Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anna Erickson, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

What happens when a country seeks to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program? Every peaceful program starts with a promise not to build a nuclear weapon. Then, the global community verifies that stated intent via the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Once a country signs the treaty, the world’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, provides continuous and technical proof that the country’s nuclear program is peaceful.

The IAEA ensures that countries operate their programs within the limits of nonproliferation agreements: low enrichment and no reactor misuse. Part of the agreement allows the IAEA to inspect nuclear-related sites, including unannounced surprise visits.

These are not just log reviews. Inspectors know what should and should not be there. When the IAEA is not on site, cameras, tamper-revealing seals on equipment and real-time radiation monitors are working full-time to gather or verify inside information about the program’s activities.

Safeguards toolkit

The IAEA safeguards toolkit is designed to detect proliferation activities early. Much of the work is fairly technical. The safeguards toolkit combines physical surveillance, material tracking, data analytics and scientific sampling. Inspectors are chemists, physicists and nuclear engineers. They count spent fuel rods in a cooling pond. They check tamper seals on centrifuges. Often, the inspectors walk miles through hallways and corridors carrying heavy equipment.

That’s how the world learned in April 2021 about Iran pushing uranium enrichment from reactor-fuel-grade to near-weapons-grade levels. IAEA inspectors were able to verify that Iran was feeding uranium into a series of centrifuges designed to enrich the uranium from 5%, used for energy programs, to 60%, which is a step toward the 90% level used in nuclear weapons.

Around the facilities, whether for uranium enrichment or plutonium processing, closed-circuit surveillance cameras monitor for undeclared materials or post-work activities. Seals around the facilities provide evidence that uranium gas cylinders have not been tampered with or that centrifuges operate at the declared levels. Beyond seals, online enrichment monitors allow inspectors to look inside of centrifuges for any changes in the declared enrichment process.

When the inspectors are on-site, they collect environmental swipes: samples of nuclear materials on surfaces, in dust or in the air. These can reveal if uranium has been enriched to levels beyond those allowed by the agreement. Or if plutonium, which is not used in nuclear power plants, is being produced in a reactor. Swipes are precise. They can identify enrichment levels from a particle smaller than a speck of dust. But they take time, days or weeks. Inspectors analyze the samples at the IAEA’s laboratories using sophisticated equipment called mass spectrometers.

In addition to physical samples, IAEA inspectors look at the logs of material inventories. They look for diversion of uranium or plutonium from normal process lines, just like accountants trace the flow of finances, except that their verification is supported by the ever-watching online monitors and radiation sensors. They also count items of interest and weigh them for additional verification of the logs.

Beyond accounting for materials, IAEA inspectors verify that the facility matches the declared design. For example, if a country is expanding centrifuge halls to increase its enrichment capabilities, that’s a red flag. Changes to the layout of material processing laboratories near nuclear reactors could be a sign that the program is preparing to produce unauthorized plutonium.

Losing access

Iran announced on June 28, 2025, that it has ended its cooperation with the IAEA. It removed the monitoring devices, including surveillance cameras, from centrifuge halls. This move followed the news by the IAEA that Iran’s enrichment activities are well outside of allowed levels. Iran now operates sophisticated uranium centrifuges, like models IR-6 and IR-9.

Removing IAEA access means that the international community loses insight into how quickly Iran’s program can accumulate weapon-grade uranium, or how much it has produced. Also lost is information about whether the facility is undergoing changes for proliferation purposes. These processes are difficult to detect with external surveillance, like satellites, alone.

An alternative to the uranium enrichment path for producing nuclear weapons material is plutonium. Plutonium can’t be mined, it has to be produced in a nuclear reactor. Iran built a reactor capable of producing plutonium, the IR-40 Heavy Water Research Reactor at the Arak Nuclear Complex.

Iran modified the Arak reactor under the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to make plutonium production less likely. During the June 2025 missile attacks, Israel targeted Arak’s facilities with the aim of eliminating the possibility of plutonium production.

With IAEA access suspended, it won’t be possible to see what happens inside the facility. Can the reactor be used for plutonium production? Although a lengthier process than the uranium enrichment path, plutonium provides a parallel path to uranium enrichment for developing nuclear weapons.

Continuity of knowledge

North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors in 2009. Within a few years, they restarted activities related to uranium enrichment and plutonium production in the Yongbyon reactor. The international community’s information about North Korea’s weapons program now relies solely on external methods: satellite images, radioactive particles like xenon – airborne fingerprints of nuclear activities – and seismic data.

What is lost is the continuity of the knowledge, a chain of verification over time. Once the seals are broken or cameras are removed, that chain is lost, and so is confidence about what is happening at the facilities.

When it comes to IAEA inspections, there is no single tool that paints the whole picture. Surveillance plus sampling plus accounting provide validation and confidence. Losing even one weakens the system in the long term.

The existing safeguards regime is meant to detect violations. The countries that sign the nonproliferation treaty know that they are always watched, and that plays a deterrence role. The inspectors can’t just resume the verification activities after some time if access is lost. Future access won’t necessarily enable inspectors to clarify what happened during the gap.

Anna Erickson receives funding from DOE National Nuclear Security Administration.

– ref. How the world’s nuclear watchdog monitors facilities around the world – and what it means that Iran kicked it out – https://theconversation.com/how-the-worlds-nuclear-watchdog-monitors-facilities-around-the-world-and-what-it-means-that-iran-kicked-it-out-260689

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

The Justice Department asked a federal court on July 18, 2025, to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein’s case. The direction from President Donald Trump came after weeks of frustration among some far-right groups over his administration’s refusal to release the complete and unredacted “Epstein files.”

Epstein, a wealthy financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in 2019 on sex trafficking charges and later died by suicide in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial.

In early 2025, a federal court unsealed portions of the court documents. While names of some of the alleged clients and victims were released, many were redacted or withheld.

Epstein’s arrest and death became a central focus for QAnon followers, who saw them as proof of a hidden global elite engaged in child trafficking and protected by powerful institutions. The release – or withholding – of the Epstein files is often cited within QAnon movement circles as evidence of a broader cover-up by the so-called “deep state.”

Some followers of the MAGA – Make America Great Again – movement and the Republican Party believe in the false claim that the United States is secretly controlled by a cabal of elites who are pedophiles, sex traffickers and satanists.

Over time, what started as a baseless conspiracy on obscure platforms has migrated into the mainstream. It has influenced rhetoric and policy debates, and even reshaped the American political landscape. The foundational belief of many of the QAnon followers is that Trump is a heroic figure fighting the elite pedophile ring.

