MIL Submissions Engine

January 30, 2026

Some people gain confidence from thinking things through, others lose it – new research

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sucharit Katyal, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen

Our study shows there is no one-size-fits-all rule like “stop overthinking it” or “think more carefully”, when it comes to decision making.
pexels/karola g, CC BY

Have you ever made a decision, only to find yourself second-guessing it moments later? Maybe you spoke up in a meeting and immediately wondered if you said the wrong thing, or left a social gathering feeling confident, only to replay your actions in your head and feel uncertain. For many of us, reflecting on our choices doesn’t always reassure — sometimes it fuels self-doubt.

As a cognitive scientist, I am fascinated by this gap between what people objectively know and how confident they feel. Indeed, your level of confidence can affect so many things – whether you speak up or act on your ideas, how much you study for an exam or stick with your decisions. And yet, the way confidence develops — or erodes — can vary dramatically between people.

Two factors in particular can play a big role: anxiety and gender. People with higher levels of anxiety often report feeling less confident about their decisions than non-anxious people, even when their choices are just as accurate. Anxiety can make thoughts spiral: “What if I made the wrong choice?” “Did I miss something?” And these mental loops can erode confidence over time.

Women, on the other hand, tend to report lower confidence levels than men across a variety of tasks, despite performing equally well.

This is thought to arise from social and cultural factors. Feedback, expectations and stereotypes can subtly influence self-perception, making women more likely to underestimate their abilities.

Confidence over time

With these differences in mind, I began to wonder: if confidence is shaped so differently by anxiety and gender, what happens when people spend extra time thinking about a decision? Does reflection help everyone, or might it push some people further into self-doubt?

Man sits in chair in a lecture with a pencil to his lip, deep in thought. — A moment of confidence can quickly turn into second-guessing when we replay our decisions.
pexels mikhail nilov, CC BY

To answer this, in our new study, my colleagues and I looked at how participants performed different memory and visual discrimination tasks, while rating their confidence after each answer. By tracking how these ratings changed with elapsed time, we could see how confidence changes as people reflect on their decisions — and how these changes differ depending on gender and the severity of anxiety symptoms.

What we found was that participants with higher anxiety were not just underconfident — but that spending more time thinking made them even less sure of themselves. This happened even when their answers were correct.

For women, however, extra reflection had the opposite effect. Carefully reviewing the task allowed them to gradually feel more confident. Over time, this reduced the usual confidence gap between women and men, until both genders were equally certain in their decisions.

In short, the same behaviour — reflecting on a decision — was found to have the opposite effect depending on what factor (gender or anxiety) made a person feel underconfident in the first place.

Why this matters

So why does thinking longer produce such different outcomes? For anxious people, it seems that longer reflection time can become ruminative, amplifying worries and imagined errors. While for women, reflection can be constructive, allowing careful consideration of evidence and performance.

This distinction highlights a simple but powerful point: confidence isn’t about how long you think — it’s about how you think. In other words, deliberation that carefully evaluates evidence can boost confidence, while rumination can erode it.

So what does this mean for future decision-making?

Well, if you tend to be anxious, more thinking isn’t always better. Limit rumination, focus on concrete evidence and set clear decision rules to prevent your confidence from spiralling downward.

And if you you’re a woman and you tend to underestimate your abilities, taking some time to review the evidence and outcomes may well help your confidence better reflect reality.

And what, you might ask, if I’m both a woman and have anxiety — how will I respond? Well, that would depend on which of your biases are more dominant, anxiety-related or gender related.

And if the two are similar, then your underconfidence might stay the same over time: not getting better, but also not worsening. For you, it might be worth trying out both ways of decision-making in a low-stakes situation to see which serves you better.

The bottom line, though, is that there’s no one-size-fits-all rule like “stop overthinking it” or “think more carefully” when it comes to decision-making.

Instead, you should focus on being aware of how your mind’s emotional and social habits shape your levels of confidence, so you can make better choices and trust yourself when it’s justified to do so. This can help turn reflection from a source of doubt into a tool for self-assurance.

This article was commissioned as part of a partnership between
Videnskab.dk and The Conversation.

