Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Lansing, Professor of History, Augsburg University

Forcibly entering homes without a judicial warrant. Arresting journalists who reported on protests. Defying dozens of federal orders. Killing U.S. citizens for noncompliance. Asking constitutionally protected observers this chilling question: “Have you not learned?”

This is daily life in Minnesota. Operation Metro Surge, ostensibly an immigration enforcement initiative, has become something more consequential: a constitutional stress test. Can constitutional protections withstand the actions of a federal government seemingly intent on aggressively violating the rule of law?

In Minneapolis, a city still reckoning with its own grim history of policing, the federal operation raises fundamental questions about law enforcement and the limits of executive power.

Legal scholars and civil rights advocates are especially worried about ongoing violations of the First, Second, Fourth and 10th amendments, as are other observers, including historians like us.

Catalog of violations

First Amendment concerns stem from reports that agents from ICE – described by some scholars as a paramilitary force – and the Border Patrol have deployed excessive force as well as advanced surveillance methods on suspects, observers and journalists. When enforcement activity impedes the rights to assemble, document and criticize government action, that chills those rights, and the consequences extend beyond any single demonstration. These rights are not peripheral to democracy. They are central to it.

Second Amendment issues erupted following the fatal shooting of a legally armed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Highly placed administration officials claimed Americans could not bring firearms to protests, despite a long-standing interpretation that in most states, including Minnesota, a person who was legally permitted to carry a firearm could bring it to such events. The assertion was in fact contrary to the Trump administration’s support for gun rights.

Thanks to the videos flooding social media, Fourth Amendment concerns are the most familiar. Allegations include entering homes without warrants, stopping, intimidating and seizing legal observers, and detaining suspects by virtue of their appearance or accent. Those are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, which were adopted to prevent the exercise of arbitrary government power.

Finally, the 10th Amendment lies at the heart of Minnesota’s legal cases against the federal government.

One lawsuit contests the federal government’s refusal to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to investigate the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Another challenges efforts to pressure local governments into assisting federal immigration enforcement. These disputes implicate federalism itself – the constitutional division of authority between states and the federal government that is the foundation of the American system.

The massive and rapid accumulation of these alleged constitutional violations – now working their way through the courts – in a single geographic locale is striking. So are the mass resignations from the state’s U.S. attorney’s office, which is responsible for representing the federal government in these cases.

And so is the deeper historical context.

A retreat from federal constitutional oversight

Starting in 1994, federal intervention became a powerful corrective whenever local police violated constitutional rights.

From Newark to New Orleans, federal oversight was not always welcomed, but it was frequently necessary to enforce equal protection and due process.

Federal oversight has been essential in enforcing civil rights when municipalities would not. Active monitoring of policing in those cities kept officers and administrators accountable and encouraged officers to follow constitutional standards. At its core, what experts call “constitutional policing” requires that government’s use of authority to ensure order be justified, limited and subject to oversight.

In that vein, after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice report on policing in Minneapolis identified questionable patterns and practices. Those problems included the “unreasonable” use of deadly force, racial profiling and retaliation against journalists. The Department of Justice’s proposed consent decree – grounded in constitutional policing – offered a way forward.

But in May 2025, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s appointee Pam Bondi, withdrew the recommended agreement.

Seven months later, Operation Metro Surge deployed thousands of federal agents to Minnesota with a markedly different enforcement philosophy.

Indeed, the recent expansion of federal enforcement authority in Minnesota followed a retreat from federal constitutional oversight.

Taking the handcuffs off

A presidential executive order, signed by Trump in late April 2025 and titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” pledged to remove what were described as “handcuffs” on police.

Soon thereafter, the administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid immigration protests.

Though a federal judge later rejected the legal rationale for that deployment, in August 2025, the president sent National Guard forces to Washington, D.C., purportedly to reduce crime. In September 2025, Trump described American cities as potential “training grounds” for the military to confront what he called the “enemy from within.”

Each episode reflects an increasingly expansive view of executive branch authority.

Whether Operation Metro Surge ultimately withstands judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. Numerous lawsuits continue to wind their way through the courts.

But the broader question is already clear: When, in the name of security, the executive branch directly challenges so many Bill of Rights protections at once, how much strain can the American legal system absorb? Will basic constitutional rights survive this moment?

What is unfolding in Minnesota is not simply a local enforcement story. It is a test of whether the Constitution as we know it will survive.

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. ICE and Border Patrol in Minnesota − accused of violating 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendment rights − are testing whether the Constitution can survive – https://theconversation.com/ice-and-border-patrol-in-minnesota-accused-of-violating-1st-2nd-4th-and-10th-amendment-rights-are-testing-whether-the-constitution-can-survive-274613

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Claire Leavitt, Assistant Professor of Government, Smith College

President Donald Trump and Congress agreed to separate funding for the Department of Homeland Security from a larger spending bill that enables the federal government to continue operations. They now face a self-imposed deadline of Feb. 13, 2026, to negotiate potential changes to immigration enforcement.

The fact that funding for the department – and in particular Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE – has become politically contentious represents a new turn on Capitol Hill.

