Category: The Conversation – USA

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

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

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

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

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

Mowing down the cell’s surface

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

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

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

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

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

Uncovering the recluse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 main crops, 3 nutrients needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affecting farmers first

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

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

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

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

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

More money can’t fix this problem

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

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

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

Hitting home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A global food emergency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I’m writing about this

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

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

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

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

The terms parents should know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why kids encounter this language first

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

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

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

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

How harmful interactions slip past moderation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proactive parental education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maximum deduction is $25,000

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

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

The savings will vary widely depending on income.

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

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

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

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

Rules and regulations

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

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

Customers must have voluntarily paid all tax-deductible tips.

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

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

Tips must be reported to the workers and IRS

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

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

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

An exception to the new rule

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

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

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

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

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

Here are three more caveats:

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

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

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

New reporting thresholds

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

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

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

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

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

What’s staying the same

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why it matters

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the CREC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Church-state separation

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

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

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

‘Church planting’

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

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

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

CREC controversies

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

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

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

Hegseth’s religious rhetoric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freemasons in the cradle of liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘godless’ Illuminati

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy fears climax

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

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

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

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

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

Freemasons today

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

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

Relics of the era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Quing Zhu, Professor of Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis

Ultrasound is widely used in breast cancer diagnosis. While it can effectively show that a lump is filled with fluid – indicating it is unlikely to be cancer – it cannot reliably determine whether a solid mass is benign or cancerous. This often leads doctors to order breast biopsies to confirm the presence of cancer.

However, most breast biopsies do not detect cancer. In the U.S., more than 1 million breast biopsies are performed each year, and about 80% of them are benign. Unnecessary biopsies are linked to potential harms, including increased anxiety, complications from the procedure and medical costs. Despite advances in breast imaging, breast biopsy remains the only definitive method to determine whether a suspicious lump is cancerous.

My work as an engineer focuses on improving imaging technology to detect and diagnose cancer. Breast cancer grows when the tumors form new blood vessels and consume more oxygen. This makes examining blood vessels and oxygen levels potential biomarkers that could improve breast cancer diagnosis.

Diffuse optical tomography, or DOT, is an imaging technology that uses near-infrared light to measure total blood hemoglobin concentration and oxygen levels – key indicators of tumor activity – in the breast lump. It does not require patients to be injected with contrast dyes to make the image clearer.

My team and I found that combining ultrasound with DOT can improve the accuracy of breast cancer diagnoses and reduce unnecessary breast biopsies. The ultrasound provides information about the structure of a breast lump, while DOT provides information about its function, and this data together can improve breast cancer diagnosis.

Improving breast ultrasounds with DOT

In our study, we imaged 226 patients recommended for routine breast biopsy using our new hand-held imaging technology, which combines ultrasound with diffuse optical tomography. These patients had either breast cancer or benign lumps, and their final diagnosis was confirmed with a biopsy.

Radiologists initially evaluated each patient using standard imaging methods, such as ultrasound and mammography. They then reviewed additional information from DOT images. Importantly, the radiologists and engineers were blinded to the biopsy results when determining diagnoses.

We observed significant biological differences between cancerous and benign lumps. Cancerous lesions had significantly higher levels of hemoglobin and lower levels of oxygen than noncancerous tissue. More aggressive cancers showed even higher hemoglobin concentrations and lower oxygen levels than less aggressive tumors.

When radiologists were able to review DOT measurements, biopsies of benign lumps decreased by approximately 25%. The false-negative rate was 1.8%, which aligns with medical guidelines that recommend monitoring rather than an immediate biopsy.

Future of breast cancer screening and diagnosis

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. There were approximately 2.3 million new cases and 670,000 deaths reported in 2022. If these rates continue, researchers project around 1.1 million breast cancer-related deaths will occur in 2050.

More accurate, noninvasive diagnostic tools can not only reduce unnecessary biopsies but also lead to more precise and efficient diagnoses. Beyond ultrasound, researchers have also explored combining other imaging techniques with DOT, including X-ray mammography, 3D mammography and MRI. However, DOT systems combined with mammography and MRI are more difficult for routine use in the clinic compared to ultrasound. My team is working to further refine our technology, including incorporating AI tools to help process imaging data.

Minimizing avoidable procedures can help preserve a patient’s quality of life and reduce health care costs. I believe these improvements can collectively have a meaningful and far-reaching effect on patient care and the broader health care system.

Quing Zhu receives funding from the National Cancer Institute for this work

– ref. About 80% of breast cancer biopsies turn out benign – new imaging tool promises clearer diagnoses and fewer biopsies – https://theconversation.com/about-80-of-breast-cancer-biopsies-turn-out-benign-new-imaging-tool-promises-clearer-diagnoses-and-fewer-biopsies-277070

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

With U.S. bombs raining down on Iran and Tehran’s leaders responding by hitting targets across the Persian Gulf and restricting transit through the Strait of Hormuz, it is fair to suggest that the present moment represents a low in relations between the two countries.