Trump’s attempts at downplaying or obstructing the very disclosures they believe would validate their worldview has led to confusion. To some, the delay in the release of the files feels like a betrayal, or even the possibility of his wrongdoing. Others are trying to reinterpret Trump’s actions through increasingly baseless conspiracy logic.

Trump has publicly dismissed demands for the full release of the Epstein Files as a “hoax.” He has also made false claims. On July 15, 2025, Trump said: “And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey. They were made up by Obama.”

As a scholar who studies extremism, I know that the movement views Trump as a mythological figure and it interprets Trump’s actions to fit this overarching narrative – an elasticity which makes the movement both durable and dangerous.

From Pizzagate to QAnon

The QAnon movement began with the Pizzagate conspiracy theory in 2016, which falsely claimed that high-ranking Democrats were operating a child sex trafficking ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria. The baseless theory gained enough online momentum that a man armed with an assault rifle stormed the restaurant, seeking to “free the children.”

In 2017, an anonymous figure called “Q” began posting cryptic messages on message boards like 4chan and 8kun. The baseless accusations of a global network of elites involved in controlling global institutions, including governments, businesses, and the media, as well as operating a child trafficking and ritual abuse, were central to the QAnon movement’s narrative.

The movement has recruited followers through language like “Save the Children,” to mobilize around issues of child trafficking.

Many QAnon adherents, particularly women, were drawn to the movement through such appeals to child protection. According to psychologists Sophia Moskalenko and Mia Bloom, this type of appeal taps into powerful emotional instincts, making conspiracy theories like QAnon more persuasive and harder to dislodge, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

QAnon movement’s rise

QAnon followers perceived Trump as a messianic figure working to expose this cabal in a climactic reckoning known as “The Storm” – a moment when mass arrests would finally bring justice.

They claimed that this moment would eventually bring about a “Great Awakening,” a reference to the religious revivalist movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. In this context the phrase described the supposed political and spiritual enlightenment that would follow “The Storm” – a moment of mass realization when people would “wake up” to the truth about the “deep state.”

In 2019, the FBI identified QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat, and major social media platforms began banning related content, but by then, QAnon had bled into mainstream conservative politics. Q-endorsing candidates, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, ran for and won elected office a year later.

Trump and QAnon

During Trump’s first administration – from 2017 to 2021 – the QAnon movement flourished. The posts from Q claimed to reveal insider knowledge of a secret war being waged by the president, often in coordination with the military, against the powerful elite.

Trump never explicitly endorsed the movement, but he did little to distance himself from it.

His administration also included figures, like former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who openly interacted with Q content online.

Trump’s rhetoric, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election, gave new life to QAnon narratives. When he questioned the integrity of the electoral process, QAnon followers interpreted it as confirmation of the deep state’s meddling.

However, after Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race, QAnon followers revised their original prophecy to maintain belief in “The Storm” and “The Great Awakening.” Some claimed the defeat was part of a larger secret plan, with Biden’s presidency serving as a cover for exposing the deep state. Some believed Trump remained the true president behind the scenes, while others reframed the awakening as a spiritual rather than political event.

Indeed, by 2020, several congressional candidates openly embraced or showed sympathy for the QAnon movement.

At various campaign rallies in 2022 and after Trump used the movement’s symbolism. On Truth Social, his social media platform, he retweeted Q-affiliated accounts, and praised QAnon supporters as “people who love our country.” That same year he reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.”

After the 2020 elections

Trump’s departure from the White House in January 2021 created an existential crisis for the QAnon movement. Predictions that he would declare martial law or arrest Joe Biden and other Democrats on Inauguration Day failed to materialize. Q’s posts also stopped, leaving many followers adrift.

Some abandoned the theory. Others rationalized the failed predictions or embraced new conspiracy narratives, such as the belief that Trump was still secretly in charge or that the military would soon act to reinstate him.

Some QAnon communities merged with or were absorbed into broader anti-vaccine, anti-globalist, and Christian nationalist movements.

How big is the movement?

Estimating the number of QAnon believers is difficult because many individuals do not openly identify with the movement, and those who do often hold a range of loosely connected or partial beliefs rather than adhering to a consistent or uniform ideology. Not everyone who shares a Q meme or echoes a Q talking point identifies as being part of the movement.

That said, surveys by groups like the 2024 Public Religion Research Institute and the Associated Press have found that 15–20% of Americans believe in some of QAnon’s core claims, such as the existence of a secret group of Satan-worshipping elites controlling the government.

Among Republican voters, the number is often higher.

This does not mean all these people are hardcore QAnon adherents, but it does show how far the narrative, or parts of it, has seeped into mainstream thinking.

Epstein as evidence of ‘the cabal’

The Trump administration’s failure to disclose the information in Epstein files has fueled internal confusion, disillusionment and even radicalization within the movement.

For some QAnon believers, this failure was a turning point: if Trump – once seen as the hero in the conspiracy narrative – would not or could not reveal the truth, then the “deep state” must be more entrenched than imagined.

At the same time, frustrations have grown within MAGA and the QAnon movement’s spaces. Some see it as a failure to fulfill one of his most important promises: exposing elite pedophiles. Others believe the delay is strategic, another example of “the plan” requiring more patience.

The QAnon movement continues to evolve, even as its central figure hedges and hesitates, showing how potent myths can be in times of uncertainty. In my view, understanding why this belief continues to gain traction is essential for understanding the current state of American democracy.

Art Jipson 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. How the QAnon movement entered mainstream politics – and why the silence on Epstein files matters – https://theconversation.com/how-the-qanon-movement-entered-mainstream-politics-and-why-the-silence-on-epstein-files-matters-261316

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Beverly Moran, Professor Emerita of Law, Vanderbilt University

President Donald Trump has said the “big, beautiful bill” he signed into law on July 4, 2025, will stimulate the economy and foster financial security.

But a close look at the legislation reveals a different story, particularly for low-income people and racial and ethnic minorities.

As a legal scholar who studies how taxes increase the gap in wealth and income between Black and white Americans, I believe the law’s provisions make existing wealth inequalities worse through broad tax cuts that disproportionately favor wealthy families while forcing its costs on low- and middle-income Americans.

The widening chasm

The U.S. racial wealth gap is stark. White families’ median wealth between 2019 and 2022 grew to more than $250,000 higher than Black families’ median wealth.

This disparity is the result of decades of discriminatory policies in housing, banking, health care, taxes, education and employment.