Funding for ICE has increased substantially over the past year, with the number of its agents more than doubling.

On July 4, 2025, Trump signed a massive tax-and-spending package that increased annual funding for ICE from US$8 billion in 2024 to $28 billion in 2025.

During the first year of Trump’s second term, Republican majorities in the House and Senate have taken a hands-off approach to oversight of what is now the nation’s most highly funded law enforcement agency.

I am a professor of government who studies Congress and its oversight role. Since ICE’s funding increase, the Senate has held just one public hearing on ICE, according to my own unpublished data. Although the House has held a few routine oversight hearings of DHS, none have focused on ICE or Customs and Border Protection.

Traditional role for Congress

Congress holds longtime, well-established constitutional authority to oversee and investigate the executive branch and other political institutions. Having authorized funding for federal programs, it typically – if inconsistently – conducts substantial oversight to ensure its policies are being carried out successfully and as lawmakers originally intended.

Following the January 2026 killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota, members of Congress from both parties have called for investigations.

However, “investigations” is a broad term that encompasses several options. The Justice Department announced on Jan. 30, 2026, that it is pursuing a civil rights investigation into Pretti’s death. That same day, DHS announced that the FBI is leading the federal probe into his death, with assistance from ICE.

But Congress could also establish an independent, bipartisan commission to examine the killings and make recommendations for laws and regulations to prevent future deaths and ensure quick accountability. Some notable examples of congressional commissions include one that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and a 2010 commission that recommended $4 trillion worth of budget changes to address the national debt.

Or Congress could take the lead itself.

Rand Paul, the Republican chair of the primary oversight panel in the Senate, and New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, have asked top immigration officials to testify this month. But other congressional Republicans have remained vague about what shape the investigations should take and which branch of government should lead them.

Who’s in charge of oversight?

The debate over which branch of government should investigate government failures is a long-standing one.

Early in the republic’s history, under President George Washington, a federal militia suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Native American tribes at the Battle of Wabash in 1791. Congress was unsure of its constitutional authority to investigate the disastrous encounter: Did the separation-of-powers system prevent Congress from investigating another, independent branch of government? Or did the Constitution’s system of checks and balances imply that the Washington administration could not credibly investigate itself?

Ultimately, the House opted to establish its own investigative committee, and Washington, setting an important precedent, agreed to turn over requested information.

There are several benefits to Congress leading its own inquiries, whether in lieu of, or in addition to, federal agency investigations. For one, even highly combative committee hearings are valuable arenas for information gathering and processing, helping members of Congress thoroughly understand an issue and thus make informed and effective policy changes.

An in-depth committee investigation of the Minneapolis killings could make it more likely that new restrictions and oversight mechanisms are written into law.

Investigations can be bipartisan

Additionally, Congress’ subpoena power is a legally binding tool that enables committees to draw necessary information from the agencies they are investigating. This information, presented at hearings and in committee reports, becomes part of the historical record and serves as an important resource for future investigations both within and outside Congress, including scholarship.

For instance, the final reports of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack in 2022 and the House Committee on Benghazi in 2016 provide exhaustively detailed timelines of the respective attacks that do not exist anywhere else.

Republican-led investigations into the Minneapolis killings, and continued oversight of ICE and CBP, would also lend credibility to both the party and the independence of the legislative branch.

Political scientists have found that committees are less likely to investigate the executive branch when the president is from their own party. However, significant bipartisan probes do occur even in a highly polarized era. In 2005, for instance, Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Davis launched an inquiry into the George W. Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, despite facing pushback from the White House.

More recently, in 2018, the Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis in Michigan, earning praise from Democrats on the panel.

Risks of grandstanding

However, while Congress has investigative powers, it does not have any enforcement authority. Congress can recommend criminal charges after an investigation, but only the Justice Department can bring indictments.

There are also significant political risks to committee-led inquiries, particularly public hearings. Political scientists have found that investigations of the executive branch diminish the president’s approval rating.

Additionally, members of Congress often engage in performative outrage and grandstanding during public hearings, which tends to help individual members’ electoral prospects but does little to enhance collective public faith in Congress’ legitimacy or its ability to conduct independent and fact-based inquiries.

Given the continuing partisan divide over ICE and the agency’s increased presence in Minneapolis and other cities, it’s possible that congressional hearings could devolve into rancor and name-calling. However, public opinion polling has found that ICE has become a liability for Trump and the Republican Party.

With the 2026 midterm elections coming up, Republicans in Congress may not be able to afford to stay silent.

Claire Leavitt has received funding from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy.

– ref. Congress has exercised minimal oversight over ICE, but that might change – https://theconversation.com/congress-has-exercised-minimal-oversight-over-ice-but-that-might-change-274396

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bingbing Zhang, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Iowa

Informing people about political deepfakes through text-based information and interactive games both improve people’s ability to spot AI-generated video and audio that falsely depict politicians, according to a study my colleagues and I conducted.

Although researchers have focused primarily on advancing technologies for detecting deepfakes, there is also a need for approaches that address the potential audiences for political deepfakes. Deepfakes are becoming increasingly difficult to identify, verify and combat as artificial intelligence technology improves.

