Credit and credibility: rating agency errors come with a cost

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Misheck Mutize, Post Doctoral Researcher, Graduate School of Business (GSB), University of Cape Town

The rating agency S&P Global’s Africa Credit Rating Trends 2025 reviews the past year’s rating activities and analyses the continent’s prospects for 2026. It is an important document because it interprets underlying drivers of creditworthiness. It shapes how global investors and policymakers understand risk, opportunity and reform dynamics across the continent.

But the document had some serious flaws in it. As someone who has been researching Africa’s capital markets and the institutions that govern them for decades, I believe they are worth commenting on because mistakes like this can influence investor perceptions. In turn, this can reinforce existing biases and affect how African economies are priced in global financial markets.

Firstly, there were several basic errors. Burundi was mislabelled as Uganda. Sudan and South Sudan were merged into a single country despite being separated since 2011.

The report also displayed a non-existent lake in the Great Lakes region and the Republic of the Congo was casually referred to by its unofficial name, Congo Brazzaville. The agency also presented the continent as having 54 countries, excluding the Sahrawi Republic, which is recognised by the African Union.

At first glance, these errors may seem like minor technical mistakes or editorial lapses in a document focused on financial analysis. But that reading misses the deeper issue. These are not just errors on a map. Errors like this raise questions about the accuracy, depth and rigour of the research and analytical processes behind the credit rating reports that move billions of dollars across the globe.

Systematic risk overestimation is what has led to African countries being penalised with higher interest rates and limited financing options. In effect, seemingly small errors have translated into real economic costs for African economies.

Moody’s made such errors in the past. It issued speculative downgrades for Kenya and Nigeria that it reversed within six and 12 months, respectively. One speculative commentary by Moody’s cost Kenya over US$150 million in a derailed bond buyback programme.

The gaps

At the core of these research shortcomings is a simple but consequential reality – limited presence on the ground.

S&P Global has an office in South Africa from which the team is expected to cover the whole continent. In addition, most of its rating analysts are based in Europe and Asia. These analysts visit the countries they rate for a maximum of two weeks in a year. These short visits and inadequate consultations have resulted in risk assessments based on conservative assumptions, desktop research and publicly available information.

S&P Global has been rating Uganda since December 2008. Yet its researchers still confuse the country’s location on the map.

This matters because global investors who engage Africa from a distance often operate with a cautious instinct. They still, erroneously, perceive Africa as a single, homogeneous risk bloc rather than 55 distinctive sovereigns with different risk dynamics.

Such geographical inaccuracies inadvertently validate this flawed narrative and risk perception, feeding into the misperceptions that distort capital allocation and inflate borrowing costs.

Another flaw the mistakes in the report illustrate is weak internal controls.

In global institutions like S&P Global, it is assumed that every publication undergoes multiple layers of quality assurance and editorial scrutiny. If such fundamental inaccuracies can pass through these filters, what about an analyst’s own assumptions that are embedded in sovereign risk models?

Is it possible that such errors escape scrutiny?

What is also worrying is how S&P Global responded to this issue when it was raised. The errors were flagged repeatedly on S&P Global’s social media platforms after the report was published, yet they remained uncorrected for nearly two weeks.

That delay was telling. It is fair to argue that these inaccuracies did not trigger the required urgency or institutional reflex because they concerned Africa. The corrections would most likely have been immediate, accompanied by formal apologies and internal reviews, if they had involved more powerful or closely watched regions. For example, if such a report had a map combining North and South Korea as one country or mislabelled Germany as France.

The reputational stakes would have been too high for the rating agency to ignore.

Way forward

Africa should not remain on the sidelines while its narrative is being driven by institutions that keep demonstrating a superficial understanding of its fundamentals.

One clear solution, in my view, is the establishment of an African credit rating agency to rebalance the narrative.




Read more:
Africa’s new credit rating agency could change the rules of the game. Here’s how


But more needs to be done. Here are three solutions.

First, African governments must move from being passive recipients of ratings to active engagement with analysts. Where justified, they must contest assumptions, methodologies and errors. Engagement should not begin after a downgrade. It must be continuous, technical and evidence-based with credible and timely data about their economies.

Second, global institutions such as S&P Global must recalibrate their approach in dealing with Africa. Credibility is derived from consistent accuracy and timely responsiveness. They must invest in permanent senior research and analytical presence on the continent, not episodic visits. It means expanding consultation beyond a narrow set of stakeholders to include local economists, market practitioners and independent researchers. More important, strengthening internal quality controls so that basic errors do not undermine the integrity of complex analytical outputs.

Perception continues to move faster than data, and negative narratives travel further than positive fundamentals. That is why African countries must insist on analytical rigour, demand accountability and build their own capacity to interpret risk.

The Conversation

Misheck Mutize is affiliated with the African Union – African Peer Review Mechanism as a Lead Expert on credit ratings

ref. Credit and credibility: rating agency errors come with a cost – https://theconversation.com/credit-and-credibility-rating-agency-errors-come-with-a-cost-279672

Countries suffer when credit rating agencies lack data: how to fix the problem at source

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Daniel Cash, Senior Fellow, United Nations University; Aston University

Some developing country governments spend years making the reforms that international financial institutions want – only to find that their efforts are not rewarded.

They may make budgets more transparent, publish their debt obligations, set up independent bodies to monitor government spending, and complete an International Monetary Fund programme, but still receive the same ratings from credit agencies. Borrowing costs remain high.

The gap between what countries have built and how that progress is reflected in credit ratings and market pricing is persistent and has consequences. It translates into higher borrowing costs, tighter fiscal space, and fewer resources for public investment.

The standard explanation points to bias in method – that credit rating agencies undervalue developing country institutions or rely on indicators that favour the global north.

There is some truth in this observation, and reformers have tried solutions like more agencies, methodology reviews and transparency codes. But these don’t tackle a deeper structural problem.

Based on my work as a researcher on the working of rating agencies, it’s clear that in practice, assessments of developing countries are often made on the basis of incomplete or fragmented information. Data sits in different institutions across the country, is not always produced to a common standard, and is frequently assembled under time pressure ahead of rating reviews. What reaches external assessors is therefore, at best, a partial view of the country’s institutional and fiscal position.

The issue was a major point of discussion at the United Nations in late March 2026 when delegates convened for the inaugural special meeting on credit ratings.

A recurring theme across the discussions was the need to look upstream – at what needs to exist before the rating process actually begins. Then assessments might more accurately reflect the infrastructure that developing countries have built.

That is a meaningful shift. It moves away from demanding that credit rating agencies behave differently, and towards asking what the system as a whole needs to provide. Upstream is where the problem originates and where the most concrete action is possible.

The debate suggests a shift in how key actors, including the United Nations, multilateral development banks and sovereign borrowers themselves, are approaching the problem. This could begin to change how institutional progress is translated into credit assessments and, over time, into borrowing costs.

Constructing a country’s credit story

A sovereign credit rating is not solely formed inside a credit rating agency. It takes shape in the months and years before an analyst arrives. It happens across finance ministries, central banks, statistical offices, debt management offices and audit institutions. It’s a process of data assembly, verification and presentation that most developing country governments have never had the capacity to manage systematically.

Before a rating is issued, a country’s credit story must be constructed. Fiscal data must be gathered, reform trajectories documented, institutional changes verified and contingent liabilities disclosed. A debt management office holds one part of the picture. A central bank holds another. A statistical office holds a third.

When those parts are properly coordinated, the credit story arrives at the assessment stage in verifiable form. When they are not, documentation has to be pulled together reactively before a rating deadline, and the story arrives incomplete.

Put simply, the analyst cannot reconstruct what was never assembled. Facing incomplete information, even where the core data required is broadly similar across countries, the rational response is often conservative assessment. The uncertainty premium stays elevated, and any reforms go unrecognised – not because they did not happen, but because the system required to make it visible was never built.

This upstream process can be understood as sovereign credit formation. If it’s weak, and external assessors can’t see what genuine progress has been made, there’s a formation gap. The formation gap does not mean that all low ratings are unwarranted. It simply means the system currently has no reliable way to tell the difference between a sovereign with weak fundamentals and one with strong yet largely invisible institutions.

No actor in the current system has the mandate or the incentive to build that upstream infrastructure on behalf of the countries that need it most. That is the problem.

On top of this, developing country governments are being asked to reform in ways that will take sustained investment in institutional capacity. Better data systems; coordinated institutions; clearer evidence. That investment takes years, diverts scarce resources, and demands political commitment across electoral cycles. It is being asked of governments that don’t have the fiscal space to do it – because their borrowing costs are high.

They are being asked to solve a problem they did not necessarily create, using resources that the problem itself is consuming.

The intervention that fits

Multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and multilateral development banks, cannot change what credit rating agencies do inside their own methodologies. Assessments are made independently. Interfering with the way they do it would undermine that independence.