The new legislation will widen these chasms through its permanent extension of individual tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax reform package. Americans have eight years of experience with those changes and how they hurt low-income families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicted that low-income taxpayers would gain US$70 a year from the 2017 tax cuts. But that figure did not include the results of eliminating the individual mandate that encouraged uninsured people to get health insurance through the federal marketplace. That insurance was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

The Republican majority in Congress predicted that the loss of the mandate would decrease federal spending on health care subsidies. That decrease cost low-income taxpayers over $4,000 per person in lost subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office examined the net effect of the 2025 bill by combining the tax changes with cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. It found that the bill will reduce poor families’ ability to obtain food and health care.

Wealth-building for whom?

Perhaps the most revealing part of the bill is how it turns ideas for helping low-income families on their head. They are touted as helping the poor – but they help the wealthy instead.

A much publicized feature of the bill is the creation of “Trump Accounts,” a pilot program providing a one-time $1,000 government contribution to a tax-advantaged investment account for children born between 2025 and 2028.

While framed as a “baby bonus” to build wealth, the program’s structure is deeply flawed and regressive. Although the first $1,000 into the accounts comes from the federal government, the real tax benefits go to wealthy families who can avoid paying taxes by contributing up to $5,000 per year to their children’s accounts.

As analysts from the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive economic and social policy think tank, have pointed out, this design primarily benefits affluent families who already have the disposable income to save and can take full advantage of the tax benefits.

For low-income families struggling with daily expenses, making additional contributions is not a realistic option. These accounts do not address the fundamental barrier to saving for low-income families – a lack of income – and are more likely to widen the wealth gap than to close it.

This regressive approach – regressive because the wealthy get larger benefits – to wealth-building is mirrored in the bill’s renewal and enhancement of the New Markets Tax Credit program. Although extended by the “big, beautiful bill” to drive investment into low-income communities by offering capital gains tax breaks to investors, the program subsidizes luxury real estate projects that do little to benefit existing low-income residents and accelerate gentrification and displacement. Studies show that there is very little increase in salaries or education in areas with these benefits.

A harsh new rule

The child tax credit is another part of the bill that purports to help the poor and working classes while, in fact, giving the wealthy more money.

A family can earn up to $400,000 and still get the full $2,200 tax credit per child, which reduces their tax liability dollar for dollar. In contrast, a family making $31,500 or less cannot receive a tax credit of more than $1,750 per child. And approximately 17 million children – disproportionately Black and Latino – will not receive anything at all.

More significantly, the law tightens eligibility by requiring not only the child but also the taxpayer claiming the credit to have a Social Security number. This requirement will strip the credit from approximately 4.5 million U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families – families where some people are citizens, legal residents and people living in the country without legal permission – where parents may file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number but lack a Social Security number, according to an April 2025 study.

A burden on the poor

Perhaps most striking is the law’s “pay-fors” – the provisions designed to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

The legislation makes significant changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, lifelines for millions of low-income families.

The law imposes new monthly “community engagement” requirements, a form of work requirement, for able-bodied adults to maintain Medicaid coverage. The majority of such adults enrolled in Medicaid already work. And many people who do not work are caring full time for young children or are too disabled to work. The law also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations twice a year.

Redeterminations and work requirements have historically led to eligible people losing coverage. For SNAP, the bill expands work requirements to some Americans who are up to 64 years old and the parents of older children and revises benefit calculations in ways that will reduce benefits.

By funding tax cuts for the wealthy while making cuts to essential services for the poor, the bill codifies a transfer of resources up the economic ladder.

In my view, the “big, beautiful bill” represents a missed opportunity to leverage fiscal policy to address the American wealth and income gap. Instead of investing in programs to lift up low- and middle-income Americans, the bill emphasizes a regressive approach that will further enrich the wealthy and deepen existing inequalities.

Beverly Moran 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. How the ‘big, beautiful bill’ will deepen the racial wealth gap – a law scholar explains how it reduces poor families’ ability to afford food and health care – https://theconversation.com/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-will-deepen-the-racial-wealth-gap-a-law-scholar-explains-how-it-reduces-poor-families-ability-to-afford-food-and-health-care-260680

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Raquel Aldana, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis

Seeking to expand Florida’s role in federal immigration enforcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 submitted the state’s Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan to the Trump administration.

The plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump, says all of Florida’s roughly 47,000 law enforcement officers have received, or soon will receive, training to act as immigration officers. It’s part of an effort to, as the plan notes, “maintain state-led border security operations in the absence of federal support.”

The DeSantis plan includes a proposal to deputize Florida’s nine National Guard Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers to serve as immigration judges. JAG officers are attorneys who serve as legal advisers, prosecutors, defense counsel and military judges in a wide range of matters specific to the armed forces. That includes courts-martial and civil matters involving the military.

DeSantis has said the move is necessary to create a fast-track deportation system at Florida’s new immigration detention facility in the Everglades, Alligator Alcatraz.

He has dismissed due process concerns – such as a lack of training and independence – from legal experts, pointing to the backlog in immigration courts. Immigration judges in Florida’s immigration courts have one of the largest backlogs in the country, with over half a million cases.

Congress establishes immigration policy

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president or state governments, the power to establish immigration laws.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, Congress created a clear process for immigration removal cases.

In general, a U.S. noncitizen may face removal from the country based on violations to the immigration laws. Those range from unauthorized entry to committing or being convicted of certain crimes.

Congress designated the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as the body exclusively responsible for deciding immigration removal cases. The office also details the authority and standards for how immigration judges conduct deportation hearings.

Immigration judges undergo rigorous vetting and training. And their decisions are subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative appellate body for decisions made by immigration judges.

The McCarran-Walter Act also contains several provisions that subject most immigration court decisions such as removal or asylum to judicial review in federal courts. That can happen on direct appeal or as part of habeas corpus petitions that challenge the legality of detention or removal.

The system is far from perfect. But Congress designed it to ensure legal expertise and due process guarantees.

As an immigration scholar, I believe that allowing Florida JAG officers to serve as immigration judges bypasses this framework that is set in law, and violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

JAG officers, including those in Florida’s National Guard, are not governed by the McCarran-Walter Act. They are military lawyers in an entirely separate system, overseen by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines the role of military judges. The code retains a unique military character that is substantially different from the judicial appellate system that governs immigration administrative rulings.

Simply put, neither Trump nor DeSantis can create an entirely new system of immigration judges outside of the one already established by Congress.

Federal agencies cannot deputize JAGs

A current immigration provision, known as the 287(g) program, authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate with local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

But this provision only authorizes deputizing local law enforcement to assist “in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants – not the arbitration of deportation cases.