Is it possible to inoculate the public to detect deepfakes, thereby increasing their awareness before exposure? My recent research with fellow media studies researchers Sang Jung Kim and Alex Scott at the Visual Media Lab at the University of Iowa has found that inoculation messages can help people recognize deepfakes and even make people more willing to debunk them.

Inoculation theory proposes that psychological inoculation – analogous to getting a medical vaccination – can immunize people against persuasive attacks. The idea is that by explaining to people how deepfakes work, they become primed to recognize them when they encounter them.

In our experiment, we exposed one-third of participants to passive inoculation: traditional text-based warning messages about the threat and the characteristics of deepfakes. We exposed another third to active inoculation: an interactive game that challenged participants to identify deepfakes. The remaining third were given no inoculation.

Participants were then randomly shown either a deepfake video featuring Joe Biden making pro-abortion rights statements or a deepfake video featuring Donald Trump making anti-abortion rights statements. We found that both types of inoculation were effective in reducing the credibility participants gave to the deepfakes, while also increasing people’s awareness and intention to learn more about them.

Why it matters

Deepfakes are a serious threat to democracy because they use AI to create very realistic fake audio and video. These deepfakes can make politicians appear to say things they never actually said, which can damage public trust and cause people to believe false information. For example, some voters in New Hampshire received a phone call that sounded like Joe Biden, telling them not to vote in the state’s primary election.

Because AI technology is becoming more common, it is especially important to find ways to reduce the harmful effects of deepfakes. Recent research shows that labeling deepfakes with fact-checking statements is often not very effective, especially in political contexts. People tend to accept or reject fact-checks based on their existing political beliefs. In addition, false information often spreads faster than accurate information, making fact-checking too slow to fully stop the impact of false information.

As a result, researchers are increasingly calling for new ways to prepare people to resist misinformation in advance. Our research contributes to developing more effective strategies to help people resist AI-generated misinformation.

What other research is being done

Most research on inoculation against misinformation relies on passive media literacy approaches that mainly provide text-based messages. However, more recent studies show that active inoculation can be more effective. For example, online games that involve active participation have been shown to help people resist violent extremist messages.

In addition, most previous research has focused on protecting people from text-based misinformation. Our study instead examines inoculation against multimodal misinformation, such as deepfakes that combine video, audio and images. Although we expected active inoculation to work better for this type of misinformation, our findings show that both passive and active inoculation can help people cope with the threat of deepfakes.

What’s next

Our research shows that inoculation messages can help people recognize and resist deepfakes, but it is still unclear whether these effects last over time. In future studies, we plan to examine the long-term effect of inoculation messages.

We also aim to explore whether inoculation works in other areas beyond politics, including health. For example, how would people respond if a deepfake showed a fake doctor spreading health misinformation? Would earlier inoculation messages help people question and resist such content?

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

Bingbing Zhang receives funding from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa.

– ref. ‘Inoculation’ helps people spot political deepfakes, study finds – https://theconversation.com/inoculation-helps-people-spot-political-deepfakes-study-finds-273739

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Mervin XuYang Lim, Ph.D. Student in Chemical Engineering, University of Arizona

The world is looking for more clean water. Intense storms and warmer weather have worsened droughts and reduced the amount of clean water underground and in rivers and lakes on the surface.

Under pressure to provide water for drinking and irrigation, people around the globe are trying to figure out how to save, conserve and reuse water in a variety of ways, including reusing treated sewage wastewater and removing valuable salts from seawater.

But for all the clean water they may produce, those processes, as well as water-intensive industries like mining, manufacturing and energy production, inevitably leave behind a type of liquid called brine: water that contains high concentrations of salt, metals and other contaminants. I’m working on getting the water out of that potential source, too.

The most recent available assessment of global brine production found that it is 25.2 billion gallons a day, enough to fill nearly 60,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools each day. That’s about one-twelfth of daily household water use in the U.S. However, that brine estimate is from 2019; in the years since, brine production is estimated to have increased due to the continued expansion of desalination plants.

That’s a lot of water, if it could be cleaned and made usable.

How is brine disposed?

Today, most brine produced along the coastline is released into the ocean. Inland cities without this option typically leave brine in ponds to evaporate, blend it with other wastewater, or inject it into deep wells for disposal.

However, most of these methods require strict environmental protections and monitoring strategies to reduce harm to the environment.

For instance, the extremely high salt content in brine from desalination plants can kill fish or drive them away, as has happened increasingly since the 1980s off the coast of Bahrain.

Evaporation ponds require specialized liners to prevent the brine from leaching into the ground and polluting groundwater. And when all the water has evaporated, the remaining solids must be promptly removed to prevent them from blowing away as dust in the wind. This happens in nature, too: As the Great Salt Lake in Utah dries up, salty windblown dust has already contributed to significant air pollution, as recorded by the Utah Division of Air Quality.

Brine injected into the earth in Oklahoma, including into wells used for hydraulic fracking of oil and natural gas, was one of several factors that led to a 40-fold increase in earthquake activity in the five-year period from 2008 to 2013, as compared to the preceding 31 years. And wastewater has been documented to leak from the underground wells up to the surface as well.