Recent evidence in the multilateral development bank system shows that coordination is the prerequisite to movement.

Coordination across multilateral development banks and their shareholders led first to the creation of an emerging markets credit risk database, then to the formal review of multilateral development bank lending by an expert panel appointed during Indonesia’s presidency of the G20, and then to major credit rating agencies changing their methodological processes.

The infrastructure that makes governance reforms legible to credit markets is a public good. Public goods require public investment. This is not a call for a new institution. It is a reorientation of existing ones towards a gap that nobody is currently filling.

Every sovereign that has undertaken genuine reform and watched its credit conditions remain unchanged knows the problem this article describes. They are being assessed before a full appreciation of their credit worthiness is possible. Building the upstream infrastructure to close this gap is the multilateral system’s most important contribution to sovereign credit reform.

The Conversation

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

ref. Countries suffer when credit rating agencies lack data: how to fix the problem at source – https://theconversation.com/countries-suffer-when-credit-rating-agencies-lack-data-how-to-fix-the-problem-at-source-279671

Canada’s cybersecurity sector has a pipeline problem — and a glass ceiling

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sepideh Borzoo, Postdoctoral Fellow, Toronto Metropolitan University

Canada is facing a well-documented shortage of cybersecurity workers, with estimates suggesting a shortfall of 25,000 to 30,000 qualified professionals — a figure projected to grow to 100,000 by 2035. The persistence of this labour shortage weakens Canada’s capacity to defend itself against cybersecurity threats.

One possible way to address the shortage is to expand the recruitment of skilled foreign workers.

Although Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) announced in 2025 that the Express Entry system will shift its focus from the technology sector toward fields like health care and francophone immigration, cybersecurity remains one of the few technology occupations still considered in high demand for foreign applicants.

Meanwhile, organizations are developing diversity initiatives to attract a broader workforce, including women and racialized women, to the sector. While racialized immigrants account for the majority of information technology sector workers in Canada, they remain underrepresented in cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity historically originated from the military and has been shaped by national security priorities; as a result, it remains a field predominantly composed of white men. The problem is more acute in the upper echelons of security leadership.

In 2023, non-white men made up only 15 per cent of the global cybersecurity workforce. Racialized women are even less represented. Only two per cent of racialized women are in senior management positions.

As researchers who study the experiences of immigrant tech workers in cybersecurity in Canada, we have found that while racialized immigrant women are vital to the workforce, they continue to encounter barriers that limit their integration and career progression.

Ensuring equity and improving retention will require more than superficial diversity initiatives; the sector must adopt deeper, systemic changes that meaningfully support immigrant employees.

Strong qualifications, constrained careers

To understand how this labour shortage is experienced on the ground, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews between 2023 and 2025 with foreign-born cybersecurity professionals in Canada. Participants represented 13 countries, with most orginating from India, Iran, Brazil and Venezuela. The majority had attained Canadian permanent residency and had at least two years of experience in the Canadian cybersecurity sector.

These interviews help explain how the structural dynamics play out in everyday work.

Most of these cybersecurity professionals came to Canada with strong educational backgrounds in technology and skills that are highly transferable. While high human capital facilitated their entrance into the cybersecurity labour market, their career progression was often constrained by the absence of mentorship and professional networks, by language and cultural adjustment challenges, as well as a disproportionately heavy workload.

These barriers are even more difficult for immigrant women to navigate in an industry shaped by traditionally masculine principles, where competition and aggressive growth have long been celebrated as markers of success. The complexity of all these barriers often keeps immigrants, and racialized immigrant women in particular, in entry-level positions.

Interviewees described daily work experiences structured by systemic barriers and stereotypical expectations.

Many reported struggling to achieve a balance between their professional and personal lives as their roles require working long hours and constant investment in updating their technical knowledge. Experiences of discriminatory behaviour from male colleagues toward women were common. Women with foreign accents, in particular, discussed feeling interrupted or unheard during team meetings.

The layered realities of exclusion

Participants in our study described facing challenges shaped by overlapping forms of discrimination.

Some highlighted that their citizenship status played a role in limiting their access to certain positions. For example, participants on temporary work visas — specifically those from countries experiencing geopolitical tensions with Canada, such as Iran — reported greater difficulty entering the sector.

When they did find work, they were often placed in the most arduous positions, such as incident response and security operations centres, with minimal control over their schedule or tasks. Foreign accents or cultural backgrounds often led to exclusion from non-technical roles that require interaction and relationship-building connections with clients in the cybersecurity sector and contributed to marginalization in day-to-day work interactions.

For women participants, these experiences were often compounded by an industry defined by masculine norms — characterized by heavy workloads, long hours and an implicit requirement to avoid any display of weakness. They described experiencing strain in having to prioritize work over family while navigating workplace relationships in which they were frequently talked over and silenced.

The burden of being a minority in an overwhelmingly white, male-dominated workplace varied depending on the women’s race and ethnic background.

Asian and white immigrant women often felt compelled to speak more assertively and loudly to challenge assumptions that cast them as submissive or unassertive. And Black women described having to carefully manage their frustration and tone of voice to avoid triggering stereotypes that label them as inherently angry.

The weight of stereotypes often left them feeling isolated or uncertain about their place.

Change requires a collaborative approach

Removing the barriers that hinder immigrants in their career progression means addressing both the stereotypical behaviours and the systemic factors holding them back.

This would involve changing the workplace culture and adjusting policies at both immigration and organizational levels. Changing hiring, training and mentoring processes can shift how competency is defined and evaluated within organizations.

Our findings suggest that while diversity programs may reduce overt discrimination and encourage the hiring of women and ethnically diverse employees, this doesn’t guarantee that minority groups will be treated equally or have the same career advancement opportunities as other employees.




Read more:
How hiring more women IT experts improves cybersecurity risk management


Encouragingly, our findings also show that employees treat one another fairly in workplaces where leaders demonstrate fairness in their behaviour. Women in leadership positions, particularly, play an important role in changing workplace culture and advocating for underrepresented groups.

Enhancing diversity in the top leadership positions may also contribute to a more equitable work environment.

Hiring more gender and racially diverse people, and integrating them in leadership positions, can help create a workplace where every employee has access to mentorship that reflects their identity.

Federal and provincial governments can support these changes by embedding equity goals into immigrant selection and labour standards. Strengthening early and predictable pathways to permanent residence would also reduce immigrants’ vulnerability to precarious work and exploitation.

Together, these measures can help ensure diversity initiatives translate into genuine inclusion rather than merely masking persistent inequities. But without addressing the structural issues, Canada risks relying on immigrant talent to fill labour shortages while systematically limiting their success.

The Conversation

This project receives funding from SSHRC

This project was supported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canada Research Chair (CRC) program, Canada First Research Excellence (CFREF) through the Bridging Divides program.

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

ref. Canada’s cybersecurity sector has a pipeline problem — and a glass ceiling – https://theconversation.com/canadas-cybersecurity-sector-has-a-pipeline-problem-and-a-glass-ceiling-270764

Le prédateur et les proies : ce que l’étude des animaux nous apprend sur les climats toxiques au travail

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Jean Poitras, Professeur titulaire en gestion de conflits, HEC Montréal

Les tensions interpersonnelles entre collègues ont un coût important pour les entreprises : elles grugent la concentration, minent la collaboration et détournent une partie massive de l’énergie mentale vers la défense plutôt que vers le travail. Les écologistes ont observé comment les animaux gèrent la peur, la menace et la cohabitation avec les prédateurs dans un écosystème. Ils ont ainsi mis au jour des mécanismes surprenants qui éclairent nos propres réactions au sein des équipes de travail.


Dans la nature, un constat surprenant s’est imposé : les prédateurs contrôlent la population des proies non seulement en les mangeant, mais par la peur qu’ils instaurent. En effet, cette peur chronique force les proies à investir une quantité immense d’énergie dans la vigilance et l’évitement, plutôt que dans l’alimentation ou la reproduction. Autrement dit, ce n’est pas la prédation elle-même qui limite la croissance des proies, mais l’anticipation constante de ce qui pourrait leur arriver.

Un phénomène très similaire apparaît dans les groupes humains confrontés à de l’incivilité chronique. Lorsqu’un membre du groupe adopte parfois des comportements agressifs, les collègues vivent dans un climat d’incertitude relationnelle. Leur cerveau interprète celle-ci comme un risque social potentiel. L’énergie du groupe se détourne alors du travail vers la protection. Ce n’est donc pas tant le conflit qui épuise une équipe, mais l’énergie qu’elle dépense à l’anticiper et à l’éviter.

Les stratégies des proies

Les proies utilisent trois stratégies pour survivre à cette pression, que l’on retrouve aussi dans les groupes humains.