Sucharit Katyal received a fellowship from Koa Health.

– ref. Some people gain confidence from thinking things through, others lose it – new research – https://theconversation.com/some-people-gain-confidence-from-thinking-things-through-others-lose-it-new-research-273625

January 30, 2026

Trump’s clash with the gun lobby

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

The US government’s reaction to the killing of Alex Pretti last weekend – and of Renée Good a fortnight earlier – was a grim reminder of George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

In similar fashion, senior members of the Trump administration asked the American people to reject freely available video evidence of the two killings. They claimed that Pretti, a nurse at a local veterans’ hospital, was a “domestic terrorist”, that he was “brandishing a handgun”, and was “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents”. Good, a mother of three, supposedly “viciously ran over the ICE officer” who then put three bullets in her head.

Given that video evidence flatly contradicts those statements, this could yet prove a serious overreach on the part of Donald Trump and his lieutenants. Already border patrol commander Greg Bovino, who was in charge of ICE operations in Minneapolis, has been removed. And there’s speculation that Kristi Noem, US secretary of homeland security, is under serious pressure.

How BBC Verify analysed available video footage of Alex Pretti’s death.

One of the more objectionable claims from some of the people looking to blame the victims, writes Andrew Gawthorpe, was the claim made by several Trump officials – and the president himself – that by carrying a gun, Pretti had been asking for trouble.

As you might expect, this drew a sharp reaction from both the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America. These two organisations, who are among Trump’s staunchest backers, reminded the administration of the second amendment right to bear arms, even to a protest – something which also brings in the first amendment right to free expression.

Gawthorpe, an expert in US history and politics at Leiden University, points to the dramatic irony at play here. The express intention of the second amendment was to allow American citizens to arm themselves against a tyrannical government. He concludes: “While some gun rights advocates may have been willing to keep quiet while federal agents were trampling on the rights of migrants and brown-skinned citizens, the murder of Pretti is a bridge too far.”

Meanwhile Mark Shanahan, a professor of political engagement at the University of Surrey, addresses some important points raised by Pretti’s killing. What are federal agents doing on the streets of Minneapolis in the first place, what will the episode mean for Trump’s popularity, and what can be done to prevent further violence?

When it comes to the last question, he argues that the removal of one of the key ICE personnel from the city is a start. Proper congressional scrutiny of ICE’s funding, which is set to sharply increase again this year, would also appear appropriate.

George Lewis, a professor of American history at the University of Leicester, reminds us that Americans have fought back against authoritarianism before. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the House Un-American Activities Committee (Huac) terrorised liberal Americans in its bid to root out communism and (vaguely defined) “un-American” activities such as campaigning for civil rights.

However, a concerted campaign by liberal lawmakers including Jimmy Roosevelt inside Congress, as well as legions of well-organised activists, managed to consign Huac to history’s dustbin in 1975.

Ukraine: diplomatic stalemate

We’re still waiting to hear whether Vladimir Putin plans to sign up to Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace”. But the signs aren’t all that good. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was making some positive noises earlier this week about the prospect of securing security guarantees from Washington. This followed the latest round of talks in Abu Dhabi – at which, for the first time, representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the US came together to talk about ways to end the war.

But almost as soon as Zelensky had revealed his optimism that a deal might be possible, American sources indicated that in return for US security guarantees, Ukraine would have to accept the loss of the parts of the Donbas region it still occupies. This is a non-starter, as Ukraine considers the territory strategically vital.

As Stefan Wolff points out, we’ve been here before. Zelensky can’t accept this condition – and even if he does, Putin won’t accept US guarantees. Trump, meanwhile, will more than likely blame the Ukrainian president for the lack of a deal.

After 12 months of Trump’s second term, the unreliability of the US as an ally for Europe and the rest of Nato is becoming ever more evident. The US president’s Board of Peace appears designed to undermine the United Nations, while his negative rhetoric about US military allies, including the UK, appeared calculated to cause maximum offence (even if Trump later walked back some of his more controversial statements).

David Dunn, a specialist in the US and international security at the University of Birmingham, believes that while Trump may see the world in terms of great power competition, the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland revealed a growing determination on the part of “medium-sized powers” to face up to this new reality – and begin building a new system that does not rely on Washington to make the running.