Emerging treatment technologies

Researchers like me are increasingly exploring brine’s potential not as waste but as a source of water – and of valuable materials, such as sodium, lithium, magnesium and calcium.

Currently, the most effective brine reclamation methods use heat and pressure to boil the water out of brine, capturing the water as vapor and leaving the metals and salts behind as solids. But those systems are expensive to build, energy-intensive to run and physically large.

Other treatment methods come with unique trade-offs. Electrodialysis uses electricity to pull salt and charged particles out of water through special membranes, separating cleaner water from a more concentrated salty stream. This process works best when the water is already relatively clean, because dirt, oils and minerals can quickly clog or damage the membranes, reducing the performance of the equipment.

Membrane distillation, in contrast, heats water so that only water vapor passes through a water-repelling membrane, leaving salts and other contaminants behind. While effective in principle, this approach can be slow, energy-intensive and expensive, limiting its use at larger scale.

A look at smaller, decentralized systems

Smaller systems can be effective, with lower initial costs and quicker start-up processes.

At the University of Arizona, I am leading the testing of a six-step brine reclamation system known as STREAM – for Separation, Treatment, Recovery via Electrochemistry and Membrane – to continuously reclaim municipal brine, which is salty water left over from sewage treatment.

The system combines conventional methods such as ultrafiltration, which removes particles and microbes using fine filters, and reverse osmosis, which removes dissolved salts by forcing water through a dense membrane, alongside an electrolytic cell – a method not typically employed in water treatment.

Our previous study showed that we can recover usable quantities of chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid at one-sixth the cost of purchasing them commercially. And our initial calculations indicated the integrated system can reclaim as much as 90% of the water, greatly reducing the volume of what remains to be disposed. The cleaned water in turn is suitable for drinking after final disinfection using ultraviolet or chlorine.

We are currently building a larger pilot system in Tucson for further study by researchers. We hope to learn if we can use this system to reclaim other sources of brine and study its efficacy in eliminating viruses and bacteria for human consumption.

We have partnered with other researchers from the University of Nevada Reno, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help communities in the Southwest secure reliable water supplies by safely reusing municipal wastewater to serve everyday water use.

Mervin XuYang Lim receives funding under Cooperative Agreement Number W9132T-23-2-0001 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACE ERDC-CERL).

– ref. Reclaiming water from contaminated brine can increase water supply and reduce environmental harm – https://theconversation.com/reclaiming-water-from-contaminated-brine-can-increase-water-supply-and-reduce-environmental-harm-272232

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Corinne Brion, Associate Professor in Educational Administration, University of Dayton

Cellphones are everywhere – including, until recently, in schools.

Since 2023, 29 states, including New York, Vermont, Florida and Texas, have passed laws that require K-12 public schools to enforce bans or strict limits on students using their cellphones on campus.

Another 10 states have passed other measures that require local school districts to take some kind of action on cellphone usage.

Approximately 77% of public schools now forbid students from having their phones out during class – an increase from the 66% of schools that forbade students from using phones at school in 2015.

Schools across the country are finding different ways to enforce no-phone policies. Some schools have students lock their phones in pouches that only open at the end of the day. Others use simple classroom bins or lockers.

Some research shows that spending a lot of time looking at phones instead of people’s faces can make it harder for children and teenagers to get the basic human skills they need for developing and maintaining friendships and other relationships.

As a scholar of educational leadership, I believe that school is about more than just classes – it’s where young people learn how to get along with others. When phones are put away, students actually start looking at each other and talking again. School hallways and the lunchroom turn into spaces where students learn to resolve conflicts face-to-face and make human connections.

Putting phones away in Ohio

Ohio is an example of a state that has clamped down on students’ cellphone usage over the past 18 months.

In May 2024, Ohio went from suggesting some cellphone guidelines for different schools to adopt to requiring that all public districts limit students’ phone use during class. School districts could choose to allow phones at lunch or between classes.

Many schools began using lockable pouches, plastic bins or lockers to keep phones out of sight. They still needed to allow some students to have phones for medical reasons, like monitoring blood sugar on an app.

Ohio then adopted an even stricter cellphone use policy in 2025. This new law required all Ohio public school boards to adopt policies by Jan. 1, 2026, that prohibit phone use during the entire school day, including lunch and the time between classes.

A needed break

In the fall of 2025, I surveyed 13 Ohio public school principals from rural, urban and suburban districts. Principals reported that the partial phone bans increased students’ social interactions and reduced peer conflicts:

• 62% of principals described more verbal, face-to-face socializing during recess, at lunch time and between classes.

• 68% noted that students can stay on one task for more than 20 minutes without seeking a quick digital break.

• 72% observed a shift from heads-down scrolling to active conversation in common areas such as the cafeteria.

• 61% reported fewer online social conflicts spilling over into the classroom.

A tension for students

In late January 2026, I also surveyed and spoke with 18 Ohio high school students about the new phone bans in place at their schools as part of research that has not yet been published.