La première consiste à synchroniser leurs comportements avec le danger. Si le prédateur est actif à certaines heures ou dans certains lieux, les proies ajustent leurs déplacements et leurs activités. En milieu de travail, on observe des adaptations similaires : les employés évitent certaines réunions ou réduisent leurs interactions avec certaines personnes.

Avec la deuxième stratégie, les proies se retirent dans des zones où la menace est plus faible afin de faire baisser leur niveau de vigilance. Dans les organisations, ce refuge peut prendre la forme du retrait des interactions sociales ou du repli sur des tâches plus solitaires. Aujourd’hui, on pourrait penser que le télétravail devient un outil d’évitement dans certains cas. Ce n’est pas du désengagement : c’est une manière de réguler le coût psychologique du danger.




À lire aussi :
Les réseaux sociaux vous incitent à adopter ces trois comportements primitifs et violents


La troisième stratégie est la protection collective. Les proies se regroupent en troupeaux de manière à partager la surveillance et le risque. Dans les équipes humaines, ce phénomène peut se traduire par la formation d’alliances informelles ou de sous-groupes qui cherchent à réduire ensemble le stress par le soutien collectif.

Réguler l’incivilité

Ces réactions sont compréhensibles, mais elles ont un coût pour l’organisation. L’énergie se déplace vers la gestion du risque social plutôt que vers la tâche. Autrement dit, ce n’est pas seulement l’incivilité qui pose problème, mais une dynamique collective qui perturbe le fonctionnement du groupe. C’est pourquoi la régulation de l’incivilité doit être pensée à l’échelle du groupe et devenir proactive plutôt que réactive.

Un gestionnaire peut contrôler certains comportements, mais il ne peut pas imposer la civilité à lui seul. La stratégie la plus efficace consiste généralement à organiser une consolidation d’équipe, c’est-à-dire une discussion structurée sur le fonctionnement du groupe et la qualité des relations.




À lire aussi :
Le commérage de bureau : un moyen précieux – mais risqué – de nouer des relations


L’un des premiers objectifs est de créer une stabilité dans les échanges collectifs. Il s’agit d’un espace de discussion où la réactivité est suspendue, où l’on parle des enjeux plutôt que de formuler des reproches, et où l’intensité émotionnelle peut redescendre avant qu’elle ne s’envenime. La sécurité psychologique n’élimine pas les conflits, mais elle crée les conditions nécessaires pour les affronter de manière constructive.

En effet, l’incivilité au travail amène les employés à anticiper et éviter certaines interactions, ce qui augmente la charge cognitive et le stress. Structurer les rencontres et clarifier les règles de discussion peut alors réduire cette incertitude et la vigilance associée. Structurer les rencontres, clarifier les règles de discussion et expliciter les critères de décision réduit immédiatement la charge de vigilance.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


Interroger les normes du groupe

Pour ce faire, le groupe doit identifier les sources de l’incivilité. Les comportements problématiques peuvent être liés à des facteurs organisationnels tels que des exigences de travail élevées, un manque de soutien entre collègues, une insécurité d’emploi ou des changements organisationnels. La bonne volonté seule est rarement suffisante : il faut parfois corriger des irritants structurels ou ajuster la manière dont le travail est organisé.

Il ne suffit pas de dire que le climat est difficile : le groupe doit identifier les habitudes qui rendent probable l’incivilité. Comment le groupe contribue, souvent malgré lui, à créer un climat perpétuant l’incivilité ? Quand personne ne réagit à l’incivilité, ne donne-t-on pas carte blanche à ce type de comportement ?




À lire aussi :
Comment les Z s’épanouissent au travail dans un marché de l’emploi dominé par la « culture de l’agitation »


Dans une perspective inspirée de l’écologie des comportements sociaux, l’enjeu central concerne la régulation des normes du groupe. Dans plusieurs équipes, les comportements incivils persistent parce que les individus hésitent à intervenir seuls, le fait de sanctionner étant coûteux et exposant à des risques. La personne qui intervient assume ainsi des coûts sociaux et émotionnels importants, notamment en raison des réactions défensives ou des représailles possibles. Lorsque personne ne prend ce rôle, les comportements opportunistes tendent à se multiplier, ce qui fragilise la coopération et les normes collectives.

On peut ainsi imaginer qu’en contexte organisationnel, une personne en position d’autorité tente d’assumer seule ce rôle de régulation. Toutefois, en l’absence de soutien du groupe, le coût associé à cette intervention devient difficile à maintenir, ce qui peut l’amener progressivement à se délester de cette responsabilité.

La solution n’est donc pas d’augmenter la surveillance, mais de partager le coût de la régulation. Soutenir visiblement la personne qui intervient change immédiatement la dynamique. Un simple appui – « il a raison », « merci de l’avoir dit », « on est d’accord » – peut transformer une intervention individuelle en régulation collective. Il est souvent utile de formaliser les engagements du groupe dans un code de vie ou une charte de collégialité, puis de prévoir des rencontres de suivi pour vérifier si les résolutions tiennent dans le temps.

En somme, un groupe ne peut dépendre que de la bonne volonté de ses membres pour modérer l’incivilité. Il doit viser le partage du coût de la défense de ses normes. Comme dans les écosystèmes naturels, la stabilité d’un système repose moins sur la disparition du danger que sur la capacité collective à en réguler la prévalence et les effets.

La Conversation Canada

Jean Poitras ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

ref. Le prédateur et les proies : ce que l’étude des animaux nous apprend sur les climats toxiques au travail – https://theconversation.com/le-predateur-et-les-proies-ce-que-letude-des-animaux-nous-apprend-sur-les-climats-toxiques-au-travail-278162

Le cas Trump : comprendre l’imposture pour penser la fragilité démocratique

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Christophe Premat, Professor, Canadian and Cultural Studies, Stockholm University

Que reste-t-il à dire sur Donald Trump ? Depuis près d’une décennie, livres, enquêtes et témoignages se succèdent pour tenter de cerner une figure politique hors norme. Avec Le cas Trump. Portrait d’un imposteur paru aux éditions Écosociété en 2025, l’essayiste québécois Alain Roy propose une lecture psychopolitique du phénomène Trump.

Publié en 2025, l’ouvrage s’appuie sur une documentation abondante et sur une immersion dans un meeting trumpiste pour interroger l’émergence de ce phénomène. Comme l’écrivain le rappelle au début de son ouvrage, Trump lui-même ne croyait pas à sa victoire électorale de 2016.




À lire aussi :
Victoire de Trump : le genre a joué un rôle prépondérant. Les menaces à la liberté de procréer n’ont pas fait le poids


C’est à partir de ce paradoxe que Roy analyse la manière dont le trumpisme a été moins le fruit d’un projet politique structuré que le résultat d’une dynamique opportuniste, nourrie par les failles du système médiatique, la défiance envers les élites et la puissance des récits simplificateurs capables de capter un électorat en quête de rupture.

Cet article fait partie de notre série Des livres qui comptent, dans laquelle des experts de différents domaines abordent ou décortiquent les ouvrages qu’ils jugent pertinents. Ces livres sont ceux, parmi tous, qu’ils retiennent lorsque vient le temps de comprendre les transformations et les bouleversements de notre époque.


Le livre s’organise autour de trois notions structurantes : mensonge, narcissisme et destructivité. Ce triptyque permet à Roy de proposer une analyse cohérente d’une personnalité politique qui semble, à première vue, échapper à toute rationalité.

Mentir jusqu’à ce que ça devienne vrai

D’abord, le mensonge n’est pas un accident, il constitue le cœur du dispositif trumpien. L’image du self-made man relève d’une construction fictionnelle soigneusement entretenue. Donald Trump se présente comme l’archétype de la réussite individuelle, alors qu’il hérite en réalité d’un empire immobilier familial et enchaîne, au fil des décennies, faillites et restructurations.

Lorsque Trump martèle que les élections de 2020 ont été volées, il pratique le « big lie ». Ce concept renvoie à l’idée qu’un mensonge peut finir par être accepté s’il est répété suffisamment et s’il revêt une telle ampleur que les gens en viennent à penser qu’il est trop énorme pour être entièrement faux.

L’ouvrage de Roy a le mérite de rassembler les faits pour permettre de comprendre cette dynamique des mensonges : selon The Washington Post, Trump aurait ainsi proféré 30 573 mensonges lors de son premier mandat présidentiel soit plus de 21 par jours.

Estamper son patronyme aussi souvent que possible

Ensuite, le narcissisme apparaît comme une clé centrale. Il ne s’agit pas simplement d’un trait de caractère, mais d’une structure psychique marquée par une quête incessante de reconnaissance. La signature et la volonté de privatiser le monde extérieur en témoignent selon Alain Roy : Trump Tower, Trump Castle, Trump Air, Trump University, Trump Vodka, Trump Steak.

