bears as a whole by connecting with one or two specific animals.

Emily Wanderer receives funding from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the National Science Foundation.

– ref. How facial recognition for bears can help ecologists manage wildlife – https://theconversation.com/how-facial-recognition-for-bears-can-help-ecologists-manage-wildlife-271371

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kristen Marie Beavers, Research Professor of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University

Health and fitness trends come and go, and many fads don’t deliver on their promises – remember vibrating belts or sauna suits? Today, weighted vests, made from sturdy fabrics like nylon and filled with iron sand or small weights, are gaining widespread use. Here’s what to know about them:

Weighted vests have been around for centuries, but they have recently surged in popularity in response to a broader shift in thinking about exercise. No longer confined to the gym, physical activity is increasingly about maximizing health benefits of the movements people already do — things like walking, climbing stairs or cleaning their homes.

Weighted vests fit squarely into this philosophy. They offer a simple, manageable way to add resistance to everyday activities. And they don’t require additional time, complex equipment or major changes to established routines.

I study health and exercise science and have analyzed the effects of exercising with weighted vests. In my view, they represent a low-tech, high-impact opportunity to sneak resistance training into everyday activities. Research has shown that adding weight can help with building muscle and bone, as well as losing weight and keeping it off.

As with any tool, however, the results depends on how you use it.

The physiology behind the practice

The human body has great capacity to adapt to environmental stress. Weighted vests add mechanical stress, or load, to the body, requiring muscles and bones to withstand more force than usual.

Many parts of the body respond to this challenge. The brain learns to “recruit,” or activate, muscle fibers more effectively. This can help prevent injury and increase strength and performance.

Reacting to greater stress can improve muscle power and agility, which are vital for preventing injuries. Carrying a heavier load also makes your heart work harder, which improves cardiac health.

Finally, people need strong balance and proprioception, or body awareness, to protect joints and avoid falls and fractures, especially as they age. Evidence suggests that weighted vests can improve these capabilities.

Several lines of research – especially in aging, obesity and mobility science – have found that weighted vests provide meaningful benefits. They include:

• Improved muscle function: In one study from 2002, older people who wore a vest during a 12-week stair-climbing exercise program showed greater muscle power and performance in their legs.

• Potential for bone health benefits: A 1993 study showed that bone density modestly increased in older women wearing a weighted vest during a weekly low-level exercise class. A 2003 study in which subjects wore weighted vests during 32 weeks of walking and strength training found significant improvement in hip bone density.

• Metabolic improvements: In a 2025 study, my research group found that older adults who wore weighted vests for 10 hours per day while dieting ended up regaining less weight in the following year than older adults who dieted without wearing a weighted vest. These findings seem to be driven by metabolic improvements associated with weighted vest use.

Mixed benefits for bone health

Weighted vests are not a panacea, and there are limits to what wearing one can accomplish. My research, including a recently completed randomized clinical trial called INVEST in Bone Health, has sought to answer whether weighted vests can protect bone health during weight loss in older adults.

As we lose weight, we also tend to lose bone – a particular concern for older adults whose bones are already more fragile. Bone loss can increase the risk of fractures, threatening independence, mobility and overall quality of life.

In the INVEST in Bone Health study, we enrolled 150 older adults with obesity whose average age was 66. Of the group, 75% were women. We assigned them to three groups for a 12-month weight loss program that included meal replacement products and behavioral counseling.

The first group focused on weight loss alone. The second group engaged in the same weight loss program and also wore adjustable weighted vests for eight hours a day, with weight added to match the weight they lost, so that their bodies carried a constant load. The third group took part in weight loss activities and in supervised exercise using weight training machines.

After 12 months, we found that all participants had lost about 10% of their body weight, which was a positive outcome. However, they also had experienced significant declines in hip bone density, ranging between 1.2% and 1.9%. Wearing a weighted vest did not prevent bone loss at the hip compared with weight loss alone. Neither did resistance training.

Both the weighted-vest and resistance-training groups did show increased markers of bone formation compared with weight loss alone. In other words, weighted vest use and resistance exercise showed some evidence of bone growth, which may translate into skeletal benefits over time.

In addition, we recently presented findings at a national aging conference suggesting that weighted vests are more likely to benefit bone health in women than in men, which may be due to sex differences in bone sensitivity. We also found evidence that standing more while wearing the vests positively influences bone health. These findings reflect a growing understanding that weighted vests work more effectively in some people and situations than others.

Getting started

In adopting any new weight-bearing activity, it’s important to “start low and go slow” to avoid injury. Consult with your doctor, especially if you are new to exercise.

For continuous gains, you will need to progressively increase the amount of exercise that you do. In our clinical trials, we add a weight equal to one-eighth of an ounce for every eighth of an ounce a participant loses, to keep the muscles and bones under a consistent load.

Weighted vests are not one-size-fits-all, despite what the tag may say. Vests should not interfere with posture, breathing or your stride. Red flags include hunching, a clipped walking stride and, most importantly, low back pain or hyperextension.