Their responses revealed a complex tension between understanding the need for the phone ban and feeling a significant loss of personal safety and autonomy.

A few students said they felt safe knowing a phone in the main office is available for emergencies.

Some students said they felt anxious about not being reachable if there is an emergency – like if a relative were in an accident, or if the younger siblings they care for required their help.

Finally, 13 out of 18 students argued that they should be learning the self-discipline required to balance technology with focus. Students said that phone bans made them feel as though they were children who could not make responsible decisions – rather than young adults preparing for professional environments.

Some students also said that not having their phones made it impossible to fill out college and scholarship applications during the school day, since many application systems require multifactor authentication and require phones to log in.

Lessons from Ohio

Rules are more likely to be respected when students feel they have a voice in the boundaries that affect their daily lives. I think that school leaders could address students’ safety and security concerns in different ways, including by establishing a dedicated family emergency hotline that people can call.

Principals could designate supervised areas where more senior high school students can briefly use their phones for multifactor authentication. School leaders could also offer a specific time window for students to check messages on their phones, or an easy way for the school’s main office to deliver them messages from family.

While these insights from Ohio students and principals offer a helpful starting point, they are just one part of a much larger conversation.

More research is needed to see how these bans affect different types of schools and communities across multiple states. Because every district is different, what works in one town might cause unexpected challenges in another. By continuing to study these effects and listening to everyone involved, especially the students, researchers like myself can figure out how to keep classrooms focused and students interacting without making students feel less safe or less prepared for the adult world.

Corinne Brion 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. Schools are increasingly telling students they must put their phones away – Ohio’s example shows mixed results following new bans – https://theconversation.com/schools-are-increasingly-telling-students-they-must-put-their-phones-away-ohios-example-shows-mixed-results-following-new-bans-274261

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Bess Rowen, Assistant Professor of Theatre, Villanova University

Most theater subscriptions offer a patron access to a single theater’s season. But Philadelphia’s new Citywide James Ijames Pass provides tickets to three James Ijames – pronounced EYE-ms, rhymes with “chimes” – plays at three theaters in Philadelphia. Subscribers will also get one mustard-colored beanie, one of Ijames’ signature accessories.

The full pass, which costs US$130, includes tickets for the Arden Theatre’s “Good Bones,” which premiered Jan. 22 and runs through March 22, the Wilma Theater’s “The Most Spectacularly Lamentable Trial of Miz Martha Washington,” which runs March 17 to April 5, and the Philadelphia Theatre Company’s “Wilderness Generation,” a world premiere that runs April 10 to May 3. There is also a two-show pass for $90 without “Good Bones.”

I’m a theater theorist, historian and practitioner who has written about Ijames’ work before and after his 2022 Pulitzer Prize. I believe this landmark collaboration between three important Philadelphia theaters is a fitting celebration of a multi-hyphenate theater artist who continues to champion his longtime artistic home.

Actor, playwright, director

Ijames, 46, was born in North Carolina and attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. He earned his Master of Fine Arts degree at Temple University and stayed in Philadelphia after graduating.

Notably, this playwright’s MFA is in the study of acting. Ijames is also a talented director, and he performed and directed at multiple theaters around Philadelphia before starting to work as a playwright. He was also a tenured professor of theater at Villanova University, where I had the privilege to work with him and watch his creative process before he moved to New York City in 2025 to run the playwriting concentration at Columbia University.

Ijames was already a local celebrity in Philly before winning the Pulitzer Prize for drama for “Fat Ham,” his Hamlet adaptation centered on a queer Black Hamlet named Juicy and the legacy of his father’s barbecue joint. The New York theater scene took notice of him when the National Black Theatre staged “Kill Move Paradise” in 2017. This haunting piece is set in limbo, where unarmed Black men who have been killed by police examine how they have come to this place and how society continues to enable this pattern.

Other Ijames plays include “White,” a satire of the art world that tells the story of a gay white male artist who hires a Black woman actor to pretend to have done his work to see if that makes a difference in how his art is viewed. “TJ Loves Sally 4Ever” sets Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings’ relationship on a college campus where “TJ” is a dean and Sally is a student. And “Reverie” is a chamber play, which is an intimate meditation with an earnest and somber tone. In it, the father of a recently deceased Black gay man comes to meet the man he believed was his son’s partner.

Most recently, in 2025, Ijames partnered with the Australian pop singer Sia on a musical called “Saturday Church.” It is a story about reconciling queer community and Christian faith, and relying on the support of family, both biological and chosen.

Charting new dramatic territory

Although his theatrical styles and genres vary, at his core, Ijames writes nuanced, character-driven works that revolve around interpersonal relationships. His plays are playgrounds for performers, particularly due to his ability to write complex queer Black characters.

Influential American playwright Suzan-Lori Parks notes in her 1994 essay “Elements of Style” that the conflict between Black people and white people is the default trope of how Black people have been represented onstage – by almost exclusively white playwrights – for most of U.S. theater history. Parks posits that a way to avoid this centering of white conflict in Black lives comes from new dramatic territory that depicts conflicts between Black people and anything else.