Le narcissisme de Trump se manifeste dans le rapport obsessionnel à l’image et dans la réaction immédiate à toute critique, perçue comme une attaque personnelle. Les prises de parole publiques, souvent improvisées et centrées sur sa propre personne, illustrent cette incapacité à se décentrer et à intégrer la contradiction dans un cadre démocratique.




À lire aussi :
L’intersectionnalité des haines permet de comprendre l’idéologie de Donald Trump et de l’extrême droite


Miner les contre-pouvoirs de la démocratie

Enfin, la destructivité éclaire le rapport de Trump au pouvoir. Roy montre que certaines décisions ou déclarations ne visent pas tant à construire qu’à affronter, voire à désorganiser.

Les attaques répétées contre les institutions, les médias ou les processus électoraux participent d’une logique de confrontation permanente. Dans cette perspective, le pouvoir n’est plus un espace de régulation, mais un terrain de lutte où la conflictualité devient une fin en soi, au risque d’éroder les fondements mêmes du cadre démocratique.

Le tweet remplace alors tous les rouages de pouvoir qui ne l’intéressent pas, d’où cette vision enfantine et personnalisée des liens politiques.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


L’imposture comme mode d’existence politique

L’une des thèses les plus stimulantes de l’ouvrage est que Trump ne doit pas être compris comme une anomalie, mais comme une imposture réussie. Loin d’être marginalisé par ses contradictions, il les transforme en ressource politique. Ses faillites deviennent des preuves de résilience, ses outrances des marqueurs d’authenticité, ses mensonges des instruments de mobilisation.

Comme l’écrit Roy, « Trump a justifié de temps à autre ces vantardises en disant qu’elles étaient le produit de “l’hyperbole véridique”. La notion d”hyperbole véridique’ constitue cependant une contradiction dans les termes […] elle n’est qu’une autre conception mensongère parmi toutes celles qu’il produit infatigablement ».




À lire aussi :
« C’est un malade ! » Voici ce que l’on perd à pathologiser la politique


Cette formule d’« hyperbole véridique » éclaire bien le fonctionnement de son discours : elle permet de transformer l’exagération en gage d’authenticité, en déplaçant la question de la vérité vers celle de l’impact. Peu importe l’exactitude des faits, ce qui compte est la capacité du récit à convaincre et à mobiliser.

Dans cette perspective, Donald Trump incarne une mutation du discours politique contemporain, où la cohérence factuelle cède le pas à l’efficacité narrative.

Une démocratie mise à l’épreuve

L’intérêt majeur du livre tient précisément à ce déplacement du regard : Donald Trump n’y apparaît pas seulement comme un individu problématique, mais comme un révélateur des fragilités démocratiques contemporaines. La question qui traverse l’ouvrage est alors moins celle de sa personnalité que celle des conditions ayant rendu possible son accession au pouvoir. Comment un tel personnage peut-il s’imposer durablement dans un système censé reposer sur des garde-fous institutionnels et informationnels ?

Roy montre que cette ascension s’inscrit dans un contexte marqué par une défiance croissante envers les élites, une transformation profonde des écosystèmes médiatiques et une polarisation politique de plus en plus accentuée. Ces dynamiques, loin d’être propres aux États-Unis, dessinent un cadre plus large dans lequel les figures transgressives trouvent un terrain favorable.

Le paradoxe vient du fait que Trump a pu réveiller un profond sentiment nationaliste alors que lui-même aurait voulu faire partie de l’élite new-yorkaise en vantant sa fortune pour montrer sa valeur et son pouvoir. « Quand on considère la façon dont Donald Trump s’est comporté dans la “jungle des affaires”, on a ainsi l’impression que tous ses deals étaient menés moins pour s’enrichir ».

Trump 2.0 : la radicalisation d’une logique

L’actualité récente confère une résonance particulière à l’essai. Dans ses prises de parole, Roy évoque l’émergence d’un « Trump 2.0 », mû par une logique de revanche et désormais mieux structuré sur le plan politique. Il s’agit d’une nouvelle phase, plus cohérente dans ses objectifs et plus assumée dans ses méthodes.

Cette évolution prolonge et accentue les dynamiques déjà à l’œuvre lors du premier mandat de Donald Trump. La progression par « petits pas », la remise en cause des institutions et l’affirmation d’une volonté de puissance s’inscrivent désormais dans un projet plus systématique, moins improvisé et davantage organisé.

Pourquoi ce livre compte aujourd’hui

En proposant une lecture transversale, à la croisée de la psychologie, du politique et de la culture, l’ouvrage permet de saisir la cohérence d’un phénomène souvent réduit à ses excès. Dans cette perspective, comprendre Trump revient moins à traquer une dérive individuelle qu’à analyser les conditions ayant permis son émergence : effacement du politique comme espace de médiation rationnelle, au profit d’un rapport au pouvoir de type quasi religieux, structuré par la transgression, la croyance et l’incarnation d’un destin collectif dans la figure du leader.

Enfin, le livre invite à repenser les démocraties contemporaines comme des équilibres instables, exposés à des dynamiques de personnalisation extrême. À ce titre, l’intérêt qu’il suscite dépasse déjà le cadre francophone. Une traduction en suédois est en préparation, signe que les questions soulevées par Roy trouvent un écho dans d’autres contextes politiques. Cette circulation à venir confirme la portée plus large de l’ouvrage : au-delà du cas de Donald Trump, il propose des outils pour penser les transformations contemporaines du pouvoir et les recompositions du lien démocratique.

La Conversation Canada

Christophe Premat déclare avoir participé à l’organisation d’une conférence en ligne le 20 mars 2026 avec Alain Roy. Cette conférence s’inscrit dans les activités du Centre d’études canadiennes de l’Université de Stockholm, en collaboration avec l’Université de Dalécarlie (https://www.su.se/enheter/centrum-for-kanadastudier/kalender/kalenderartiklar/2026-03-13-att-forsta-fenomenet-trump—ett-samtal-med-den-kanadensiske-forfattaren-alain-roy). Cet événement visait notamment à annoncer la parution prochaine en suédois de l’ouvrage d’Alain Roy consacré au phénomène Trump, dans une traduction de Mats Forsgren publiée aux éditions Fri Tanke.

ref. Le cas Trump : comprendre l’imposture pour penser la fragilité démocratique – https://theconversation.com/le-cas-trump-comprendre-limposture-pour-penser-la-fragilite-democratique-279803

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia emerge as a new regional power bloc amid Iran war

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, announced that a two-week ceasefire had been agreed between the US and Iran in the early hours of April 8. Delegates from both sides are expected to attend further talks in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad on Friday.

This comes less than two weeks after Pakistan hosted talks with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in which the four countries called for an end to hostilities in the Gulf. The meeting established the quartet as the primary negotiating channel between Tehran and Washington, and may signal the beginning of a new regional order designed to curb Israeli and Iranian dominance after the war.

Even before the war began in late February, Israel and Iran were both isolated in the region. There is no chance of any rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which was the original goal of the 2020 Abraham accords. These accords sought to normalise relations between Israel and other countries in the Middle East.

The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed agreements with Israel as part of the accords. But the Saudis have long said they will not normalise ties with Israel before the establishment of a Palestinian state, which was ruled out by the Israeli parliament in a 2024 vote. Reports suggest that Saudi Arabia now wants to replace Israel with Syria as the transit country for a fiber-optic cable connecting the kingdom to Greece.

Turkey also halted its relationship with Israel in 2024 over the conflict in Gaza. And relations between Israel and Qatar soured in September 2025 after an Israeli strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, which drew unanimous condemnation from the UN security council.

Iran’s only main allies are Russia and, to a much lesser extent, China and the Houthi rebel group in Yemen. Since the conflict with the US and Israel began, China has distanced itself from Iran. The Houthis recently became involved in the war in support of Iran, but they have been weakened by Israeli attacks in recent years.

The solid relationship between Qatar and Iran has been severed after Iranian missiles struck the country’s main gas facility, Ras Laffan, on March 18. And Iran’s partial detente with Saudi Arabia, which was brokered by China in 2023 after years of hostility, has now been destroyed following Iranian attacks on Saudi energy facilities.

It is against this backdrop, in which both Iran and Israel are considered regional pariahs, that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt have ramped up their efforts to secure stability in the Middle East.

A new order?

These four countries share some common areas of interest that help explain their desire to reshape the region. They all have political and economic ties with the US and are members of Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. Established in 2026, the board aims to tackle global conflicts and achieve lasting peace and reconstruction in Gaza.

Each country also brings important contributions to their burgeoning alliance. Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia has the world’s second-largest oil reserves, Egypt controls access to the vital Suez canal waterway and Turkey is a member of the Nato alliance. All have fairly advanced defence industries and a combined population of 500 million people. Taken together, they represent the most politically and militarily influential Muslim-majority countries in the world.

