The Conversation – Page 204 – MIL Submissions Engine

April 6, 2026

Kenya’s counties get budgets to undo inequality – how it’s helped households

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Frederick Kibon Changwony, Lecturer in Accounting & Finance, University of Stirling

Kenya devolved power and public spending to 47 counties in 2013. This was in line with a global trend in which governments were pushing power and resources down to local levels in the hope that decisions made closer to people would lead to better outcomes.

The logic was straightforward: local governments should be better placed to understand and respond to local needs.

Kenya’s version of this – set out in its 2010 constitution and implemented three years later – was particularly ambitious. It guaranteed counties a share of national revenue and directed extra funds to 14 historically marginalised counties through an equity-based formula and an “equalisation fund”.

Before devolution, the differences between marginalised counties and the 33 others were large. For example, households in marginalised counties spent about half as much as those in the rest of the country – Sh3,250 (US$25) vs Sh6,149 (US$47) before the reform – on total consumption. This made addressing regional inequality a priority.

The constitution’s aim was to bring basic services, such as water, roads, electricity and healthcare, closer to national standards in areas that had long lagged behind.

Kenya counties classified by marginalisation

So did the extra county shillings change everyday life? Did households actually become better off?

I study public finance, regional inequality and behavioural finance, with a focus on how fiscal reforms and behaviour shape household financial decisions and everyday welfare. To answer these questions, I analysed four waves of Kenya’s nationally representative FinAccess Household Survey. This covered the period before the constitutional changes (2009, 2013) and after devolution (2015, 2018).

I compared trends in the 14 marginalised counties with those in the other 33 counties. I used a “before‑after, here‑there” method that evaluates how outcomes change over time between two groups. This approach helped isolate the effects of devolution from other changes happening in the economy.

The overall picture suggests that households in marginalised regions are now better off. Total household consumption more than doubled after devolution, rising from Sh3,250 (US$25) before 2013 to Sh7,549 (US$58) afterwards. By contrast, other counties saw a much smaller increase – from Sh6,149 (US$47) to Sh8,526 (US$66).

Spending on education increased by roughly 37%, and medical spending by about 43%. Rent went up by around 39%, while spending on utilities – such as electricity, water and cooking fuel – rose by about 29%. Even everyday expenses like mobile airtime increased by around 16%.

In effect, households in marginalised regions went from spending just over half of what better-off counties spent before 2013 to almost catching up afterwards. This before-and-after shift shows how much ground marginalised counties gained once devolution took effect.

However, the gains were not evenly distributed. Poorer households saw the biggest proportional increases in overall consumption. Better-off households, meanwhile, increased spending largely on education and healthcare.

Nevertheless, the changes shown in my research point to a meaningful improvement in households’ living standards over a relatively short period.

This shows Kenya’s devolution did not just move money between levels of government. It changed what households can afford, ranging from school fees to healthcare, housing, utilities and everyday connectivity.

The devolution debate and spending power

Public debate about devolution in Kenya often focuses on who gets what: whether funds are shared fairly, whether counties misuse money, or whether bigger budgets lead to better services.

These are important questions. But they tend to focus on inputs (how much money is allocated) or visible outputs (such as new roads or clinics).

For households, progress shows up in something more immediate: spending power. Can families put food on the table? Pay school fees? Afford medicine? Stay connected?

By looking at what households actually spent, my research showed that Kenya’s equity-focused devolution did more than shift budget lines. It translated into tangible improvements in everyday life in places that had long been left behind.

The results were clear. Households in marginalised counties saw large and broad-based increases in spending compared with households in the 33 other counties.

Total household consumption rose by about 43% in marginalised counties. Education spending in marginalised counties rose sharply, too, from Sh1,140 (US$9) before the reform to Sh4,017 (US$31) afterwards. Medical spending increased from Sh459 (US$4)to Sh1,094 (US$8).

Two main factors explain most of the increases in spending.

First, marginalised counties spent much more on services after 2013. On average, they spent roughly twice as much per person on county operations and development projects. This reflects both the higher transfers they received and the speed with which they converted funds into actual services.

Second, household incomes rose partly because devolution created local jobs and business opportunities through public contracts.

There were, however, important nuances.

Rising spending on utilities, for example, can reflect both progress and pressure. New connections to electricity and water improve quality of life, but they also bring monthly bills.

Kenya’s institutional design likely helped too.

Rules-based transfers (meaning money allocated according to a fixed, transparent formula rather than political negotiations) and the Equalisation Fund (a dedicated pot of money for areas with the greatest service gaps) reduced political discretion in how money was allocated. This resulted in more predictable funding for counties, less room for interference, and a clearer link between need and resources.