Ijames never sets his Black characters in opposition to white society alone. He also refuses to take up the tropes of LGBTQ identity as incompatible with religion, or the idea that characters can be only gay or straight. Instead, Ijames creates narratives with queer religious people and pansexual men whose identities are not sources of conflict.

The citywide pass

The plays in the citywide pass offer an exciting cross section of what makes Ijames’s work so vibrant.

“Good Bones” is the story of a now-affluent Black woman, Aisha, who moves back to her blue-collar hometown. Aisha might be from this working-class neighborhood, but her elaborate renovations and white-collar sensibilities make her return seem more like gentrification than homecoming, at least as far as her local contractor can see.

“Miz Martha” follows the titular Martha Washington through a fever-dream-inspired trial in her final moments, as enslaved people care for her while knowing her death means their freedom.

And “Wilderness Generation” follows five cousins reunited in the U.S. South after many years apart, ready to talk about the secrets from their pasts.

With theater’s ever-changing and unstable financial landscape, I believe the Citywide James Ijames Pass is an exciting new subscriber model. The collaboration highlights Philadelphia’s theatrical talent and banks on local theaters working together to build audiences instead of treating each other as competition – a new development that could change how regional theater scenes operate.

James and I worked at Villanova University together for 6 years. I am still in touch with him.

– ref. Philly theaters unite to stage 3 plays by Pulitzer-winning playwright James Ijames – https://theconversation.com/philly-theaters-unite-to-stage-3-plays-by-pulitzer-winning-playwright-james-ijames-274263

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By E. Andrew Taylor, Associate Professor and Director of Arts Management, American University

President Donald Trump announced on Feb. 1, 2026, that he would shut down the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years. Trump said this closure would begin on July 4 and was necessary for “Construction, Revitalization and Complete Rebuilding.” The next day, he denied that this meant he would demolish the facility altogether. The multi-venue arts center has endured cancellations by performing artists and boycotts by patrons throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, during which he made himself chairman of its board. Trump’s handpicked board members then voted to rebrand the center to include his name.

To help readers understand what this upheaval means, The Conversation U.S. asked E. Andrew Taylor, an arts management professor at American University – which like the Kennedy Center is located in Washington, D.C. – to explain whether Trump has the power or justification to carry out a complete overhaul of this living memorial to President Kennedy.

Does Trump have the authority to shut the center?

Trump wears many hats in this drama.

None of them give him individual or direct authority over the Kennedy Center’s buildings, grounds or operations. However, those hats give him multiple points of leverage.

As president of the United States, Trump has authority to appoint about half of the members of the Kennedy Center governing board – which he stacked with his appointees in February 2025. As chair, appointed by that newly constructed board, Trump has significant influence over how the governing body works.

By law, the Kennedy Center is governed by its full board, while its federal funding for operations and facilities is reviewed and approved by Congress. In practice, both the board and Congress appear to have deferred to the President, as have most of the enforcement agencies that might challenge him here.

In yet another twist, the center’s board reportedly changed its bylaws in 2025 to limit voting by the 23 board members not appointed by the president. One of those members, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat, sued the board and the center’s executive leadership team in December. In her lawsuit, she claimed the board had exceeded its statutory authority and improperly excluded active board members when it renamed the center to add the president’s name. That lawsuit is pending in federal court; no rulings have been issued.

Why is his actual authority hard to define?

The Kennedy Center was established by Congress as “a living memorial to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.” Since its opening in 1971, it has remained a complex public-private enterprise that is both a part of the federal government and a tax-exempt nonprofit.

The center was built with a and long-term revenue bonds held by the Treasury Department. Its ongoing operations have always been funded by a mix of public money, private contributions and earned revenue from ticket sales, events, food service, parking and the like.

To oversee this complex enterprise, Congress established and authorized a governing board, granting it authority to “plan, design, and construct each capital repair, replacement, improvement, rehabilitation, alteration, or modification necessary to maintain the functionality of the building and site at current standards of life, safety, security, and accessibility.”

Until now, major expansions and updates of the campus have been approved by Congress.

Is Trump’s claim that the center needs major upgrades accurate?

There are two claims here that deserve separate attention.

One is that the center needs major upgrades. That is true. The other is that those upgrades require full closure of the entire campus for multiple years. That is suspect.

As for upgrades, the original Kennedy Center building is a sprawling and complex facility with more than 50 years of wear and tear.

A comprehensive engineering and architectural review of the center in 2021 identified 323 capital and minor repair projects that would cost roughly US$252 million to carry out. Only about $45 million has been spent on those projects so far.

The remaining big-ticket items include fully replacing seats in the Concert Hall, replacing the original Opera House pit lift system, dealing with parking garage and loading dock structural issues, and attending to long-deferred elevator repair and replacement.

At the same time, many parts of the Kennedy Center campus are fairly new. The REACH, a $250 million complex with all new buildings and infrastructure, opened in 2019 to increase capacity for community and educational events.