But these four nations are not necessarily natural allies, and their relationships have experienced turbulence over the years. Egypt’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, for example, has often been described as a “difficult marriage”. Egypt was once the driver of pan-Arab nationalism, a movement that promotes a secular and unified Arab political identity.

The Saudi kingdom has historically viewed this movement as a threat. But since Abdel Fattah el-Sisi came to power as Egypt’s president in 2014, their differences have been overcome. Sisi offered political and military support to the Saudi operation against the Houthis in 2015, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia subsequently deepening their defence ties.

Particularly under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has positioned itself as a regional leader and problem solver. But Turkey, too, has endured periods of frosty relations with other regional powers. Ankara’s relations with Cairo deteriorated sharply after the Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, a close ally of Turkey, was ousted in a 2013 coup.

Similarly, tensions between Turkey and Saudi Arabia became particularly acute following the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A 2021 US intelligence report found that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the murder, though he denies this allegation.

A process of rapprochement took place between Turkey and Saudi Arabia in 2022, and then between Turkey and Egypt in 2025. Erdoğan visited Cairo and Riyadh in February 2026 and has proposed several different geoeconomic frameworks to connect Asia with Europe. These include the so-called Middle East Corridor, a planned economic corridor aimed at fostering economic integration between Asia, the Persian Gulf and Europe.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has so far not come to Saudi Arabia’s aid when it has come under attack from Iran in the current conflict. This is despite the signing of a strategic mutual defence agreement between the two countries in 2025.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey have not always seen eye to eye. But their relationships of convenience are now becoming increasingly significant as Israel and Iran’s regional isolation grows.

The Conversation

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

ref. Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia emerge as a new regional power bloc amid Iran war – https://theconversation.com/pakistan-turkey-egypt-and-saudi-arabia-emerge-as-a-new-regional-power-bloc-amid-iran-war-279782

Mutual aid and self-sufficiency are key to life near USSR’s contaminated nuclear test zone in Kazakhstan

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Magdalena Stawkowski, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of South Carolina

Four decades of tests had a total explosive yield of 2,500 Hiroshimas. Magdalena Stawkowski

About a year into my field research in Kazakhstan, I went to the city of Kurchatov, once the secret command center of the Soviet nuclear program, to make some photocopies. On the ground floor of an apartment building I found a store whose owner had a copy machine as well as several glass display cases selling souvenir stickers, magnets and other objects featuring hammers and sickles, stars and mushroom clouds.

pin with yellow background with black and white Cyrillic script
‘I am a radioactive mutant.’
Magdalena Stawkowski

These kinds of trinkets were not particularly surprising to me. You can find them in many places. But a bright yellow button about the size of my palm stopped me in my tracks: “I am a radioactive mutant” (“Ya radioaktivnyy mutant”), read its simple message.

I laughed to myself, thinking that the button was meant to be funny, that a tourist would buy it to wear ironically and tell stories about having been near a nuclear test site.

But the button’s message is also true for the thousands of people who live in this area. Residents actually say, “I am a mutant,” when they talk about their bodies, their family histories and their radioactive environment.

As a cultural-medical anthropologist, I study health and illness as life experiences. I’ve spent many months in villages around the Soviet-era Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan, known locally as the Polygon.

In my book “Atomic Collective: Radioactive Life in Kazakhstan,” I explore how the people here have created new forms of mutual aid and camaraderie in the shadow of nuclear catastrophe. Their stories weave together fallout, the Cold War and secret government agencies, international aid workers and scientists, and everyday life in the Anthropocene.

Scale of nuclear testing in Kazakhstan

The Polygon is a roughly 7,000-square-mile (18,000-square-kilometer) area, close to the size of New Jersey, that was the Soviet Union’s primary nuclear testing ground for 40 years.

silhouetted man walks in foreground of dusty landscape with a large metallic object poking out of crater
People have dug around structures believed to be former missile silos, salvaging scrap metal.
Magdalena Stawkowski

Between 1949 and 1989, more than 450 nuclear tests took place here with a total explosive yield of 2,500 Hiroshima bombs. The most devastating were the above-ground tests, 116 of which were detonated between 1949 and 1963. I’ve seen the archival footage: mushroom clouds rising over the steppe, shock waves knocking people down dozens of miles away.

Today, this history is etched into a landscape pockmarked with deep craters and atomic lakes, contaminated with radioactive isotopes cesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239 that can remain dangerous for thousands of years.

older man approaching door of small house with wide open landscape around it
Burkut’s house, with the test site on the horizon.
Magdalena Stawkowski

I brought the mutant button to show Burkut. At 78, he was the oldest resident in the village of Koian. A pensioner, he was once a tractor operator on a massive Soviet state farm. He and others of his age watched bombs going off in the distance as they worked.

He laughed at the button, and we sat down for tea. His wife boiled the water longer than needed – as was explained to me as a matter of fact, everyone in the village does this “for the radiation.”

When nuclear testing ended and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Polygon was closed and then simply abandoned. Kazakhstan became an independent nation stuck with legacies of nuclear testing. No cleanup, no warnings, no evacuations – just a vast, contaminated landscape left to nature, metal scavengers and whoever called it home.

This abandonment has never been formally addressed: As of today, there is not a single international body with a mandate to assist communities like Koian. What residents experience as personal abandonment is also a global policy failure.

When I talk about my fieldwork, many Americans are shocked to find that “living on a nuclear test site” is even a logical statement. But thousands of people do still live in scattered villages and homesteads around the test site’s borders or inside the official perimeter, with some settlements just a thousand feet from atomic craters that have become watering holes for livestock.

pool of water ringed by grasses in a depression in a dusty landscape
Craters left by nuclear bomb detonations collect water where livestock drink.
Magdalena Stawkowski

A landmark 2025 report released by Norwegian People’s Aid estimates that atmospheric nuclear tests are on track to cause at least 2 million additional cancer deaths worldwide, a figure that includes the region around the Polygon.

What is particularly devastating about the Polygon’s story is that Soviet state institutions knew about the health impacts of radiation exposure early on. In the late 1950s, secret medical clinics monitored nearby populations, under the pretext of treating animal-borne diseases as they cataloged radiation-induced illnesses and tracked death rates. This went on for almost 40 years and affected mostly ethnic Kazakhs.

Burkut is one of many people around the Polygon I came to know who lived through it all – the mushroom clouds, the shaking house. He buried neighbors and family members who died of strange cancers or what doctors called “mysterious illnesses.” The same doctors blamed their problems on “unsanitary lifestyles” and never mentioned nuclear fallout.

Only during the Soviet policy of glasnost (openness) in the 1980s did information begin to appear.

truck with metal piled in back parked on open landscape, salvaged metal is on the ground around it
Salvaging scrap metal is one way to get by around the Polygon. Identifying marks on truck have been blurred.
Magdalena Stawkowski

Embracing radiation

Health studies, albeit partial, document elevated cancer rates throughout the region, and the Kazakh state officially recognizes Burkut and over 1 million others as radiation victims. So the state has enshrined victimhood in law, even though the science remains contested.

Bodies respond to radiation exposure differently, and decades of secrecy mean that exposure documentation is partial at best. Science can’t draw a clear line between residents’ headaches, dizziness, intestinal issues and kidney problems, let alone the cancers and radiation. Burkut and the rest have local antidotes for the problem. Boiling water is but one.

My first question about life in the Polygon was always, “Why do people stay?”

As Burkut and others explained without jest, “Our organism is different now.” They would tell me, “Clean air is our death,” meaning that the radioactive environment as they know it has changed them so they now depend on it.

I found that people live in what I call an “atomic collective” – a community bound together by contamination and cultural, political, economic and social abandonment. Their logic for staying is not rooted in denial but in affirmation and adaptation. Decades of shared experience in a place where scientific uncertainty runs deep has galvanized local perceptions. “People who move to the city can survive only two years – maximum,” Burkut told me. “Only two are still alive of those who left.”

Those who have tried relocating to cities faced discrimination as “people of the Polygon,” or were thought of as backward peasants who end up cleaning floors and living in moldy apartments. Where Burkut focuses on the dead, Ainur, a 40-year-old woman who grew up in the shadow of the test site, focuses on staying put. “At least here we can grow our own food, raise animals, and the air is clean,” she explained.

They’re affected by their ecosystem, Koian’s residents will say, but they’ve survived. “We’re used to it,” many people told me.

Person in foreground walking toward sheep, shepherding them toward buildings in the distance
Bringing sheep back from pasture.
Magdalena Stawkowski

Refusal to be victims

When I lived in Koian, I watched neighbors share everything from gasoline to food to medicine. Everyone helps cut grasses in the fall and build towering piles of it on the village’s barns for winter feed. Together, their herds of horses, cows and sheep number in the thousands. Networks are everything when alternatives don’t exist.