In the nearly three decades since 287(g) was enacted, no state or local officials – let alone military officers – have been permitted to act as immigration judges.

DeSantis’ plan seeks to convert Florida’s JAG officers from state to federal officials to function as immigration judges. Trump’s approval of this plan would also exceed the scope of his statutory authority.

Federal statutes allow the president to federalize the National Guard in limited instances: during times of war or national emergency.

But neither DeSantis’ rhetoric nor Trump’s framing of undocumented immigration as an “invasion” meet these legal thresholds.

JAGs cannot engage in domestic law enforcement

Even if Florida’s National Guard were federalized, JAG officers still could not legally serve as immigration judges.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personal in civilian law enforcement. It reflects a longstanding American principle: The military should not police civilians.

Immigration enforcement – including deciding whether someone is deported – is fundamentally a civilian enforcement function.

The only narrow exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions require a clear statutory basis, such as Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law that would allow the president to rely on the military for domestic enforcement to quell a rebellion or widespread violence.

Due process concerns

The DeSantis plan also compromises constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair process for immigrants facing removal.

Immigration law is notoriously complex. Even experienced immigration lawyers struggle to keep up with its constant changes.

JAG officers, trained primarily in military law, would face immense challenges interpreting and applying immigration statutes. That’s especially true with only weeks of preparation, as DeSantis proposes.

But due process isn’t only about knowledge of legal technicalities. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.

For decades, courts have interpreted these protections to include fair hearings before qualified immigration judges – and, in most instances, judicial review.

By circumventing established procedures, DeSantis’ plan risks creating a system where expedited deportations come at the expense of accuracy and constitutional rights.

Raquel Aldana 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. Florida plan to deputize National Guard officers as immigration judges at Alligator Alcatraz would likely violate constitutional rights – https://theconversation.com/florida-plan-to-deputize-national-guard-officers-as-immigration-judges-at-alligator-alcatraz-would-likely-violate-constitutional-rights-260677

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Riyad A. Shahjahan, Professor of Higher, Adult and Life Long Education, Michigan State University

Harvard University is under siege by the Trump administration – and the world is watching. But this case isn’t just an American issue.

It’s part of a global trend: universities cast as enemies and institutions in need of reform. Populist, right-wing governments are blaming universities for tearing at the fabric of nations.

These attacks are part of a broader strategy known as affective nationalism. It occurs when leaders use emotions, not just ideas, to build national identity. Feelings such as fear, pride, nostalgia and resentment are deployed to create a story about who belongs, who doesn’t and who’s to blame.

As scholars who study nationalism, emotion and higher education, we explore the emotional politics behind these attacks.

Global backlash

Much of President Donald Trump’s vision and rhetoric is inspired by Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has waged a culture war on higher education for over a decade, banning gender studies and reshaping university governance. Orbán’s attacks on Central European University expose his hostility to academic freedom, critical thinking and diversity. All are viewed as threats to his nationalist “illiberal democracy.”

Trump followed Orbán’s playbook. On May 22, 2025, his administration declared that Harvard could no longer enroll foreign students. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security statement claimed that university leaders “created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.” The statement suggested that many of the so-called agitators were foreign students.

Similarly, in India, students at Jawaharlal Nehru University were labeled “anti-national” for protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act, which provides fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees. The students argued that it marginalizes Muslims. Since 2016, the Modi government has increasingly used “anti-national” and sedition charges to silence student and academic dissent.

These labels – “elite,” “foreign” or “anti-national” – are not neutral. They fuel fear, resentment and powerful narratives that frame universities as threats. Harvard, Central European University and Jawaharlal Nehru University have become symbols of broader national anxieties around identity and belonging.

British-Australian feminist scholar Sara Ahmed’s work on the sticky nature of emotions helps reveal the two emotions that often appear in attacks on universities: nostalgia and resentment.

Glorifying the nation’s past

Nostalgia is a longing for a better past.

Consider Trump’s “Make American Great Again” slogan. It implies the nation was once great, has declined and must reclaim its former glory. That’s a powerful emotional story. Nationalism often works this way – by telling a tale of a lost golden age and a future that must be saved.

For that reason, nostalgia is central to populist attacks on universities and institutional reform. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, for example, evoked Harvard’s symbolic past as part of the American Dream, arguing it has lost its way and “put its reputation in serious jeopardy.”

In India, Modi’s government rejects Western influence, while using nostalgia to revive a Hindu past in higher education. The Modi government promotes national pride on campuses by glorifying military heroes and installing symbolic figures – such as the statue of Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu monk and philosopher, at Jawaharlal Nehru University – to shape student identity and loyalty.

In Hungary, Orbán mobilizes a glorified Christian past to challenge discourses on diversity, inclusion, critical inquiry and academic freedom in higher education. A 2021 bill tasks universities with defending the nation and preserving its intellectual and cultural heritage.

Enemies of the nation

Resentment is a powerful emotion often used by states that see themselves as defenders of national unity and values. When Harvard resisted Trump’s reforms, the president framed the university’s stance in a Truth Social post as a betrayal to the nation, denouncing it as “terrorist inspired/supporting ‘sickness.’” Meanwhile, the Department of Education issued a statement that accused the university of a “troubling entitlement mindset.”

Similarly, in India, the Modi government has increasingly framed public universities – especially those with critical voices – as “anti-national” spaces. By casting critical voices as enemies within, the state turns resentment into a political weapon to justify the erosion of academic freedom.

In Hungary, the Orbán government mobilized resentment to portray universities and academics as disloyal elites working against the nation. One example of Hungary’s war on universities is the 2018 ban on gender studies, justified by the Orbán government as rejecting “socially constructed genders” in favor of “biological sexes.” This move reflects how the government uses resentment to assert ideological control over academic institutions.

Emotional battlegrounds?

Universities, especially elite ones such as Harvard and Jawaharlal Nehru University, carry deep symbolic weight. People care because of what the institutions represent.

Harvard, with its elite status, has long been a symbol of academic authority. But more recently, it has been cast as a defender of liberal higher education – making it a Trump administration target.

Jawaharlal Nehru University in India holds similar symbolic weight. It’s historically associated with producing the country’s social elites and is seen, especially in mainstream media, as left-leaning, making it a lightning rod in India’s polarized political landscape.

In Hungary, the Orbán government viewed Central European University as a danger because it threatened the government’s Christian-nationalist vision of the nation-state.