But the bad blood isn’t new: The U.S. and Iran have been in conflict for decades – at least since the U.S. helped overthrow a democracy-minded prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in August 1953. The U.S. then supported the long, repressive reign of the Shah of Iran, whose security services brutalized Iranian citizens for decades.

The two countries have been particularly hostile to each other since Iranian students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, resulting in economic sanctions and the severing of formal diplomatic relations between the nations.

Since 1984, the U.S. State Department has listed Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” alleging the Iranian government provides terrorists with training, money and weapons.

Some of the major events in U.S.-Iran relations highlight the differences between the nations’ views, but others arguably presented real opportunities for reconciliation.

1953: US overthrows Mossadegh

In 1951, the Iranian Parliament chose a new prime minister, Mossadegh, who then led lawmakers to vote in favor of taking over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, expelling the company’s British owners and saying they wanted to turn oil profits into investments in the Iranian people. The U.S. feared disruption in the global oil supply and worried about Iran falling prey to Soviet influence. The British feared the loss of cheap Iranian oil.

President Dwight Eisenhower decided it was best for the U.S. and the U.K. to get rid of Mossadegh. Operation Ajax, a joint CIA-British operation, convinced the Shah of Iran, the country’s monarch, to dismiss Mossadegh and drive him from office by force. Mossadegh was replaced by a much more Western-friendly prime minister, handpicked by the CIA.

1979: Revolutionaries oust the shah, take hostages

After more than 25 years of relative stability in U.S.-Iran relations, the Iranian public had grown unhappy with the social and economic conditions that developed under the dictatorial rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Pahlavi enriched himself and used American aid to fund the military while many Iranians lived in poverty. Dissent was often violently quashed by SAVAK, the shah’s security service. In January 1979, the shah left Iran, ostensibly to seek cancer treatment. Two weeks later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in Iraq and led a drive to abolish the monarchy and proclaim an Islamic government.

In October 1979, President Jimmy Carter agreed to allow the shah to come to the U.S. to seek advanced medical treatment. Outraged Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, taking 52 Americans hostage. That convinced Carter to sever U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980.

Two weeks later, the U.S. military launched a mission to rescue the hostages, but it failed, with aircraft crashes killing eight U.S. servicemembers.

The shah died in Egypt in July 1980, but the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, after 444 days of captivity.

1980-1988: US tacitly sides with Iraq

In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, an escalation of the two countries’ regional rivalry and religious differences: Iraq was governed by Sunni Muslims but had a Shia Muslim majority population; Iran was led and populated mostly by Shiites.

The U.S. was concerned that the conflict would limit the flow of Middle Eastern oil and wanted to ensure the conflict didn’t affect its close ally, Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. supported Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in his fight against the anti-American Iranian regime. As a result, the U.S. mostly turned a blind eye toward Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran.

U.S. officials moderated their usual opposition to those illegal and inhumane weapons because the U.S. State Department did not “wish to play into Iran’s hands by fueling its propaganda against Iraq.” In 1988, the war ended in a stalemate. More than 500,000 military and 100,000 civilians died.

1981-1986: US secretly sells weapons to Iran

The U.S. imposed an arms embargo after Iran was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. That left the Iranian military, in the middle of its war with Iraq, desperate for weapons and aircraft and vehicle parts to keep fighting.

The Reagan administration decided that the embargo would likely push Iran to seek support from the Soviet Union, the U.S.’s Cold War rival. Rather than formally end the embargo, U.S. officials agreed to secretly sell weapons to Iran starting in 1981.

The last shipment, of anti-tank missiles, was in October 1986. In November 1986, a Lebanese magazine exposed the deal. That revelation sparked the Iran-Contra scandal in the U.S., with Reagan’s officials found to have collected money from Iran for the weapons and illegally sent those funds to anti-socialist rebels – the Contras – in Nicaragua.

1988: US Navy shoots down Iran Air flight 655

On the morning of July 8, 1988, the USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser patrolling in the international waters of the Persian Gulf, entered Iranian territorial waters while in a skirmish with Iranian gunboats.

Either during or just after that exchange of gunfire, the Vincennes crew mistook a passing civilian Airbus passenger jet for an Iranian F-14 fighter. They shot it down, killing all 290 people aboard.

The U.S. called it a “tragic and regrettable accident,” but Iran believed the plane’s downing was intentional. In 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay US$131.8 million in compensation to Iran.

1997-1998: The US seeks contact

In August 1997, a moderate reformer, Mohammad Khatami, won Iran’s presidential election.

U.S. President Bill Clinton sensed an opportunity. He sent a message to Tehran through the Swiss ambassador there, proposing direct government-to-government talks.