Some of the younger men work in mines in the region, some even within the Polygon itself. Others have scavenged metal from grown-over nuclear sites. These prospects are dwindling, though. “We can survive on our livestock,” one herder explained, rejecting how outsiders see their impoverished life. These descendants of Kazakh nomadic herders, who once moved freely across the steppe with their animals, now speak of staying put as a mark of strength rather than constraint.

man's arm points to animal silhouettes on a big rock
Ancient petroglyphs, thousands of years old, depict people, horses and dogs.
Magdalena Stawkowski

No one is asking for paved roads, new schools, emergency services or clean land. When electricity is knocked out by the common winter blizzards, they light candles. Outsiders may see apathy. During my time in Koian I understood this as their collective refusal – a community’s decision to reject systems that had abandoned them and instead create their own terms for survival.

“I am a radioactive mutant” isn’t just a darkly humorous button – it is a declaration of collective strength that emerged from collective abandonment.

Today’s policy debates about resuming nuclear testing largely ignore these stories. But the atomic collective is the living present, not ancient history – and a future that any new testing will necessarily produce.

“Radioactive mutant” is not some abstract concept – it’s what human beings call themselves after surviving what strategists deemed necessary. Kazakhstan’s Polygon offers a warning: There is no such thing as a limited nuclear test, only communities left to become self-sufficient by abandonment, on their own by necessity, enduring what others decided was worth the cost.

The Conversation

Magdalena Stawkowski received funding from the Wenner-Gren Foundation, IREX, Social Science Research Council Eurasia Program, The Danish Institute for International Studies (Danish Council for Independent Research).

ref. Mutual aid and self-sufficiency are key to life near USSR’s contaminated nuclear test zone in Kazakhstan – https://theconversation.com/mutual-aid-and-self-sufficiency-are-key-to-life-near-ussrs-contaminated-nuclear-test-zone-in-kazakhstan-260862

Philadelphia’s 40-year history of protecting undocumented immigrants began with churches hiding refugees from El Salvador

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Menika Dirkson, Associate Professor of History, Morgan State University

Supporters visit Javier Flores, right, while he lived in sanctuary at Arch Street United Methodist Church in downtown Philadelphia in 2017. Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

In the midst of a civil war, married couple Ernesto and Linda Fuentes fled their home country of El Salvador and headed for Philadelphia, via Mexico, in November 1983.

Ernesto was an activist who dispensed food and medicine in Salvadoran refugee camps. Linda was a union organizer for banks and clothing factories.

The Salvadoran government viewed activists, especially suspected guerrilla fighters and union leaders, as threats to its regime. It placed activists’ names on “death squad hit lists.” The couple decided to leave after receiving threatening letters and phone calls.

With false documents and the help of a humanitarian church group, they arrived at the Tabernacle United Church in West Philadelphia on May 12, 1984. The congregation declared itself a public sanctuary for undocumented refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. An estimated 500,000 undocumented Salvadorans lived in the U.S. around that time.

The Fuenteses used the pastor’s office as their bedroom. Church members were instructed to keep the doors locked and not admit strangers, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

As a historian of race and policing in Philadelphia after the Civil Rights Movement, and the daughter of an immigrant, I’ve been exploring Philly’s history of sanctuary and how religious congregations, activists and city officials have supported local refugees over the past 40 years.

Four children of various ages stand together, two of them wiping face with hand or arm
Accompanied by elected officials, clergy and community activists, the four undocumented children of Carmela Apolonio Hernández step out of sanctuary at the Church of the Advocate in North Philadelphia in 2018.
Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A ‘welcoming city’ for immigrants

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker has emphasized since May 2025 that Philadelphia is a certified “welcoming city.” She notably does not call Philadelphia a “sanctuary city.”

Welcoming cities have immigrant-friendly initiatives that make education, housing, workers’ rights, legal aid and language services accessible to immigrants and refugees without using the term “sanctuary city” in their laws and policies.

The presumed goal of this phrasing is to keep Philadelphia off the Trump administration’s radar and protect its US$2.2 billion in federal funding for health and human services.

However, Philly was, at various points, an official sanctuary city.

In 2014, then-Mayor Michael Nutter signed an executive order detailing that local police were not required to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless the case involved a warrant or violent felon.

Nutter later rescinded Philadelphia’s sanctuary city status in an effort to dissuade congressional Republicans from passing a House bill that would deny sanctuary cities federal money earmarked for law enforcement and recidivism reduction. However, the next mayor, Jim Kenney, reinstated the order on Jan. 4, 2016.

Throughout 2017, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions used executive orders, speeches and the immigration raid Operation Safe City to force Philadelphia officials to assist ICE or lose federal grants.

In 2018, Philadelphia won a lawsuit against the Trump administration that denied ICE access to police databases to find undocumented immigrants and prohibited city employees from assisting ICE.

Young shirtless man holds rainbow flag while protesters behind him carry banner that says 'Melt ICE'
Protesters camped outside Philadelphia City Hall march in July 2018 after Mayor Jim Kenney announced that Philadelphia would stop giving ICE access to a real-time arrest database. Kenney accused the agency of misusing the information to target people who were in the country illegally but were otherwise not accused of any crimes.
AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma

Roots of sanctuary cities

The sanctuary movement started back in the 1960s. But it wasn’t immigrants who were seeking sanctuary. It was Americans.

Around 1968, drafted resisters who were opposed to fighting in the Vietnam War sought refuge in churches in the U.S. Northeast. One of the earliest cases involved Robert Talmanson, who received sanctuary in Boston’s Arlington Street Unitarian Church. He was later arrested by U.S. marshals and local police and incarcerated in Virginia for three years.

In November 1971, Berkeley, California, became the first sanctuary city in the country when 12 local churches inspired the City Council to pass a resolution offering sanctuary to draft resisters. It also banned city employees from “assisting in the investigation or arrest of any sanctuary seeker.”

In the two decades that followed, several Quaker, Presbyterian, Catholic and Jewish congregations across America and Canada used their houses of worship as sanctuaries for Central American refugees who were fleeing civil war, government repression and genocide.

Philly joins national movement

Frustration and outcry over the United States’ low acceptance rates of Central American asylum-seekers sparked Philadelphia’s sanctuary movement.

In January 1984, members of Tabernacle United Church, where the Fuentes couple would soon take refuge, voted to join the national sanctuary network. As the Rev. James MacDonald explained at the time, the congregation chose to “violate a human law in order to respond in obedience to God’s law.”

By May, the First United Methodist Church of Germantown also became a sanctuary church. A few months later, the church sheltered a young Guatemalan couple, Joel and Gabriela, and their 3-year-old daughter, Lucy. Joel, an activist who worked with unions and student groups, had been tortured by Guatemala City police.

On Jan. 14, 1985, INS staged nationwide raids of sanctuaries and arrested 60 undocumented immigrants and 16 sanctuary workers – including pastors, nuns and priests – for violating immigration laws. Joel and his family were among those seized. They were released when church members bailed them out as they awaited deportation hearings.

A new pathway to citizenship

By the mid-’80s, 42,000 people from 2,000 religious institutions in 60 cities nationwide had joined the sanctuary movement.

On Nov. 6, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. It granted undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before 1982 one year to apply for amnesty. If eligible, they would begin a five-year pathway to citizenship.

Approximately 3 million people successfully became naturalized citizens through the amnesty program.

In the Philadelphia area, at least 5,000 to 7,000 people were undocumented in 1986. Advocates at the nonprofit Nationalities Service Center and American Friends Service Committee noted that many immigrants wanted to apply for amnesty but feared the program was a trick.

A decade later, immigration enforcement got tougher.

Local police assist ICE

In 1996, Congress passed Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This granted local police the right to assist immigration officials in arresting and detaining unauthorized immigrants.

As of April 2026, over 1,600 law enforcement agencies in 39 states and two U.S. territories have a 287(g) agreement with ICE. The program offers local police free training in ICE procedures along with funding for equipment, vehicles and overtime pay.

While the Philadelphia Police Department has never signed a Section 287(g) agreement, about 68 Pennsylvania agencies have, including in neighboring Delaware County.

But these agreements aren’t always long-lasting. Between January and March 2026, two departments in Bucks and Chester counties rescinded their agreements with ICE to make residents feel safe after American-born protesters Renée Good and Alex Pretti were killed during ICE operations in Minneapolis.

Man in blue shirt holds a child as woman hugs him from behind
After a 16-month detention, Javier Flores, a father of three, went into sanctuary at Arch Street United Methodist Church in Philadelphia in 2016. He spent nearly a year in sanctuary before his visa request was approved and ICE waived his previous removal orders.
Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Community activism continues

According to Pew Charitable Trusts, nearly 16% of Philadelphia’s 1.6 million residents are immigrants, largely from Asia and the Caribbean.