Universities are under attack not just for what they teach and research, but for what – and who – they represent. These are not just ideological disputes; they are emotional struggles over identity, belonging and public trust.

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. Leaders in India, Hungary and the US are using appeals to nostalgia and nationalism to attack higher education – https://theconversation.com/leaders-in-india-hungary-and-the-us-are-using-appeals-to-nostalgia-and-nationalism-to-attack-higher-education-258975

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Melissa Melough, Assistant Professor of Nutrition Science, University of Delaware

Children whose mothers had higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy scored better on tests of memory, attention and problem-solving skills at ages 7 to 12 compared with those whose mothers had lower levels. That is a key finding of a new peer-reviewed study that my colleagues and I published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

While vitamin D has long been known for its role in maintaining bone health, scientists have since uncovered its importance in regulating immune function, reducing inflammation and protecting the nervous system. Now, growing evidence – including our new findings – suggest it may also support brain development beginning in the womb.

My team and I found that the link between prenatal vitamin D levels and childhood cognition was strongest among Black families, who also face higher rates of vitamin D deficiency.

This suggests that vitamin D supplementation may be a promising, low-cost strategy to support brain development while reducing racial disparities. Our study also suggested that vitamin D levels early in pregnancy may be most important for childhood cognitive development, highlighting the importance of early action by health care providers.

We analyzed more than 900 mother-child pairs across the U.S. who participated in a large national study called ECHO, short for Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes. We measured vitamin D in the mothers’ blood during pregnancy and assessed children’s cognitive abilities using a standardized test battery. We also accounted for other important factors that shape childhood development such as the mother’s education, neighborhood conditions and the child’s age and sex.

This new study builds on our earlier findings that higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy are linked to higher IQ in early childhood and with reduced behavioral problems in middle childhood.

Collectively, these studies suggest that vitamin D plays a crucial role in brain development during pregnancy, with lasting benefits for children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

Why it matters

Vitamin D deficiency is a common global problem.

In the U.S., about 42% of adults have vitamin D levels below 20 nanograms per milliliter, or ng/ml, a commonly used cutoff for deficiency. About a third of U.S. pregnant women are deficient, and the rates are even higher among Black pregnant women, with 80% found to be deficient. This racial difference is partly due to differences in skin pigmentation, as melanin pigment reduces the skin’s ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.

Although we can get vitamin D both from sun exposure and our diets, deficiency is common because these sources don’t meet everyone’s needs. Sunlight isn’t always a reliable source, especially for people with darker skin, those living in northern climates or those who often wear sunscreen or sun-protective clothing. Natural food sources such as fatty fish, egg yolks and certain mushrooms contain some vitamin D, and fortified products such as milk and breakfast cereals help, but not everyone eats enough of these foods to maintain healthy vitamin D levels.

That’s why supplements are often necessary and are recommended in many cases by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Although current guidelines recommend that pregnant women consume 600 international units, or IUs, of vitamin D daily, higher doses of at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU are often needed to correct deficiency. On average, U.S. women consume only 168 IU from food and beverages, and many prenatal vitamins provide just 400 IU. This highlights an important opportunity for clinicians to improve screening and support around vitamin D supplementation both before and during pregnancy.

If a simple, low-cost strategy such as prenatal vitamin D supplementation can help support brain development, it may yield lasting benefits for children. Long-term studies have shown that higher cognitive scores in childhood are linked to better memory and reasoning in older age, as well as longer lifespan.

What still isn’t known

While our studies have linked higher vitamin D levels in pregnancy to improved cognitive and behavioral development in children, we cannot yet prove that vitamin D is the direct cause.

Therefore, studies called randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of research – are needed to confirm these findings and determine how best to translate them into clinical practice. These studies will be essential for determining the optimal target levels for vitamin D to support brain development in pregnancy.

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

Melissa Melough receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

– ref. About a third of pregnant women in the US lack sufficient vitamin D to support healthy pregnancies − new research – https://theconversation.com/about-a-third-of-pregnant-women-in-the-us-lack-sufficient-vitamin-d-to-support-healthy-pregnancies-new-research-259433

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Helena Addison, Postdoctoral fellow, Yale University

Mike returned home to Philadelphia after a 15-year prison sentence and suffered an emotional breakdown.

“I just couldn’t stop crying … I don’t know. It was the anxiety. It was just a lot,” he said. “I was under a lot of pressure and it just came crashing down.”

Mike, who was in his late 40s when we spoke, told me about his childhood filled with abuse, his first arrest at age 14, and the over 20 years of his life that he spent behind bars.

As a registered nurse and nurse scientist who studies how incarceration affects mental health, I know Mike’s experience after release from prison is not uncommon. Studies show that Black men who have experienced incarceration have higher rates of PTSD, depression and psychological distress compared with Black men who have never been incarcerated.

Working in psychiatric hospitals in Philadelphia, I met many patients in crisis who had been incarcerated at some point in their lives. As a part of my doctoral research, funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research, I interviewed 29 formerly incarcerated Black men to understand how incarceration has affected their mental health.

My peer-reviewed findings were published in the journal Social Science & Medicine. All quotes shared here use pseudonyms to protect the men’s privacy.

Trauma of incarceration

Mass incarceration in the U.S. has serious health consequences for individuals, families and communities. In Philadelphia alone, over 20,000 people return home from incarceration each year.

While incarceration rates are declining in Philadelphia, the needs of those coming home remain significant.

Many formerly incarcerated men described experiencing or witnessing violence, including being beaten by correctional officers and witnessing close friends get assaulted or killed.

“You know you are not regular because you come from a traumatic situation, right?” said Thomas, 44, who spent 18 years incarcerated.

The participants expressed that racism was common, especially while incarcerated in facilities located in the rural central and northern regions of Pennsylvania.

“I ain’t gonna sugar coat it – Black people going up into them white people mountains, they call you [n-word] all day long and you basically there to accept it,” Antonio told me.

Incarceration was especially difficult for those who were held for months pretrial without ever being convicted and those incarcerated during COVID restrictions who spent more than 23 hours a day in their cells.

‘Even though I’m free, I ain’t free’

Participants described life on parole or probation, or in transitional housing, as another form of confinement.

Ken, 56, has been out of prison for over a decade but said, “I’m still locked up, even though I’m free, I ain’t free. You just get a whole new set of rules and regulations.”

Men described significant anxiety related to community supervision requirements, including difficulty sleeping the night before a probation appointment.

Participants also described distress caused by “no association” restrictions. These are common parole and probation requirements that prohibit people under supervision from interacting with others who have criminal records, are also under supervision or are currently incarcerated. Violating this requirement can lead to a technical violation and reincarceration.