War in Iran?

After calling on the people of Iran to keep protesting a fortnight ago, promising that “help is on its way”, the US president has ordered a “beautiful armada” into the Gulf, from where it can put pressure on Iran. In fact, the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group appears designed to get the Islamic Republic to dismantle its nuclear programme.

But the likelihood of this developing into full-scale conflict between the US and Iran is very slim, writes Bamo Nouri. He thinks it doubtful that US action can easily dislodge the regime. Despite the widespread recent protests, the Islamic Republic remains firmly embedded and has spent decades preparing for a possible war with the US.

Nouri, a journalist and international relations expert at City St George’s, University of London, believes that any conflict between the US and Iran would almost certainly destabilise the entire Middle East – and would be highly likely to spread. It’s the last thing that America’s allies in the region want, he concludes.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Trump’s clash with the gun lobby – https://theconversation.com/trumps-clash-with-the-gun-lobby-274675

January 30, 2026

US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Iranian youths walk past a building covered with a giant billboard depicting an image of the destroyed USS Abraham Lincoln. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The United States is seemingly moving toward a potential strike on Iran.

On Jan. 28, 2026, President Donald Trump sharply intensified his threats to the Islamic Republic, suggesting that if Tehran did not agree to a set of demands, he could mount an attack “with speed and violence.” To underline the threat, the Pentagon moved aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln – along with destroyers, bombers and fighter jets – to positions within striking distance of the country.

Foremost among the various demands the U.S. administration has put before Iran’s leader is a permanent end to the country’s uranium enrichment program. It has also called for limits to the development of ballistic missiles and a cutting off of Tehran’s support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Trump apparently sees in this moment an opportunity to squeeze an Iran weakened by a poor economy and massive protests that swept through the country in early January.

But as a scholar of Middle Eastern security politics and proliferation, I have concerns. Any U.S. military action now could have widespread unintended consequences later. And that includes the potential for accelerated global nuclear proliferation – regardless of whether the Iranian government is able to survive its current moment of crisis.

Iran’s threshold lesson

The fall of the Islamic Republic is far from certain, even if the U.S. uses military force. Iran is not a fragile state susceptible to quick collapse. With a population of 93 million and substantial state capacity, it has a layered coercive apparatus and security institutions built to survive crises. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s military wing, is commonly estimated in the low-to-high hundreds of thousands, and it commands or can mobilize auxiliary forces.

A group of people are seen by a fire. — Protesters in Iran on Jan. 8, 2026.
Anonymous/Getty Images

After 47 years of rule, the Islamic Republic’s institutions are deeply embedded in Iranian society. Moreover, any change in leadership would not likely produce a clean slate. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged as much, telling lawmakers on Jan. 28 that there was “no simple answer” to what would happen if the government fell. “No one knows who would take over,” he said. The exiled opposition is fragmented, disconnected from domestic realities and lacks the organizational capacity to govern such a large and divided country.

And in this uncertainty lies the danger. Iran is a “threshold state” — a country with the technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons but that has not crossed the final line of production.

A destabilized threshold state poses three risks: loss of centralized command over nuclear material and scientists, incentives for factions to monetize or export expertise, and acceleration logic — actors racing to secure deterrence before collapse.

History offers warnings. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s produced near-misses and concern over the whereabouts of missing nuclear material. Meanwhile, the activities of the A.Q. Khan network, centered around the so-called father of Pakistan’s atomic program, proved that expertise travels – in Khan’s case to North Korea, Libya and Iran.

What strikes teach

Whether or not regime change might follow, any U.S. military action carries profound implications for global proliferation.

Iran’s status as a threshold state has been a choice of strategic restraint. But when, in June 2025, Israel and the U.S struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, that attack – and the latest Trump threats – sent a clear message that threshold status provides no reliable security.

The message to other nations with nuclear aspirations is stark and builds on a number of hard nonproliferation lessons over the past three decades. Libya abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 in exchange for normalized relations with the West. Yet just eight years later, NATO airstrikes in support of Libyan rebels led to the capture and killing of longtime strongman Moammar Gaddafi.

Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in 1994 for security assurances from Russia, the U.S. and Britain. Yet 20 years later, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, before launching an outright invasion in 2022.

Now we can add Iran to the list: The country exercised restraint at the threshold level, and yet it was attacked by U.S. bombs in 2025 and now faces a potential follow-up strike.

The lesson is not lost on Mehdi Mohammadi, a senior Iranian adviser. Speaking on state TV on Jan. 27, he said Washington’s demands “translate into disarming yourself so we could strike you when we want.”

If abandoning a nuclear program leads to regime change, relinquishing weapons results in invasion, and remaining at the threshold invites military strikes, the logic goes, then security is only truly achieved through the possession of nuclear weapons – and not by negotiating them away or halting development before completion.

If Iranian leadership survives any U.S. attack, they will, I believe, almost certainly double down on Iran’s weapons program.

IAEA credibility

U.S. military threats or strikes in the pursuit of destroying a nation’s nuclear program also undermine the international architecture designed to prevent proliferation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was, until the earlier Israel and U.S. strikes, functioning as designed – detecting, flagging and verifying. Its monitoring of Iran was proof that the inspection regime worked.

Military strikes – or the credible threat of them – remove inspectors, disrupt monitoring continuity and signal that compliance does not guarantee safety.

If following the rules offers no protection, why follow the rules? At stake is the credibility of the IAEA and faith in the whole system of international diplomacy and monitoring to tamp down nuclear concerns.

Men and women line the deck of a large ship. — The USS Abraham Lincoln in San Diego Bay on Dec. 20, 2024.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

The domino effect

Every nation weighing its nuclear options is watching to see how this latest standoff between the U.S. and Iran plays out.

Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, has made no secret of its own nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring that the kingdom would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Yet a U.S. strike on Iran would not reassure Washington’s Gulf allies. Rather, it could unsettle them. The June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran were conducted to protect Israel, not Saudi Arabia or Iran. Gulf leaders may conclude that American military action flows to preferred partners, not necessarily to them. And if U.S. protection is selective rather than universal, a rational response could be to hedge independently.

Saudi Arabia’s deepening defense cooperation with nuclear power Pakistan, for example, represents a hedge against American unreliability and regional instability. The Gulf kingdom has invested heavily in Pakistani military capabilities and maintains what many analysts believe are understandings regarding Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Turkey, meanwhile, has chafed under NATO’s nuclear arrangements and has periodically signaled interest in an independent capability. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan questioned in 2019 why Turkey should not possess nuclear weapons when others in the region do. An attack on Iran, particularly one that Turkey opposes, could well accelerate Turkish hedging and potentially trigger a serious indigenous weapons program.

And the nuclear cascade would not likely stop at the Middle East. South Korea and Japan have remained non-nuclear largely because of confidence in American extended deterrence. Regional proliferation and the risk of a destabilized Iran exporting its know-how, scientists and technology would raise questions in Seoul and Tokyo about whether American guarantees can be trusted.

An emerging counter-order?

Arab Gulf monarchies certainly understand these risks, which goes some way toward explaining why they have lobbied the Trump administration against military action against Iran – despite Tehran being a major antagonism in Gulf states’ desire to “de-risk” the region.

The American-led regional security architecture is already under strain. It risks fraying further if Gulf partners diversify their security ties and hedge against U.S. unpredictability.

As a result, the Trump administration’s threats and potential strikes against Iran may, conversely, result not in increased American influence, but in diminished relevance as the region divides into competing spheres of influence.

And perhaps most alarming of all, I fear that it could teach every aspiring nuclear state that security is attainable only through the possession of the bomb.

Farah N. Jan 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. US military action in Iran risks igniting a regional and global nuclear cascade – https://theconversation.com/us-military-action-in-iran-risks-igniting-a-regional-and-global-nuclear-cascade-274599

January 29, 2026

How the Supreme Court might protect the Fed’s independence by using employment law in Trump v. Cook

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Elizabeth C. Tippett, Associate Professor of Law, University of Oregon

Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook leaves the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2026, after oral arguments in Trump v. Cook. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Most of the Trump administration’s legal disputes involving the firing of high-level officials deal with the scope of presidential power.