In addition, Kenya’s strong mobile money system made it easier for households to respond to new opportunities. People could move money quickly and safely, even in remote areas – allowing them to handle shocks, invest and take advantage of local economic activity generated by county spending. Evidence shows that mobile money transfer service M-Pesa, launched in 2007, has helped lift people out of poverty over time.

What should happen next?

The challenge now is to make those gains last.

First, the equity-based approach to sharing revenue should be protected and regularly updated. Allocation rules need to reflect current data so that funds continue to target real gaps.

The Equalisation Fund is due to expire in 2033. Unless it’s renewed, policymakers face a critical decision about whether, and how, to sustain support for historically marginalised areas.

Second, a small share of transfers could be linked to performance. Counties should be rewarded if they improve revenue collection without overburdening residents, publish timely financial reports, and strengthen transparency in procurement.

This would encourage better financial management while keeping equity at the centre.

Third, policymakers should pay attention to the cost of new services. As more households connect to electricity and water, temporary support, such as lifeline tariffs or targeted subsidies, can help ensure that poorer families are not priced out.

Finally, investment in county capacity and better data is essential. Strong local institutions are needed to plan, deliver and maintain services. Add to this a survey that follows the same households over time, like South Africa’s National Income Dynamics Study or the Indonesia Family Life Survey, so Kenya can track mobility and long‑run reform effects directly.

For other African countries considering decentralisation, Kenya’s experience suggests that design matters.

Predictable transfers, equity-focused allocation and local capacity can turn fiscal reforms into real gains in household welfare.

Frederick Kibon Changwony 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. Kenya’s counties get budgets to undo inequality – how it’s helped households – https://theconversation.com/kenyas-counties-get-budgets-to-undo-inequality-how-its-helped-households-279369

April 6, 2026

How to eat an elephant: fossil find in Tanzania shows oldest signs of butchering these giant mammals

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, Professor of Anthropology, Rice University

Carcass of adult African elephant. By Geraldshields11 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, , CC BY-SA

Imagine a creature nearly twice the size of a modern African elephant (which can weigh up to 6,000kg. This was Elephas (Paleoxodon) recki, a prehistoric titan that roamed the landscape of what is now Tanzania nearly two million years ago. Now, imagine a group of our ancestors standing over its carcass, then butchering it and eating it.

For decades, archaeologists have debated when the hominin ancestors of humans first started eating megafauna – animals weighing more than 1,000kg.

In a new study, our team of archaeologists studying the evolution of the earliest humans in Africa has identified one of the earliest cases of elephant butchery.

This was at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, a site famous for containing some of the oldest and best preserved remains of our human ancestors. Dating back to 1.80 million years ago, this discovery at the site known as EAK reveals that our ancestors were engaging with megafauna substantially earlier than previously thought (about 1.5 million years ago was the previous estimate at Olduvai), and in a more sophisticated way.

This finding suggests that hominins (most likely, Homo erectus) may have been living in large social groups at this period, probably because their brains were developing and demanding higher-calorie diets rich in fatty acids.

‘Smoking guns’

Part of the reason our ancient diet has been debated is that it is not easy to find evidence of how much animal food early humans were eating and how they were acquiring it.

In traditional archaeology, the “smoking gun” for butchery (cutting up carcasses) is a cut mark left on a bone by a stone tool. However, when dealing with big animals like elephants, these marks are difficult to find. An elephant’s skin is several centimetres thick, and its muscle mass is so vast that a butcher’s tool might never touch the bone. Furthermore, millions of years of burial can weather the bone surface, erasing any subtle traces. And if a bone is deposited in an abrasive sediment, trampling by other animals may generate marks on bones that look like cut marks.

At the EAK site, we found the partial skeleton of a single Elephas recki individual in the same place as Oldowan stone tools. But to prove that this wasn’t just a natural death or the work of scavengers, we couldn’t rely on bone marks. Instead, we turned to a new kind of detective work: spatial taphonomy. This is the study of how stone artefacts and bones occur spatially on the same site. We also turned to more direct evidence: bones from those fossilised elephants that had been splintered while they were fresh (“green breaks”).

The geometry of a carcass

To solve this 1.8-million-year-old mystery, we analysed the way the bones were scattered across the site. Every agent that interacts with a carcass – whether it’s a pride of lions, a group of hyenas, or a band of humans – leaves a unique “spatial fingerprint”. Lions and hyenas tend to drag bones away, scattering them in predictable patterns based on their weight and the amount of attached meat. Natural deaths, like an elephant dying in a swamp, result in a different, more localised skeletal “collapse”.