While these requirements are meant to reduce the risk of reoffending, they often isolate people from supportive relationships and resources, including housing and employment.

“[There are] a lot of smart brothers in there. And it hurts my heart. And that’s where the depression coming in too,” said Reese, who spent six years incarcerated. “I can’t contact them in jail. … That’s just how it is in the system.”

Philadelphia has the highest rate of community supervision – including probation and parole – among the largest U.S. cities, according to a 2019 analysis by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

At that time, the Inquirer reports, 1 in 23 adults in Philadelphia were under community supervision – and 1 in 14 Black adults in Philadelphia.

The men I interviewed said they felt like parts of them never left jail or prison, while others felt that they brought prison or jail home with them.

Tyrese, 34, said he stays home as often as he can.

“I’ve been out of the joint for seven years now and feel like I’m still institutionalized, I guess,” he said. “I know people that don’t even come outside,” referring to other formerly incarcerated men.

Others had dreams that they were back in a cell, or at home still wearing jail clothing. Long after release, many described constant hypervigilance and anxiety.

“I can be walking to the bus station and there be people walking around me, I’m constantly watching them,” said Anthony, who was first incarcerated at age 18 and served 16 years. “I’m watching every movement they’re doing. That’s a habit I had from jail.”

Finding work

People who have been incarcerated often struggle to find employment after release, as many employers are unwilling to hire a person with a criminal record.

This leaves about 35% of formerly incarcerated Black men unemployed.

At the time of our interview, Tay, 31, was working part-time in carpentry. “Because I had felonies on my record a lot of places won’t hire me,” he said. “And a couple of places that I was working with, they ended up firing me once they did the background check.”

These frustrations can easily spill over into family life.

Mark, 30, also works part-time and said he found himself frequently becoming agitated and snapping at his kids, other family members and his girlfriend. “I can’t get the job I want or the job that I need to do what I need to do for my family and I’ll be frustrated,” he shared.

Participants struggled with having to depend on others for basic needs upon release. Kenny, who is now self-employed as a caterer, recalled his experience a few years earlier. “I was crying. I was a grown man, almost 40 years old, and my mother had to buy me underwear, socks,” he said.

The importance of fatherhood

Despite their many hardships, some of the men spoke with joy about reconnecting with their children.

“I think the most positive thing that happened since I’ve been out of prison is I got custody of my sons,” said Ken, a father of two. “Them kids saved me.”

Like many of the other participants with children, however, he was frustrated about being unable to provide for them and worried about repeating harmful cycles.

“You want to do good, but it makes you think bad stuff when you don’t have the right resources,” he continued. “You don’t want [your kids] to do the same things you did.”

Others struggled to bond with their children after years of separation.

John, 29, explained, “The bonding is kind of awkward, because you wasn’t there, especially during the pandemic when there was no visits allowed.”

Returning to disadvantaged neighborhoods

Most people released from incarceration return to neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, violence and other disadvantages.

Shawn, who lives in pubic housing, showed me abandoned buildings and boarded storefronts in his neighborhood and described how the environment made rebuilding his life harder.

For many participants, returning to divested communities brought stress. They experienced frequent exposure to substance use, violence and negative police encounters, and they had limited access to basic resources and job opportunities needed to support recovery and stability.

“This is my real life. It’s not fake. It’s not no, ‘Well, why did he go back and do this or that?’” he said. “I live in an underserved, impoverished, danger zone – period.”

Moving forward

The experiences these men shared with me demonstrate how traumatic incarceration is, even many years after release.

Supporting the mental health of formerly incarcerated Black men requires trauma-informed services, such as culturally responsive counseling, peer support and care that acknowledges the lasting effects of incarceration.

It also means helping them build or rebuild their financial resources, reconnect with their children and loved ones, and supporting the broader communities they return to through investment in housing, employment and accessible health and social services.

Helena Addison received funding from National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31NR020434, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and American Nurses Association Minority Fellowship Program, the University of Pennsylvania’s Presidential PhD Fellowship, and Jonas Philanthropies to support this study and/or her PhD training. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or any other funding organizations or institutions. The views expressed in written training materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

– ref. ‘I just couldn’t stop crying’: How prison affects Black men’s mental health long after they’ve been released – https://theconversation.com/i-just-couldnt-stop-crying-how-prison-affects-black-mens-mental-health-long-after-theyve-been-released-259975

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ryan Leack, Assistant Professor of Writing, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

In my writing and rhetoric courses, students have plenty of opinions on whether AI is intelligent: how well it can assess, analyze, evaluate and communicate information.

When I ask whether artificial intelligence can “think,” however, I often look upon a sea of blank faces. What is “thinking,” and how is it the same or different from “intelligence”?

We might treat the two as more or less synonymous, but philosophers have marked nuances for millennia. Greek philosophers may not have known about 21st-century technology, but their ideas about intellect and thinking can help us understand what’s at stake with AI today.

The divided line

Although the English words “intellect” and “thinking” do not have direct counterparts in the ancient Greek, looking at ancient texts offers useful comparisons.

In “Republic,” for example, Plato uses the analogy of a “divided line” separating higher and lower forms of understanding.

Plato, who taught in the fourth century BCE, argued that each person has an intuitive capacity to recognize the truth. He called this the highest form of understanding: “noesis.” Noesis enables apprehension beyond reason, belief or sensory perception. It’s one form of “knowing” something – but in Plato’s view, it’s also a property of the soul.

Lower down, but still above his “dividing line,” is “dianoia,” or reason, which relies on argumentation. Below the line, his lower forms of understanding are “pistis,” or belief, and “eikasia,” imagination.

Pistis is belief influenced by experience and sensory perception: input that someone can critically examine and reason about. Plato defines eikasia, meanwhile, as baseless opinion rooted in false perception.

In Plato’s hierarchy of mental capacities, direct, intuitive understanding is at the top, and moment-to-moment physical input toward the bottom. The top of the hierarchy leads to true and absolute knowledge, while the bottom lends itself to false impressions and beliefs. But intuition, according to Plato, is part of the soul, and embodied in human form. Perceiving reality transcends the body – but still needs one.

So, while Plato does not differentiate “intelligence” and “thinking,” I would argue that his distinctions can help us think about AI. Without being embodied, AI may not “think” or “understand” the way humans do. Eikasia – the lowest form of comprehension, based on false perceptions – may be similar to AI’s frequent “hallucinations,” when it makes up information that seems plausible but is actually inaccurate.