Shortly thereafter, in early January 1998, Khatami gave an interview to CNN in which he expressed “respect for the great American people,” denounced terrorism and recommended an “exchange of professors, writers, scholars, artists, journalists and tourists” between the United States and Iran.

However, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn’t agree, so not much came of the mutual overtures as Clinton’s time in office came to an end.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as constituting an “Axis of Evil” supporting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction, straining relations even further.

2002: Iran’s nuclear program raises alarm

In August 2002, an exiled rebel group announced that Iran had been secretly working on nuclear weapons at two installations that had not previously been publicly revealed.

That was a violation of the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed, requiring countries to disclose their nuclear-related facilities to international inspectors.

One of those formerly secret locations, Natanz, housed centrifuges for enriching uranium, which could be used in civilian nuclear reactors or enriched further for weapons.

Starting in roughly 2005, U.S. and Israeli government cyberattackers together reportedly targeted the Natanz centrifuges with a custom-made piece of malicious software that became known as Stuxnet.

That effort, which slowed down Iran’s nuclear program was one of many U.S. and international attempts – mostly unsuccessful – to curtail Iran’s progress toward building a nuclear bomb.

2003: Iran writes to Bush administration

In May 2003, senior Iranian officials quietly contacted the State Department through the Swiss embassy in Iran, seeking “a dialogue ‘in mutual respect,’” addressing four big issues: nuclear weapons, terrorism, Palestinian resistance and stability in Iraq.

Hardliners in the Bush administration weren’t interested in any major reconciliation, though Secretary of State Colin Powell favored dialogue and other officials had met with Iran about al-Qaida.

When Iranian hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran in 2005, the opportunity died. The following year, Ahmadinejad made his own overture to Washington in an 18-page letter to President Bush. The letter was widely dismissed; a senior State Department official told me in profane terms that it amounted to nothing.

2015: Iran nuclear deal signed

After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration undertook a direct diplomatic approach beginning in 2013.

Two years of secret, direct negotiations initially bilaterally between the U.S. and Iran and later with other nuclear powers culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, often called the Iran nuclear deal.

Iran, the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom signed the deal in 2015. It severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated that international inspectors monitor and enforce Iran’s compliance with the agreement.

In return, Iran was granted relief from international and U.S. economic sanctions. Though the inspectors regularly certified that Iran was abiding by the agreement’s terms, President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in May 2018.

2020: US drones kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani

On Jan. 3, 2020, an American drone fired a missile that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Analysts considered Soleimani the second most powerful man in Iran, after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

At the time, the Trump administration asserted that Soleimani was directing an imminent attack against U.S. assets in the region, but officials have not provided clear evidence to support that claim.

Iran responded by launching ballistic missiles that hit two American bases in Iraq.

2023: The Oct. 7 attacks on Israel

Hamas’ brazen attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, provoked a fearsome militarized response from Israel that continues today and served to severely weaken Iran’s proxies in the region, especially Hamas – the perpetrator of the attacks – and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

2025: Trump 2.0 and Iran

Trump initially saw an opportunity to forge a new nuclear deal with Iran and to pursue other business deals with Tehran. Once inaugurated for his second term, Trump appointed Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor who is the president’s friend, to serve as special envoy for the Middle East and to lead negotiations.

Negotiations for a nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran began in April, but the countries did not reach a deal. They were planning a new round of talks when Israel struck Iran with a series of airstrikes on June 13, forcing the White House to reconsider is position.

On June 22, in the early morning hours, the U.S. chose to act decisively in an attempt to cripple Iran’s nuclear capacity, bombing three nuclear sites and causing what Pentagon officials called “severe damage.”

The war lasted 12 days, during which Trump declared that Iranian nuclear sites had been “totally obliterated” – a claim denied by Tehran.

2026: Simmering conflict turns into hot war

In early 2026, successive rounds of indirect talks took place between Iran and representatives from the U.S. administration. They followed major unrest in Iran during which Trump told protesters that “help is on its way.”

Then, on Feb. 28, the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran in an operation the U.S. called “Epic Fury.” In the initial wave of airstrikes, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior members of the Islamic Republic were killed. Tehran responded by hitting targets across the Gulf, turning the conflict into a wider, regional affair.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on June 17, 2025.

Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

– ref. US and Iran: A brief history of how decades of mistrust and bad blood led to open warfare – https://theconversation.com/us-and-iran-a-brief-history-of-how-decades-of-mistrust-and-bad-blood-led-to-open-warfare-279712

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer Selin, Associate Professor of Law, Arizona State University

President Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 2, 2026, only 14 months after she was sworn into office, making her time in the role the shortest in 60 years.

While much recent attention has focused on Trump’s decision to fire Bondi, there has been less attention on what the attorney general actually does, or what happens when the attorney general gets fired.