While the need for major upgrades is well supported, the dramatic and disruptive closure of the entire campus for two years is not. A thoughtful, phased renovation and repair strategy would allow for major improvements while the lifeblood of the center – the artists, audiences and donors – could still flow through the campus with at least some performances, programs and events taking place.

In fact, that phasing was the plan in the most recent budget request the center delivered to Congress, until Trump pivoted.

How have Trump’s interventions affected the center so far?

That depends on who you ask.

Ticket sales and attendance have reportedly dropped dramatically, and multiple artists and arts organizations have canceled their planned performances, including singer Renée Fleming, composer Philip Glass, banjoist Béla Fleck and “Wicked” composer Stephen Schwartz. The Washington National Opera, a longtime resident organization, announced its separation and departure from the center in January.

Kennedy Center communications leader Roma Daravi blamed declining attendance on “liberal intolerance.” She also claimed the center’s renaming “recognizes that the current Chairman saved the institution from financial ruin and physical destruction.” Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell dismissed the artists canceling their shows as being “booked by the previous far left leadership.”

What would happen should the center shut down altogether?

The Kennedy Center is not only a venue for its own productions, programs and touring performances.

It’s a hub for live performing arts and arts education for the entire region and the nation as a whole. Independent producers and promoters rent its venues for their performances and events. Each year, it serves over 2.1 million students, educators and school administrators in all 50 states with professional development, summer intensives for young artists and performances for young audiences. And its free and public performances have been a mainstay of cultural life in Washington for decades.

Where all of this activity would relocate for years is unclear. There are few comparable venues in the region, and those available are already booked with productions and tours that were bypassing the Kennedy Center. The National Symphony Orchestra would be particularly vulnerable to a two-year closure of its primary venue. It is not obvious where a large ensemble with such an active rehearsal and concert schedule would be able to perform.

There are also touring productions currently scheduled to perform after the proposed closing date, including “The Outsiders,” “Back to the Future: The Musical” and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Although those tickets were still for sale as of Feb. 3, whether those performances will take place is now in doubt. Those shows’ national tours may be disrupted if the center shuts down.

The center itself, like all such arts venues, survives and thrives on an enduring and connected network of relationships – among artists, touring productions, artist managers, production teams, technical staff, venue management, audiences and donors.

These relationships are sustained through trust and consistency. My three decades of experience teaching and studying arts management suggest that once those relationships are betrayed or delayed, it’s a long road to build them back.

What might be next? And what does it mean?

It’s anyone’s guess whether Trump’s Truth Social post about closing the center will prove true or merely provocative. The board, the center’s leaders, its staff and the people scheduled to perform there after July 4 appeared to be surprised by the announcement.

As a rule, any multi-hundred-million-dollar renovation or demolition requires deliberate and collaborative effort, rather than a decree.

In the short term, the sudden announcement is yet another twist in a wrenching narrative for makers and lovers of the arts across the Washington region and around the country. While a few years and a few hundred million dollars might restore the building’s physical infrastructure, it may take much more time, effort and energy to restore its reputation.

E. Andrew Taylor 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. Trump wants to shutter the Kennedy Center for 2 years – an arts management professor explains what that portends – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-shutter-the-kennedy-center-for-2-years-an-arts-management-professor-explains-what-that-portends-274906

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Thomas A. DuBois, Professor of Scandinavian Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

At the outset of the Kalevala, Finland’s national epic, a singer bemoans his separation from a beloved friend who grew up beside him. Today, the friends rarely meet “näillä raukoilla rajoilla, poloisilla Pohjan mailla” – lines which translator Keith Bosley renders “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

The Kalevala, a poetic masterpiece of nearly 23,000 lines, first appeared in 1835. Now, nearly 200 years later, those “luckless lands of the North” are an increasingly tense border zone.

On one side sits Finland, affluent and famously “happy.” The Nordic nation of 5.6 million is a member of the European Union and, more recently, the NATO alliance. On the other side sits the Republic of Karelia, with a population of around a half-million. Originally home to the Karelians, a people closely related to the Finns, today Karelia is part of the Russian Federation – and the percentage of Karelian speakers is in the single digits.

Finland celebrates Feb. 28 as Kalevala Day, or the “Day of Finnish Culture.” Yet the epic’s songs were collected in both Finland and Karelia, reflecting a cultural affinity sundered by the politics of empire. And as Russia’s war in Ukraine drags on, that border zone has become more tense.

Shared roots

The people of Finland and Karelia – “Suomi” and “Karjala,” in their own languages – have lived in the forests, lakes, marshes and farmlands of northeastern Europe since time immemorial. Their languages are closely related, but they differ markedly from Swedish and Russian, the idioms of the empires that usurped control over the region in the Middle Ages. Finns came under the dominion of Sweden and were converted to Roman Catholicism – and later Lutheranism. Karelians came under the dominion of Russia and were converted to Orthodox Christianity.

Centuries of wars and saber-rattling between the Swedish and Russian empires created hardship for Finns and Karelians alike. Their lands became battlegrounds for warring forces, and their men served as conscripted soldiers for opposing sides in conflicts like the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, which devastated both lands and populations.