Embodied thinking

Aristotle, Plato’s student, sheds more light on intelligence and thinking.

In “On the Soul,” Aristotle distinguishes “active” from “passive” intellect. Active intellect, which he called “nous,” is immaterial. It makes meaning from experience, but transcends bodily perception. Passive intellect is bodily, receiving sensory impressions without reasoning.

We could say that these active and passive processes, put together, constitute “thinking.” Today, the word “intelligence” holds a logical quality that AI’s calculations may conceivably replicate. Aristotle, however, like Plato, suggests that to “think” requires an embodied form and goes beyond reason alone.

Aristotle’s views on rhetoric also show that deliberation and judgment require a body, feeling and experience. We might think of rhetoric as persuasion, but it is actually more about observation: observing and evaluating how evidence, emotion and character shape people’s thinking and decisions. Facts matter, but emotions and people move us – and it seems questionable whether AI utilizes rhetoric in this way.

Finally, Aristotle’s concept of “phronesis” sheds further light on AI’s capacity to think. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” he defines phronesis as “practical wisdom” or “prudence.” “Phronesis” involves lived experience that determines not only right thought, but also how to apply those thoughts to “good ends,” or virtuous actions. AI may analyze large datasets to reach its conclusions, but “phronesis” goes beyond information to consult wisdom and moral insight.

‘Thinking’ robots?

Today, AI takes on many physical forms, from autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots to health care robots and drones. If intelligence requires embodiment, as Plato and Aristotle believed, it might seem as if AI is coming closer than ever to human thinking.

AI does take on many forms, but they’re still not bodies; they run on code, algorithms and datasets. Intuitive understanding, emotion, integrity and practical wisdom seem to require an embodied, perishable form that is moved by experience.

Perhaps we should ask AI itself – so I did. When I prompted ChatGPT with the simple question, “Can you think?” it responded: “I can process information, analyze patterns, and generate responses based on data. So in some ways, it might ‘seem’ like I’m thinking. But it’s not thinking like a human does. I don’t have consciousness, emotions, intentions, or awareness. Everything I ‘do’ is based on patterns learned from huge amounts of text and a set of rules and probabilities. I can ‘simulate’ certain aspects of thinking, but I don’t truly think or understand in the human sense.”

That response aligns with Plato and Aristotle’s views. For now.

Ryan Leack 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. Can AI think – and should it? What it means to think, from Plato to ChatGPT – https://theconversation.com/can-ai-think-and-should-it-what-it-means-to-think-from-plato-to-chatgpt-256648

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Allison Perlman, Associate Professor of Film & Media Studies, University of California, Irvine

The U.S. Senate narrowly approved on July 16, 2025, a bill that would claw back federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to NPR, PBS and their affiliate stations. The US$9 billion rescission package will withdraw $1.1 billion Congress had previously approved for the CPB to receive in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years. In addition, it makes deep foreign aid cuts. All Democrats present voted against the measure, joined by two Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. As long as the House, which approved a previous version, votes in favor of the Senate’s version of the bill by midnight July 18, Trump will be able to meet a budgetary deadline by signing the measure into law in time for it to take effect.

What will happen to NPR, PBS and local stations?

NPR and PBS provide programming to local public television and radio stations across the country. The impact on them will be direct and indirect.

Both NPR and PBS receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an independent nonprofit corporation Congress created in 1967 to receive and distribute federal money to public broadcasters. More than 70% of the money it distributes flows directly to local stations. Some stations get up to half of their budgets from the CPB.

But NPR and PBS get much of their funding from foundation grants, viewers’ and listeners’ donations, and corporate underwriting. And local public radio and TV stations also get support from an array of sources besides CPB.

Only about 1% of NPR funding, and 15% of PBS funding, comes directly from the government via the CPB. However, once local radio and television stations lose federal funding, they’ll be less able to pay NPR and PBS for the programs they produce.

The nearly 1,500 public media stations in the U.S. rely on a mix of NPR, PBS and third-party producer programming, such as American Public Media and PRX, for the programs they offer. Local stations also produce and air regional news and provide emergency broadcasts for the government.

In rural areas with few broadcast stations and spotty cellphone coverage, public broadcast stations are vital sources of information about important community news and updates during emergencies. Federal support is essential for the programming and day-to-day operations of many local stations and allows for the maintenance of equipment and personnel to operate these vital community resources.

We believe that stations in communities that most need them, especially in rural locations, would be hit especially hard because they rely heavily on CPB funding.

Why are Republicans taking this step?

Public broadcasting has long been a target of conservative Republicans. They say that with a highly diversified media landscape, the public no longer needs media that is subsidized by federal dollars. They also claim that public broadcasting has a liberal bias and taxpayers should not be required to fund media that slants to the left politically.

Why is public media necessary when there’s news on the internet?

As journalism revenue has plummeted, public broadcasting has remained a vital source for news in communities across the nation. This is especially true in rural communities, where economic and political pressures have threatened the survival of local journalism.

In addition, with much online news coverage placed behind paywalls, public radio and television plays an important role in making quality journalism available to the American public.

Why did Congress approve these funds 2 years ahead?

Public broadcasting has gotten roughly $550 million per year from the federal government in recent years. The CPB has always approved and designated those funds two years in advance, due to a provision in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, after Congress has voted to provide that money. The CPB then has distributed that funding primarily through grants to PBS and NPR affiliate stations to support their technical infrastructure, program development and audience research.

What are the consequences for Native communities?

Dozens of Native American stations are at risk of closing once the CPB is defunded. Native Public Media, a network of 57 radio stations and four TV stations, is a key source of news and information for tribal communities across the nation and relies on CPB support.

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, publicly stated that he secured an agreement with the White House to move $9.4 million in Interior Department funding to two dozen Native American stations. But there is no provision related to this promise within the legislation.

Allison Perlman is the co-chair of the Scholars Advisory Committee of the American Archive of Public Broadcasting.

Josh Shepperd and Allison Perlman are under contract to co-author an update of the history of public broadcasting for Current, public media’s trade journal, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Josh and Allison are not paid employees or vendors of either institution.

– ref. Clawback of $1.1B for PBS and NPR puts rural stations at risk – and threatens a vital source of journalism – https://theconversation.com/clawback-of-1-1b-for-pbs-and-npr-puts-rural-stations-at-risk-and-threatens-a-vital-source-of-journalism-255826

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Prince Sarpong, Associate professor, University of the Free State

Corporate leaders and billionaires are often viewed as visionaries and wealth creators. But beneath the surface, many are trapped in an invisible financial “crisis” – one rooted not in market volatility or poor investments but in their psychological relationship with money.