By using advanced spatial statistics, and later comparing the EAK site to several modern elephant carcasses that we studied in Botswana (not yet published), we found that the spatial configuration at EAK was unique. The clustering of the bones and the density of the stone tools among them did not match the “random” or “scavenger-driven” models. Instead, it reflected a focused, high-intensity processing event. The spatial signature was a match for hominin butchery, which has also been documented at Olduvai sites that are half a million years younger.

This was confirmed by the presence of green-broken long bones not just at EAK, but in several locations in the landscape where other elephant and hippopotamus carcasses were butchered. Today, only humans can break elephant long bone shafts; not even spotted hyenas, which have very powerful jaws, can do it.

Glimpses of this behaviour can be detected at other sites too. For example, a cut-marked bone fragment of a large animal (probably a hippopotamus) was documented at El-Kherba (Algeria) dated to 1.78 million years ago.

This intensive and repeated discovery of multiple elephant and hippopotamus carcasses butchered at different landscape locations indicates that humans were butchering the remains of large animals, whether hunted or scavenged.

Why does an elephant meal matter?

This discovery isn’t just about a prehistoric menu; it’s about the evolution of the human brain and social structure. There is a long-standing theory in paleoanthropology called the “expensive tissue hypothesis”. It suggests that as our ancestors’ brains grew larger, they required a massive increase in high-quality calories, specifically fat and protein. Large mammals like elephants are essentially giant “packages” of these calories. Processing even a single elephant provides a caloric windfall that could sustain a group for weeks.

Butchering an elephant is a monumental task, however. It requires sharp stone tools and, most importantly, social cooperation. Our ancestors had to work together to defend the carcass from predators like sabre-toothed cats and giant hyenas, while others worked to extract the meat and marrow.

This suggests that even 1.8 million years ago, our ancestors already possessed a level of social organisation and environmental awareness that was truly “human”.

The discovery also has another dimension. Humans at that time, like modern carnivores, consumed animals whose size was related to their own group size. Small prides of lions eat wildebeests; larger prides eat buffalo and in some places even juvenile elephants. The evidence that those early humans were exploiting large animals comes in parallel with evidence that they were living in much larger sites than before, probably reflecting bigger group sizes.

Why early humans started living in large groups at that time remains to be explained, but this indicates that they certainly needed more food.

A shift in the ecosystem

The EAK site also tells us about the environment. By analysing the tiny fossils of plants and microscopic animals found in the same soil layers, we reconstructed a landscape that was transitioning from a lush, wooded lake margin to a more open, grassy savanna. Our ancestors were already eating smaller game. There is evidence that two million years ago, they were hunting small and medium-sized animals (like gazelles and waterbucks). A little earlier, they began using technology (stone tools) to bypass their biological limitations.

The evidence from Olduvai Gorge shows that our ancestors were remarkably adaptable, capable of thriving in changing climates by developing new behaviours.

As we look at the spatial layout of these ancient remains, we aren’t just looking at the bones of an extinct elephant. We are looking at the traces of a pivotal moment in our own history – when a small group of hominins looked at a giant and saw not just a threat, but a key to their survival.

Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo 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. How to eat an elephant: fossil find in Tanzania shows oldest signs of butchering these giant mammals – https://theconversation.com/how-to-eat-an-elephant-fossil-find-in-tanzania-shows-oldest-signs-of-butchering-these-giant-mammals-276907

April 6, 2026

Teenagers and younger kids are learning coded predator phrases like ‘MAP’ online, long before their parents have even heard of it

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

Teenagers and children may encounter terms like MAP in memes, comments or other ways online. Catherine Falls Commercial

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.

The outline of a teenage girl is seen in a dark room, as she looks at a phone in her hands. — One in five teenagers say they are on social media platforms like TikTok almost constantly.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

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

April 6, 2026

What gig workers and employees who get tips need to know about the new no-tax-on-tips tax break

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

Gig workers, including DoorDash delivery people, are eligible for a new tax break on their tips. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

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.

A barber gives a man a haircut. — Workers in industries where tips are customary may be able to obtain this new tax break, whether they are self-employed or hold a steady job.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

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

April 6, 2026

What I learned from analyzing 789 ‘Shark Tank’ pitches: Narcissists get funding if they’re not arrogant or defensive

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

On ‘Shark Tank,’ the ‘sharks,’ or investors, hear pitches from entrepreneurs to invest in their business. Courtesy of ABC

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

April 6, 2026

What is CREC and how does it shape Pete Hegseth’s religious rhetoric?