Despite the enmity of rival emperors, over the course of centuries daily life and culture had remained remarkably similar for Finns and Karelians. Both sang songs of a mythic past, colorful heroes and powerful magic using a distinctive poetic meter – one that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow later imitated in “The Song of Hiawatha.”

Mythic songs

In 1809, after yet another war, Russia acquired Finland as an autonomous grand duchy, bringing its people under the same crown as Karelians.

Finnish physician and admirer of folklore Elias Lönnrot took advantage of this political union to collect folk songs across the region. Wandering from village to village, writing down songs from dictation, he amassed a body of texts out of which to make an epic.

The contents of the Kalevala are varied and intriguing – starting with the creation of the Earth from an egg, and the felling of a primordial oak tree that threatened to block out the sun.

One of the epic’s most famous tales is the forging of a mysterious object, the Sampo – a sort of magic mill that will produce whatever its owner wishes. It becomes an object of conflict between the people of “Kalevala” and the people of “Pohjola,” the “north.”

The Kalevala hero Väinämöinen, a wizened worker of magic – along with Ilmarinen, the skilled but brooding blacksmith who originally created the Sampo, and their incorrigible friend, Lemminkäinen – attempt to steal the Sampo away from Pohjola, where Louhi, the stern Mistress of the North, has sequestered it. The resulting struggle destroys the Sampo, and its promised life of ease and prosperity.

Lönnrot hoped to unearth a history and an identity for Finns and Karelians, one separate from that of either Sweden or Russia. On the Finnish side of the border, in particular, the epic helped convince people that they were a valuable and creative nation, distinct from the empires that sought to control them.

As the 19th century wore on, the Russian government became less friendly to its cultural minorities. Authorities attempted to “Russify” Finland and other parts of the empire. But Finns resisted, drawing on images from Lönnrot’s Kalevala to articulate their cultural and historical independence.

The paintings of Akseli Gallen-Kallela drew on the epic for themes and inspiration at the turn of the 20th century. Composer Jean Sibelius’ famed Lemminkäinen Suite of 1896, or “Four Legends from the Kalevala,” made elements of the story familiar to audiences around the world and helped bolster international awareness of Finland’s culture. An early Finnish photographer, I.K. Inha, retraced Lönnrot’s wanderings through Finland and Karelia in a book entitled “Finland in Pictures.”

Independent Finland

Finland achieved independence in 1917, in the aftermath of Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution. But civil war soon broke out between the “Finnish Whites” and socialist “Finnish Reds.” It was the first of several conflicts that shifted borders and forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

After the Whites’ victory in Finland’s civil war, many socialist-minded Finns moved to Karelia hoping to build a workers’ paradise. After the rise of Soviet leader Josef Stalin, however, they were labeled as dangerous foreign influences. Thousands were arrested and deported, as Stalin sought to replace the population with Russian-speaking loyalists.

After decades of Russification, assimilation and migration, Karelian-speakers today represent only a small minority of the Republic of Karelia. Another small population resides in Finland, where they were resettled after the wars.

During World War II, Finland fought the Soviet Union several more times, striving to maintain its independence and even incorporate parts of Karelia. Finland managed to remain outside of the Soviet Union, but lost portions of its territory close to the Karelian border.

The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed in 1948, encouraged cultural exchanges between Finland and the Soviet Union. The first joint Finnish-Soviet feature film, 1959’s “Sampo,” was a recounting of the Kalevala spearheaded by Aleksandr Ptushko, the “Disney of Soviet film” – but stripped of any nationalist symbolism.

Rising tension

In the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Finnish-Karelian border became once again a place of lively meeting and exchange. Through the work of organizations like Finland’s Juminkeko foundation, the heritage of the Kalevala has been explored and celebrated on both sides of the border. Finnish and Karelian folk revival and heavy metal bands drew on the Kalevala for inspiration and materials. Shopping centers developed in border towns, and tourists began crossing the border in ever increasing numbers.

Yet Russia’s war in Ukraine has turned the Finnish-Russian border once again into a place of tension. Finland became a member of NATO in 2023, concerned by Vladimir Putin’s regime’s disregard for the rights of other sovereign nations. In December 2023, the Finnish government indefinitely closed the 835-mile (1,344-kilometer) land border, and is now building a fence along part of it. Meanwhile, Russia is expanding military infrastructure near the border, as European countries raise alarm about threats to NATO.

On Feb. 28, the anniversary of the day on which Lönnrot completed the first edition of the Kalevala, public buildings in Finland will fly the country’s flag. Schools and cultural institutions will organize events to celebrate the Kalevala and the cultural and political independence it helped achieve. On the other side of the border, perhaps Karelian speakers and some other inhabitants will celebrate as well. In a Russia where cultural and ethnic minorities’ activism can attract suspicion, though, any observance is likely to be far more muted: The situation remains regrettably tense “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

Thomas A. DuBois 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. An epic border: Finland’s poetic masterpiece, the Kalevala, has roots in 2 cultures and 2 countries – https://theconversation.com/an-epic-border-finlands-poetic-masterpiece-the-kalevala-has-roots-in-2-cultures-and-2-countries-261444