As a finance professor and editor of the forthcoming book “Financial Therapy for Men,” I study this often overlooked aspect of financial psychology. Money is far more than numbers on a balance sheet – it carries emotional, psychological and social meaning. People’s relationships with money are shaped by childhood experiences, cultural beliefs and personal triumphs and failures. This emotional baggage can influence not only their sense of safety and self-worth but also how they manage power and status.

The field of financial therapy emerged in the mid-2000s to address these dynamics. Drawing from behavioral economics, financial psychology, family systems theory and clinical therapy, it aims to help people understand how their thoughts, feelings and experiences shape financial behavior. Foundational academic work began at Kansas State University, home to one of the first graduate-level programs in the field.

Since then, financial therapy has gained traction in the U.S. and globally: It’s supported by a peer-reviewed journal and is increasingly integrated into professional practice by financial advisers and licensed therapists. Studies have shown that financial therapy can improve relationships and reduce emotional distress.

Yet much of the field focuses on people who are emotionally open and reflective – neglecting executives, who are often socialized to view themselves as purely rational decision-makers. I think this is a mistake.

Research shows that people often project their unconscious anxieties onto markets, experiencing them as mirrors of competence, failure or control. This means that public valuations and capital flows may carry deeply symbolic weight for corporate leaders.

My research suggests that people at the highest levels of wealth and power have deeply complex emotional relationships with money – but the field of financial therapy has largely overlooked them. This isn’t an accident. It reflects a broader assumption that wealth insulates people from psychological distress. In reality, emotional entanglements can intensify with greater wealth and power – and research suggests that men, in particular, face distinct challenges. True inclusion in financial therapy means recognizing and responding to these needs.

When distress becomes a leadership crisis

In a 2023 study – When and why do men negotiate assertively? – Jens Mazei, whose research focuses on negotiations and conflict management, and his colleagues found that men become more aggressive in negotiations when they think their masculinity is being threatened. This was especially true in contexts viewed as “masculine,” such as salary negotiations. In “nonmasculine” contexts, such as negotiations over flexible work and child care benefits, participants weren’t significantly more aggressive when their masculinity was challenged.

On male-coded topics, many men in the study reinforced gender norms by rejecting compromise, using hardball tactics or even inflating financial demands to reassert their masculinity. These behaviors reflect an unconscious need to restore a sense of masculine identity, the researchers suggest. If this reaction occurs in salary negotiations, how might it manifest when the stakes are exponentially higher?

Emerging research in organizational psychology shows that financial stress is linked to abusive supervision, particularly among men who feel a loss of control. Further, traits such as CEO masculinity have been linked with increased risk-taking, while female CEOs tend to reduce risk. Together, these findings point to a dangerous intersection of psychological stress, masculinity and executive decision-making.

M&A as a masculinity battleground

Financial distress doesn’t always look like bankruptcy or bad credit. Among powerful men, it can manifest as overconfidence, rigidity or aggression – and it can sometimes lead to very uneconomical outcomes.

Consider the research on M&A. Most mergers and acquisitions are value killers – in other words, they destroy more economic value than they create – and the field of M&A is deeply male. These two facts suggest that some mergers are driven more by threatened masculinity than by strategic logic. If men become more aggressive in negotiations when their masculinity is threatened, then CEOs and corporate leaders, who are overwhelmingly male, may react similarly when their companies, and by extension their leadership, are challenged.

Target companies rarely take a passive approach to acquisition attempts. Instead, they deploy defensive measures such as poison pills, golden parachutes, staggered boards and scorched-earth tactics. In addition to serving financial goals, these may also act as symbolic defenses of masculine authority.

Mergers and acquisitions, by their nature, create a contest of power between dominant figures. The very language of M&A – for example, “raiders,” “hostile takeovers,” “defenses” and “white knights” – is combative. This reinforces an environment where corporate leaders may view acquisition attempts as challenges to their authority rather than as just financial transactions.

A growing body of behavioral-strategy research confirms that boardroom decisions are often shaped by emotional undercurrents rather than purely rational analysis. While this research stops short of naming it, the dynamics it describes align closely with what Mazei and colleagues call “masculinity threat.”

This has direct implications for corporate M&A. The overwhelming majority of top CEOs are men, and the language of M&A often evokes siege, power struggles and conquest. In such a symbolic arena, acquisition attempts can trigger deep, emotionally charged responses, as the identity stakes are high. What appear to be strategic financial decisions may actually be reflexive defenses of masculine authority.

On a related note, researchers in behavioral finance have long studied the “endowment effect,” or the tendency for people to value assets more simply because they own them. While the endowment effect has been studied primarily among retail investors making ordinary financial decisions, it could be particularly important for corporate executives and billionaires, who have more to lose.

When combined with threatened masculinity, the endowment effect can produce combustible reactions to declining valuations, missed earnings or takeover bids – even for individuals who remain vastly wealthy after marginal losses. While the research at this intersection is still emerging, the underlying behavioral patterns are well established.

What does financial therapy for the ultrarich look like?

Financial therapy for high-net-worth individuals rarely looks like sitting on a couch discussing childhood trauma. Instead, it takes an interdisciplinary approach involving financial advisers, therapists and sometimes executive coaches. Sessions tend to focus on legacy planning, control issues, guilt over wealth, or strained family relationships.

Many high-net-worth men display behaviors that don’t look like like stereotypical “financial distress.” These can include compulsive deal-making, emotionally driven investment decisions, workaholism and difficulty trusting advisers. In some cases, unresolved financial trauma shows up as chronic dissatisfaction and the sense that no achievement, acquisition or net worth is ever “enough.”

While financial therapy is intended to help individuals, I think it could actually be a tool for global economic stability.

After all, when masculinity is threatened in corporate decision-making, the consequences can extend far beyond the boardroom. These actions can destabilize industries, fuel economic downturns and disrupt entire labor markets. Unchecked financial anxiety among corporate elites and billionaires isn’t just their own problem – it can cascade and become everyone’s problem.

From this perspective, financial therapy isn’t just a personal good. It’s a structural necessity that can prevent unchecked financial distress from driving destructive corporate decisions and broader economic disruptions.

If financial therapy helps people navigate financial distress and make healthier money decisions, then no group needs it more than male corporate leaders and billionaires.

Prince Sarpong 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 male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone – https://theconversation.com/why-male-corporate-leaders-and-billionaires-may-need-financial-therapy-more-than-anyone-252094