The exact number of undocumented immigrants in Philadelphia is unknown. However, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that 250,000 immigrants in Pennsylvania – 1.5% of the state’s total population – are undocumented.

Since January 2025, ICE crackdowns in sanctuary cities such as Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and New York have resulted in the number of people held in ICE detention jumping from 40,000 to 73,000 people in January 2026.

Citizens and advocacy groups have stepped up to protect immigrants from ICE. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and the AR-12-toting members of the Black Lion Party for International Solidarity participated in protests in Philadelphia. Public school students from Northeast and Edison high schools have led anti-ICE walkouts.

On Jan. 29, 2026, City Council members Kendra Brooks and Rue Landau introduced an “ICE Out” package. The bills aim to codify the right of police to not share immigration, citizenship and personal data with ICE, or detain and hand over arrested individuals to the federal agency.

The legislation also proposes a ban on ICE agents who wear masks or hide their badges, use unmarked cars and city vehicles, or use municipal spaces as staging areas for enforcement and raids. And it would prohibit city employees from giving ICE access to libraries, shelters, health centers and recreation centers without a judicial warrant.

Community activists have long used civil disobedience and humanitarian aid to protect undocumented immigrants who are searching for a fresh start in the U.S.

An interfaith network inspired Philadelphia to become a sanctuary city. Today, churches such as Center City’s Arch Street United Methodist Church and North Philly’s Church of the Advocate, along with other congregations, uphold this tradition while a multicultural community across the city continues that fight.

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

The Conversation

Menika Dirkson 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 40-year history of protecting undocumented immigrants began with churches hiding refugees from El Salvador – https://theconversation.com/philadelphias-40-year-history-of-protecting-undocumented-immigrants-began-with-churches-hiding-refugees-from-el-salvador-278756

Protocole d’accord avec les États-Unis : le Sénégal teste un nouveau modèle de financement de la santé

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Ibrahima Thiam, enseignant-chercheur, Université Iba Der Thiam de Thiès

Le Sénégal et les États-Unis ont signé, le 13 mars 2026, un protocole d’accord quinquennal (2026-2030) d’une valeur de 135 millions de dollars. Cette coopération bilatérale vise essentiellement le renforcement du système sanitaire sénégalais.

Cependant, elle intervient dans un contexte particulier marqué par une volonté de restructuration profonde des finances publiques par les autorités sénégalaises après les audits de 2024-2025, et par la projection de l’agenda « Sénégal 2050 » vers la souveraineté économique.

En tant que chercheur, j’ai étudié l’économie de la santé et la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques au Sénégal. Selon moi, l’analyse de cet accord, au-delà d’une lecture médico-technique, doit s’articuler autour de deux perspectives : la capacité de transformation du système de santé et le contexte économique et budgétaire sénégalais.

Implications pour le système de santé

L’accord vise à renforcer plusieurs dimensions clés du système de santé sénégalais, à savoir : la surveillance épidémiologique, les capacités des laboratoires, la digitalisation, les ressources humaines et la lutte contre les maladies prioritaires, notamment celles liées à la santé maternelle et néonatale, et la lutte contre les maladies infectieuses (VIH, paludisme, tuberculose).

Plus concrètement, le volet médico-technique de l’accord vise à consacrer une rupture avec le modèle de soins palliatifs actuel pour une approche préventive et une meilleure utilisation du numérique.

Ainsi, l’efficacité de ce protocole ne repose pas seulement sur l’injection de fonds, mais sur sa capacité à transformer structurellement l’offre de soins à travers trois leviers stratégiques majeurs.

Le premier levier est la transition numérique par la digitalisation du système d’information sanitaire (SIS). Ce pilier doit permettre une allocation plus rationnelle des ressources, limitant les gaspillages et optimisant la gestion des médicaments. En effet, alors que les médicaments représentent 52,1 % des dépenses directes de santé des Sénégalais, l’optimisation de la chaîne de distribution est plus que nécessaire pour transformer la gestion des produits pharmaceutiques, qui pèsent pour 68,5 % dans les charges des structures de soins.

Ainsi, le protocole d’accord prévoit l’interconnexion des structures de santé, permettant un suivi en temps réel de la disponibilité des intrants et une meilleure traçabilité des financements.

Le deuxième levier est la souveraineté épidémiologique par la mise aux normes de laboratoires régionaux.

Le protocole d’accord ambitionne de renforcer les capacités de diagnostic rapide pour garantir efficacement une sécurité sanitaire nationale. Cela passe par la mise à disposition de laboratoires régionaux répondant aux normes requises pour la prise en charge des demandes de diagnostic dans les délais. En outre, il s’agira pour les différentes régions du Sénégal de réduire leur dépendance aux infrastructures de la capitale.

En effet, Dakar concentre encore plus de 60 % des spécialistes.

Le troisième levier est l’optimisation du capital humain et la promotion de l’équité sociale. Parmi les cibles de l’accord figure la réduction drastique de la mortalité maternelle et néonatale, un indicateur de développement humain fondamental. Selon l’Agence nationale de la statistique et de la démographie (ANSD), au Sénégal, sur 1000 enfants nés vivants, 48 n’atteignent pas leur premier anniversaire et 66 décèdent avant leur cinquième anniversaire. La mortalité infantile est évaluée à 30,5‰.

Le taux de mortalité maternelle est évalué à 26 décès maternels pour 100 000 femmes de 15-49 ans avec des disparités régionales. À cet effet, le programme compte renforcer les investissements dans la formation continue du personnel soignant et le déploiement de sages-femmes et d’infirmiers spécialisés dans les zones rurales. Cela permet au Sénégal d’améliorer la Couverture sanitaire universelle (CSU). En effet, la CSU garantit que toute personne, sans distinction, puisse accéder à des services de santé essentiels de qualité (prévention, traitement, réadaptation, soins palliatifs) au moment voulu, sans être confrontée à des difficultés financières.

Entre consolidation et souveraineté

Le principal intérêt de ce protocole d’accord de 135 millions de dollars réside dans sa structure financière différentes des modèles traditionnels fréquents. En effet, le Sénégal contribue à plus de la moitié du financement, soit 72 millions de dollars via le budget de l’État. Cette contribution majoritaire traduit une volonté de transition vers un financement domestique et, par conséquent, vers une souveraineté sanitaire.

Cette orientation est cohérente avec les nouvelles politiques publiques, notamment avec le Plan de redressement économique et social du Sénégal, qui met l’accent sur la souveraineté économique et la réduction de la dépendance extérieure.

Toutefois, à l’instar des autres départements, le budget alloué au ministère de la Santé et de l’Hygiène publique reste sous tension. Bien que les dépenses de santé progressent en valeur absolue (autour de 444 millions USD en 2025, puis environ 460 millions USD en 2026), elles peinent à atteindre les 15 % des dépenses publiques recommandées par la Déclaration d’Abuja.

Elles tournent autour de 5 à 6 % dans ces dernières lois de finances 2024-2025.

L’intégration de ce protocole d’accord dans le budget national, malgré son importance, doit composer avec une réalité financière complexe.
Les audits commandités par les nouvelles autorités en 2024 ont révélé que le déficit budgétaire moyen sur la période 2019-2023 s’élevait à 10,4 % du PIB, soit plus du double des chiffres précédemment annoncés et supérieur à la norme communautaire. Le budget 2026, arrêté à 12,46 milliards USD, marque une volonté de reprise en main, avec un déficit projeté à 5,3 % du PIB (avec un objectif de le ramener à la norme communautaire de 3 %).

Le financement de cet accord, qui repose sur une contribution domestique de 53 % du montant total (soit 72 millions de dollars), contraint l’État à une mobilisation accrue des recettes fiscales, avec un objectif de pression fiscale fixé à 23,2 % du PIB.

Parallèlement, la dette publique réévaluée a fortement augmenté, dépassant 100 % du PIB, franchissant ainsi largement le seuil de convergence de l’Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine (UEMOA) fixé à 70 %.

Cela réduit considérablement les marges de manœuvre budgétaire du Sénégal. Ainsi, le service de la dette absorbe plus de 1 190 milliards FCFA (environ 2 milliards USD) en 2026. L’accord sanitaire devra réussir le pari d’une allocation efficiente. Il s’agit de transformer une dépense sociale en investissement de croissance.

En outre, l’amélioration de la santé des populations à travers notamment l’espérance de vie à la naissance qui est actuellement à 68,9 ans au niveau national contre une moyenne mondiale de 73,8, devra contribuer à atteindre les objectifs de croissance visées, nécessaires pour désendetter le pays à long terme.