Above all, listen to your body. If you start experiencing pain while wearing a weighted vest, take it off and consider seeing a clinician or physical therapist for guidance.

Kristen Marie Beavers receives funding from the NIH and serves in an advisory capacity for Novo Nordisk, Haleon, and Radius Health.

– ref. Wearing a weighted vest can promote bone health and weight loss, but it’s not a cure-all – https://theconversation.com/wearing-a-weighted-vest-can-promote-bone-health-and-weight-loss-but-its-not-a-cure-all-270646

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Patrick Jackson, Assistant Professor of Infectious Diseases, University of Virginia

A new year might mean new viral threats.

Old viruses are constantly evolving. A warming and increasingly populated planet puts humans in contact with more and different viruses. And increased mobility means that viruses can rapidly travel across the globe along with their human hosts.

As an infectious diseases physician and researcher, I’ll be keeping an eye on a few viruses in 2026 that could be poised to cause infections in unexpected places or in unexpected numbers.

Influenza A – on the cusp of a pandemic

Influenza A is a perennial threat. The virus infects a wide range of animals and has the ability to mutate rapidly. The most recent influenza pandemic – caused by the H1N1 subtype of influenza in 2009 – killed over 280,000 people worldwide in its first year, and the virus continues to circulate today. This virus was often called swine flu because it originated in pigs in Mexico before circulating around the world.

Most recently, scientists have been monitoring the highly-pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 subtype, or bird flu. This virus was first found in humans in southern China in 1997; wild birds helped spread the virus around the world. In 2024, the virus was found for the first time in dairy cattle in the U.S. and subsequently became established in herds in several states.

The crossover of the virus from birds to mammals created major concern that it could become adapted to humans. Studies suggest there have already been many cow-to-human transmissions.

In 2026, scientists will continue to look for any evidence that H5N1 has changed enough to be transmitted from human to human – a necessary step for the start of a new influenza pandemic. The influenza vaccines currently on the market probably don’t offer protection from H5N1, but scientists are working to create vaccines that would be effective against the virus.

Mpox – worldwide and liable to worsen

Mpox virus, formerly called monkeypox virus, was first discovered in the 1950s. For many decades, it was seen rarely, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. Contrary to its original name, the virus mostly infects rodents and occasionally crossed over into humans.

Mpox is closely related to smallpox, and infection results in a fever and painful rash that can last for weeks. There are several varieties of mpox, including a generally more severe clade I and a milder clade II. A vaccine for mpox is available, but there are no effective treatments.

In 2022, a global outbreak of clade II mpox spread to more than 100 countries that had never seen the virus before. This outbreak was driven by human-to-human transmission of the virus through close contact, often via sex.

While the number of mpox cases has significantly declined since the 2022 outbreak, clade II mpox has become established around the world. Several countries in central Africa have also reported an increase in clade I mpox cases since 2024. Since August 2025, four clade I mpox cases have occurred in the U.S., including in people who did not travel to Africa.

It is unclear how mpox outbreaks in the U.S. and abroad will continue to evolve in 2026.

Oropouche virus – insect-borne and poised to spread

Oropouche virus was first identified in the 1950s on the island of Trinidad off the coast of South America. The virus is carried by mosquitoes and small biting midges, also known as no-see-ums.

Most people with the virus experience fever, headache and muscle aches. The illness usually lasts just a few days, but some patients have weakness that can persist for weeks. The illness can also recur after someone has initially recovered.

There are many unanswered questions about the Oropouche virus and the disease it causes, and there are no specific treatments or vaccines. For decades, infections in people were thought to occur only in the Amazon region. However, beginning in the early 2000s, cases began to show up in a larger area of South America, Central America and the Caribbean. Cases in the United States are usually among travelers returning from abroad.

In 2026, Oropouche outbreaks will likely continue to affect travelers in the Americas. The biting midge that carries Oropouche virus is found throughout North and South America, including the southeastern United States. The range of the virus could continue to expand.

Even more viral threats

A number of other viruses pose a risk in 2026.

Continuing global outbreaks of chikungunya virus may affect travelers, some of whom may want to consider getting vaccinated for this disease.

Measles cases continue to rise in the U.S. and globally against the backdrop of decreasing vaccination rates.

HIV is poised for a resurgence, despite the availability of effective treatments, due to disruptions in international aid.

And as-yet-undiscovered viruses can always emerge in the future as humans disrupt ecosystems and travel around the world.

Around the world, people, animals and the wider environment are dependent on each other. Vigilance for known and emerging viral threats and the development of new vaccines and treatments can help keep everyone safe.

Patrick Jackson has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, Clarametyx, First Light Diagnostics, and Moleculin Biotech. He is affiliated with Indivisible Charlottesville.

– ref. Viral outbreaks are always on the horizon – here are the viruses an infectious disease expert is watching in 2026 – https://theconversation.com/viral-outbreaks-are-always-on-the-horizon-here-are-the-viruses-an-infectious-disease-expert-is-watching-in-2026-271279