The attorney general is the lawyer appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to lead the Department of Justice, known as the DOJ. Because the attorney general’s expansive responsibilities place the office at the forefront of both politics and the law, the position is one of the most important in the federal executive branch.

File lawsuits, give advice

Congress created the position of attorney general in 1789 so the national government had a designated lawyer to conduct federal lawsuits for crimes against the United States such as counterfeiting, piracy or treason, and to give legal advice to the president and cabinet officials, such as the secretary of the Treasury.

Initially, the attorney general served part time. Indeed, for the first few decades of U.S. history, most attorneys general maintained private law practices and even lived away from the capital. But as the federal government began to do more, the role of the attorney general grew and became a full-time job.

The attorney general represents the United States in all legal matters. In doing so, the attorney general supervises federal prosecutions by the 93 U.S. attorneys who live and work across the United States to enforce federal laws. The attorney general also supervises almost all legal actions involving federal agencies – from the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency to the Social Security Administration.

For example, in the past few months, DOJ lawyers supervised by the attorney general have charged people with conspiring to smuggle artificial intelligence technology to China and negotiated an agreement requiring Ford Motor Company to clean contaminated groundwater in New Jersey. They have also worked with Wisconsin to successfully prosecute deceptive timeshare exit services targeting elderly customers.

Additionally, the attorney general gives legal advice to the president and heads of the cabinet departments. This includes providing recommendations to the president on whom he should appoint as federal judges and prosecutors.

In combination, these two aspects of the job, representing the U.S. and advising the cabinet departments, mean that the attorney general plays a key role in helping the president perform his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

115,000 employees

Since 1870, attorneys general have had an entire executive department – the Department of Justice – to help them execute their duties.

Today’s department contains over 70 distinct offices, initiatives and task forces, all of which the attorney general supervises. There are currently over 115,000 employees in the department.

The DOJ contains litigation units divided by subject matter like antitrust, civil rights, tax and national security. Each of these units conducts investigations and participates in federal lawsuits related to its expertise.

The Justice Department also has several law enforcement agencies that help ensure the safety and health of people who live in the United States. The most well-known of these agencies include the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. branch of the International Criminal Police Organization, known as Interpol.

Additionally, the DOJ contains corrections agencies like the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Parole Commission. These agencies work to ensure consistent and centralized coordination of federal prisons and offenders.

Finally, the department manages several grant administration agencies. These agencies, such as Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, or SMART, provide financial assistance, training and advice to state, local, tribal and territorial governments as they work to enforce the law in their own communities.

Separating politics from law

Given all the attorney general’s responsibilities, the role is both political and legal. As such, attorneys general historically have a difficult task in separating their jobs as policy adviser from their duties as chief legal officer of the United States.

For example, President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Roberto Gonzales, resigned from office amid accusations of the DOJ’s politicized firing of U.S. attorneys and misuse of terrorist surveillance programs. And Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s attorney general, was criticized for meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was under investigation by the DOJ.

The attorney general’s job is complicated by the fact that the president has the constitutional power to fire them for political reasons.

During his first term, Trump replaced Attorney General Jeff Sessions after Sessions angered Trump by recusing himself – removing himself – from overseeing the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Given the attorney general’s connection to the president and the attorney general’s position as the head of the DOJ, when Bondi originally got the job critics saw her as a key part of Trump’s plan to control the department’s agenda, including through the use of the FBI to pursue his perceived enemies.

And now Trump has reportedly fired Bondi for failure to execute his vision.

What next?

Under current law, the president can designate a Senate-confirmed official in the administration or another high-ranking person who has worked within the DOJ for 90 days to serve as acting attorney general. Presidents across both parties historically have relied on these temporary appointments to steer the department as they decide whom to nominate officially for the position.

President Trump has named Todd Blanche as acting attorney general. Blanche, who served as deputy attorney general under Bondi, represented Trump in three of the four major criminal lawsuits he faced before the 2024 presidential election.

Trump is rumored to have discussed Lee Zeldin, the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be Bondi’s permanent replacement. Zeldin worked as part of Trump’s legal defense team during his first impeachment trial.

Blanche’s temporary appointment and Zeldin’s potential nomination have spurred more questions about the politicization of the DOJ.

A recent Associated Press study found that only two in 10 Americans have a great deal of confidence in the department. In part, this is a result of the longstanding political connections between the presidents and their attorneys general.

Ultimately, the fate of the nation’s top law enforcement official is in the hands of politicians.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Dec. 19, 2024. It is part of a series of profiles explaining Cabinet and high-level administration positions.

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

– ref. What a US attorney general actually does – a law professor spells it out – https://theconversation.com/what-a-us-attorney-general-actually-does-a-law-professor-spells-it-out-279949