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

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to members of the media at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on March 31, 2026. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

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.

Several men and women, accompanied by children, appear to be singing, while raising their hands. — Pastor Doug Wilson leads others at a protest in Moscow, Idaho.
Geoff Crimmins/The Moscow-Pullman Daily News, CC BY-SA

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

A man in a navy blue suit and red tie looks ahead while gesturing with his finger. — Pete Hegseth at his confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 14, 2025.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon

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

April 6, 2026

Philadelphia’s founding years were rife with conspiracy fears about ‘godless’ Freemasons and the Illuminati

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

George Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at the age of 20. Strobridge & Co. Lith./Library of Congress via AP

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.

Stained glass window with squares, circles and other shapes — A gavel represents the refining of character and removal of vices among Freemasons.
API/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

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.

Black and white depiction of a large house with smaller houses adjacent to it — The Tun Tavern was a popular hangout for Philadelphia Freemasons and other political brass in the late 1700s.
Albert Moerk/Library of Congress

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.

Illustration of man with white hair and rosy cheeks in suit with sash standing on checkerboard floor in hall lined with columns — Freemasons counted many leading figures of early America, including George Washington, as members.
Strobridge & Co. Lith./Library of Congress via AP

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.

Facade of ornate medieval building — The Masonic temple in Center City serves as the headquarters of the grand lodge of Pennsylvania.
SEN LI/Moment Collection via Getty Images

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

An ornate room decorated in blue and gold with pharoah heads atop columns — Inside the Egyptian Hall at the Masonic temple in Philadelphia.
K. Ciappa for Visit Philadelphia®, CC BY-NC-ND

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

April 6, 2026

About 80% of breast cancer biopsies turn out benign – new imaging tool promises clearer diagnoses and fewer biopsies

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

Ultrasound is standard for breast cancer screening, but it has its limitations. Anchiy/E+ via Getty Images

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.

Anyone with breast tissue is at risk of developing breast cancer.

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

April 6, 2026

How will the Iran war change the Middle East? We asked 5 experts

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin

On February 28, the US and Israel launched a war against Iran following weeks of US military build-up in the region and threats from US President Donald Trump.

In the ensuing weeks, Iran has retaliated by striking US assets in the Persian Gulf states and targets across Israel. Israel has launched a ground invasion into southern Lebanon in response to attacks from Hezbollah.

Oil and gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz have come to a virtual standstill, threatening a global energy crisis. And thousands have been killed, most in Iran and Lebanon.

The entire Middle East has been affected by this war – and the region will no doubt be very different once it’s resolved.

We asked five experts in international politics and Middle East studies to explain the most important changes they see happening following the war.

The academic experts who shared their analysis of this topic are:

Scott Lucas
Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin. He joined University College Dublin in 2022 as Professor of International Politics, having been on the staff of the University of Birmingham since 1989. He began his career as a specialist in US and British foreign policy, but his research interests now also cover current international affairs – especially North Africa, the Middle East, and Iran – New Media, and Intelligence Services.

Andrew Thomas
Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University. He teaches units on International Relations, Middle East conflict and global governance. His book “Iran and the West: a non-Western approach to foreign policy” (2024) explores how non-Western perspectives on the Middle East and beyond can improve our understanding of intractible conflict.

Chris Ogden
Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. He specialises in the interplay between identity, culture, security and domestic politics in India, China, South Asia, East Asia and the Indo-Pacific. His latest book is “The Authoritarian Century: China’s Rise and the Demise of the Liberal International Order” (Bristol University Press, 2022).

Jessica Genauer
Academic Director, Public Policy Institute, UNSW Sydney. She is an expert in international conflict and provide regular analysis for national and international outlets on war and conflict. Her research interests include conflict, threat perceptions, and post-conflict institution-building with a focus on the Middle East as well as Russia / Ukraine and the US.

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen
Fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute, Rice University. His research examines the changing position of Persian Gulf states in the global order, as well as the emergence of longer-term, nonmilitary challenges to regional security. Previously, he worked as senior Gulf analyst at the Gulf Center for Strategic Studies and as co-director of the Kuwait Program on Development, Governance and Globalization in the Gulf States at the London School of Economics.

Chris Ogden is a senior research fellow with the Foreign Policy Centre, London.

Andrew Thomas, Jessica Genauer, Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, and Scott Lucas do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How will the Iran war change the Middle East? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-will-the-iran-war-change-the-middle-east-we-asked-5-experts-279652

April 6, 2026

Trump welcomes Columbus to the White House – and reignites America’s history wars

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

Christopher Columbus is back. At least, a statue of him is back, reinstalled by US President Donald Trump on the White House grounds in late March – part of the president’s stated mission to cancel “cancel culture”.