Par ailleurs, outre les implications financières et économiques, cet accord constitue un label de confiance, dans un contexte où le pays tente de sortir d’une zone de turbulences financières. Ce partenariat, appuyé par les exercices de transparence des nouvelles autorités et les orientations ambitieuses des politiques publiques (Vision Sénégal 2050, Plan de redressement économique et financier…), est un signal de crédibilité envoyé aux investisseurs internationaux et partenaires bilatéraux et multilatéraux.

Un pari sur l’avenir

En définitive, le protocole d’accord Sénégal-Etats-Unis dans le domaine de la santé dépasse une simple aide au développement. Il s’agit aussi d’un test d’efficacité et de viabilité pour la nouvelle politique de souveraineté économique et financière du pays, dans un contexte de marge de manœuvre budgétaire faible.

Cependant, le succès de ce programme dépend de la capacité du Sénégal à transformer ces ressources en résultats sanitaires mesurables (baisse de la mortalité, digitalisation complète, maîtrise des maladies émergentes…) tout en maintenant une discipline fiscale face à une dette publique qui reste la contrainte principale de l’économie sénégalaise.

The Conversation

Ibrahima Thiam works for Iba Der Thiam University of Thies in Senegal.

ref. Protocole d’accord avec les États-Unis : le Sénégal teste un nouveau modèle de financement de la santé – https://theconversation.com/protocole-daccord-avec-les-etats-unis-le-senegal-teste-un-nouveau-modele-de-financement-de-la-sante-279386

Why Americans are buying $22 smoothies despite feeling terrible about the economy

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Yuanyuan (Gina) Cui, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Coastal Carolina University

A selection of smoothies are listed in front of the high-end grocer Erewhon in Culver City, Calif., on July 17, 2024. Photo by Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Americans are skipping restaurant dinners, delaying car purchases and scouring for grocery deals. Amid tariff anxiety and broader stress over affordability, consumer confidence has dropped to levels not seen in over a decade, according to The Conference Board, a business think tank. At this point, it’s wealthier consumers who are powering the bulk of spending in the U.S. economy.

So what explains the success of Erewhon’s US$22 smoothie?

The Los Angeles grocery chain selling these fancy concoctions is doing so well, it opened three new stores in 2025 – its biggest expansion since 2011. The chain reportedly generates $1,800 to $2,500 in sales per square foot, up to five times what a typical U.S. supermarket earns.

These aren’t ordinary blended drinks; they include ingredients such as high-grade sea moss gel, adaptogenic mushrooms and collagen peptides. Often they come with a celebrity’s name attached.

It’s all part of the broader boom in the U.S. specialty food market, which has surpassed $219 billion – up nearly 150% in a decade, according to the Specialty Food Association. That far outpaces the roughly 47% growth seen in overall U.S. grocery sales over the same period.

Independent retail data from the market research firm Circana also confirms this growth: Even as inflation-weary consumers have traded down to store brands in many categories, premium and specialty products held up and even grew their dollar share of the market through 2025. On TikTok, creators who once filmed designer-bag hauls now post $12 tinned fish boards. Craft chocolate bars that cost $8–$12 are being marketed as, without irony, “self-care.”

So if consumers are this anxious, why are they still splurging? In fact, these aren’t contradictions – they’re two expressions of the same psychological reaction.

When people feel life is out of control, they reach for something small, expensive and signaling virtue. This is the real reason premium food is booming while some traditional luxury brands struggle, say consumer psychologists.

We are professors of consumer behavior and marketing who study how people make purchasing decisions amid economic uncertainty, and ask what explains the gap between how consumers feel and how they actually spend. Our work points to a consistent finding: When people feel they’ve lost control over the big things, they seek it in the small ones.

A photo of a chilled Erewhon smoothie that includes kefir, blueberries, honey, raw beef, bananas, sea salt and maple syrup.
Dr. Paul’s Raw Animal-Based Smoothie, photographed outside Erewhon in Culver City, Calif., on July 17, 2024.
Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

A quick detour through the makeup drawer

Economists have seen this before.

In 2001, Estée Lauder Chairman Leonard Lauder coined the term the “lipstick index” after he saw that lipstick sales rose 11% following the Sept. 11 attacks. When big luxuries feel out of reach, consumers find a small substitute. A $60 lipstick is extravagant for a cosmetic, but next to the Hermès handbag it psychologically replaces, it feels like a bargain.

Then, as now, people seek agency wherever they can find it. Consumer psychologists call this “compensatory consumption”: buying things to feel in control when life feels out of control.

While even beauty sales are softening, that impulse hasn’t disappeared. It has just found better hosts – such as food.

In many ways, food is an ideal product for this compensation. It’s experiential – something you taste, smell and savor. It’s also emotional – carrying associations with comfort, care and home. And it’s visible, because if you’re on social media, what you eat is now as public as what you wear. Premium food isn’t just eaten – it’s filmed, posted and performed.

Most importantly, it’s still relatively accessible. Twenty-two dollars may be an absurd price for a drink, but it’s cheap compared with a $400 wellness retreat.

Shoppers enter and exit the crowded high-end grocery store Erewhon in Pasadena, Calif.
Shoppers enter and exit the high-end grocery store Erewhon during its Pasadena, Calif., opening on Sept. 13, 2023.
Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images

Indulgence with a side of virtue

Here is what separates this moment from Lauder’s lipstick index. That example was purely about pleasure, as consumers sought indulgence as consolation. Today’s premium food purchases carry an additional layer: They are coded as virtuous.

An Erewhon smoothie isn’t just a treat. It’s organic, superfood-enriched and wellness-aligned. By the same logic, a $20 bottle of single-estate olive oil isn’t just cooking fat; it’s a commitment to craft and health. Premium tinned fish isn’t convenience food; it’s sustainably sourced protein caught in the wild with packaging beautiful enough to display.

This “virtue coding” does the most important psychological work in the sales transaction: It transforms indulgence into self-investment. You’re not splurging during a downturn; you’re doing something for your health. You’re not being frivolous; you’re supporting small producers. Research shows that people need reasons to justify pleasurable purchases, especially during financial anxiety – and premium food is powerful because the justification is built into the product. The organic label, the sustainability story, the wellness framing – they all dissolve guilt before it even kicks in.

Consumed in the kitchen and again on the feed

There’s a reason this trend is accelerating now. Many premium food purchases are consumed twice – once physically and once digitally. The Erewhon smoothie purchase isn’t really about the drink; it can be as much about the content as the drink. The tinned fish board is plated for Instagram before anyone takes a bite.

Social media doesn’t just amplify the trend; it completes it. When you post a photo or video of the smoothie, you’re broadcasting that you value wellness, quality and intentionality. In a cultural moment when flaunting a designer bag feels tone-deaf, food provides perfect cover. It’s the safest flex there is. It’s no surprise that one YouTube video of an Erewhon haul by food creator @KarissaEats has drawn over 14 million views.

All of this raises a fair question: Does the growing focus on the “K-shaped economy” explain this boom? As many economists see it, low- and middle-income shoppers are increasingly pulling back, as they face an affordability squeeze from health care to housing and education. But wealthier consumers are picking up the slack and then some, splurging on luxury and powering gross domestic product growth.

In this scenario, premium food thrives because it’s still affordable for the people who are doing fine, even as everyone else cuts back. That’s partly true. But this explanation doesn’t account for another shift – why affluent consumers are foregoing splurges on items like designer handbags in favor of premium groceries.

This is why the virtue framing matters so much. If the question was purely about having money to spend, traditional luxury would be booming as well. It isn’t. A case in point is LVMH, the conglomerate behind Louis Vuitton and Dior, which saw its fashion division’s profits decline 13% across all of 2025.

Even consumers who are flush with disposable income need psychological permission to spend during anxious times. The premium food phenomenon is about why food has become the thing they choose – not about who can afford to splurge.

And when a smoothie becomes a status symbol, it tells us something about economic security more broadly. Food prices have climbed nearly 30% since 2019, outpacing 23% for overall consumer prices, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For a family stretching a tight grocery budget, $22 isn’t a smoothie. It’s dinner.

The need for control, the desire for identity, the comfort of virtue permission — these are universal. A single mother working two jobs feels the same craving for agency as the influencer filming her grocery haul. It’s just that the purchases that satisfy those needs are increasingly constrained by price. The justification only works if you can afford your indulgence.

What’s really in the cart

The next time you’re in a grocery store and you reach for something a little more expensive than what you might need, you should pause – not to put it back, but to think about what you’re actually reaching for.

Chances are it isn’t really about the product. It’s about the feeling of choosing something when the world feels out of hand.

A $22 smoothie is never just a smoothie. It’s what people seek out when they need permission to feel OK.

The Conversation

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. Why Americans are buying $22 smoothies despite feeling terrible about the economy – https://theconversation.com/why-americans-are-buying-22-smoothies-despite-feeling-terrible-about-the-economy-279425