The resurrection of Columbus made good on Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”.

The statue is in fact a replica of the original thrown into Baltimore Harbor by protesters on Independence Day 2020 during the Black Lives Matter upheavals of the first Trump presidency.

The protests targeted monuments “honoring white supremacists, owners of enslaved people, perpetrators of genocide, and colonizers”. But damaged pieces of the Columbus statue were later salvaged and became a model for the copy.

Trump has since championed Columbus as “the original American hero, a giant of Western civilization, and one of the most gallant and visionary men to ever walk the face of the earth”.

He might have chosen any statue of the explorer and navigator from Genoa who pioneered European colonisation of the Americas. But clearly reinstating one removed by his opponents sends a more powerful message.

‘Improper partisan ideology’

Restoring statues to their original location isn’t simply about undoing their previous removal. It’s designed to reverse what some see as attempts to “erase history”.

And it has a long history of its own. Roman emperors once feared being condemned to obscurity through “damnatio memoriae” – having their statues destroyed, coins melted down and names chiselled from the facades of buildings.

Trump’s executive order was very much about retaliating against those who want to “perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology”.

Relocating a memorial to a more prominent location – from Baltimore to the White House, for instance – goes one step further. It amplifies the significance of the historical figure and the symbolic restoration of their reputation.

But sometimes just restoring a statue to its original site is symbolism enough.

Statue of Albert Pike in Washington DC, 2025.
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

The memorial to Albert Pike, for example, was and is the only outdoor statue of a Confederate general in Washington DC. Pulled down by protesters in 2020 and returned in 2025, its merits have long been debated.

Pike was a disgraced figure, accused of misappropriating funds and allowing his troops to desecrate the bodies of Union soldiers. There are also alleged ties to an early version of the Ku Klux Klan.

In the words of congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, “Pike represents the worst of the Confederacy and has no claim to be memorialized in the Nation’s capital.”

Advocates for the statue’s retention note there is no mention of the Confederacy or depiction of a military uniform, only Pike’s contribution to the American Freemasons.

But when the statue was pulled down in 2020, Trump certainly took sides: “The DC police are not doing their job as they watched a statue be ripped down and burn. These people should be immediately arrested. A disgrace to our country.”

‘Woke lemmings’

Of course, history isn’t always simple, as memorialising the American Civil War shows.

Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia was established in 1864 as a national military cemetery, with a Confederate section dedicated in 1900 as part of the effort to promote reconciliation between the North and South.

Its Confederate Memorial (designed by a Confederate veteran) features a female figure representing the South holding symbols of peace. A bronze relief below depicts sanitised images of slavery: a woman caring for white children, and a man following his owner into battle as his servant.

A biblical quotation below preaches peace: “They have beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”

But another quote in Latin – “Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Caton” – references Julius Caesar’s victory in the Roman civil war and casts the South’s defeat as a noble lost cause.

The monument was erected in 1914, removed by Congress in 2023, and is scheduled to return in 2027. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed on social media it “never should have been taken down by woke lemmings. Unlike the Left, we don’t believe in erasing American history – we honor it.”

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama addresses a rally before a statue of Caesar Rodney in Wilmington, Delaware, 2008.
Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Defiant choices

Similarly, an equestrian statue of Founding Father Caesar Rodney – installed in Wilmington, Delaware, in 1923 and removed in 2020 to prevent damage by protesters – highlights these contested readings of history.

Rodney is famous for riding all night from Delaware to Philadelphia, through a thunderstorm, to break a deadlock and cast the deciding vote in favour of American independence in 1776.

But as well as being a brigadier general and signatory to the Declaration of Independence, he owned 200 slaves on his family’s plantation.

The statue is now scheduled to reappear for six months, this time in Washington DC, to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary on July 4. It will be installed in Freedom Plaza, named in honour of Martin Luther King Junior.

Placing the contested statue of a famous slave owner in a space dedicated to a Black civil rights leader is a provocative, if not defiant, choice. And it shows again how powerful symbols and symbolic actions can be.

The argument that removing statues also erases history doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It conflates public visibility and symbolic placement with actual knowledge of the past.

In that sense, reinstalling controversial memorials is, in itself, an attempt to rewrite history by erasing a more recent past and returning to an old, disputed status quo.

Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.

– ref. Trump welcomes Columbus to the White House – and reignites America’s history wars – https://theconversation.com/trump-welcomes-columbus-to-the-white-house-and-reignites-americas-history-wars-279746