On Jan. 21, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the most significant cases of this kind to date. It was brought by Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Fed serves as the U.S. central bank and sets monetary policy – including a key interest rate that influences borrowing costs.

President Joe Biden nominated Cook in 2022, and she was sworn in in May of that year.

President Donald Trump fired her on Aug. 25, 2025, but a lower court temporarily reinstated Cook to her role on Sept. 9.

Based on the oral arguments, a majority of the court’s justices seem inclined to protect the Fed’s independence by treating this case as an employment dispute. As a law professor who specializes in employment law and follows the Supreme Court, I can explain how that might play out.

Why Cook’s case matters

To be sure, this is not a typical employment law case because Cook has far more legal rights to her job than most American workers.

The vast majority of U.S. workers are employed “at-will” – meaning they can be fired for any reason and severed from their jobs with no advance notice. Cook’s position is covered by the Federal Reserve Act, which states that board members will be appointed by the president to 14-year terms and can be terminated by the president, but only for “cause.”

A federal judge presiding over the case in the District of Columbia also ruled that Cook was entitled to “due process” before her termination – meaning some notice, an explanation of the evidence against her and an opportunity to respond.

Cook’s lawsuit has outsized importance because the Fed’s board oversees the Federal Reserve.

As former Fed governors explained in a friend-of-the-court brief, “effective monetary policy requires a commitment to long-term goals,” and the lengthy 14-year terms of board members “are designed to insulate” them “from short-term political pressures.”

In another brief to the court, economists also expressed concern that a loss of independence could undermine the dollar’s status as a global reserve currency, which tends to protect the U.S. during global shocks.

These concerns appear to be shared by the Supreme Court. During oral argument, for example, Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly pressed the government’s lawyer to concede – and articulate – the importance of Fed independence, grilling him as if he were a first-year law student.

In a 2009 law review article, Kavanaugh wrote that it “may be worthwhile to insulate” the Federal Reserve Board “from direct presidential oversight.”

A group of people meet at a conference table while the Federal Reserve insignia is projected onto a screen above their heads. — President Trump has sought to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, sitting to Fed chair Jerome Powell’s left.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

What can count as cause for firing someone?

The Department of Justice announced in September 2025 that it was investigating Cook for allegedly making false statements on mortgage applications in 2021. Cook has denied those allegations.

As law professor Jed Shugarman has observed, it’s possible that the court will not rule on Cook’s case beyond allowing the lower court to proceed to a final decision. This would be the most cautious approach, since multiple justices pointed out that the facts about Cook’s alleged wrongdoing were not fully developed.

If the Supreme Court offers legal guidance to the lower court, the question of what counts as cause under the Federal Reserve Act is far from clear. The statute does not define the term, which lacks a clear meaning.

Modern American employment law starts from the baseline assumption of at-will status, where cause doesn’t matter because workers can be terminated for any reason. The rare employment contracts that promise termination for cause – like for executives, football coaches or workers who belong to unions – spell out what cause means in the contract.

When must an offense occur if an official is to be fired over it?

The reference to termination for cause appeared in the original 1913 Federal Reserve Act. But it was taken out in 1933 and then added back in 1935 after a series of lengthy Senate hearings on Fed independence. To decide what the cause provision means for Cook today, the justices may delve into what cause meant back in 1935.

As I note in “The Master-Servant Doctrine: How Old Legal Rules Haunt the Modern Workplace,” my 2025 book, standards for conduct justifying termination have changed over time.

According to an influential study by law professors Jane Manners and Lev Menand, the historical meaning of cause for federal agency heads was based on “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

The U.S. District Court applied this definition to Cook’s case, and inferred that cause only meant acts committed after she was appointed to the Fed’s Board of Governors. An act that predates the official’s Senate confirmation, the court explained, “has never been a basis for removal.”

At oral argument, the Supreme Court’s justices also focused on Congress’ purpose in enacting the firing-for-cause rule: to protect Fed independence from other branches of government.

This interpretation would, at minimum, protect Cook and other Fed governors from being fired due to policy differences with a president, such as Trump’s repeated complaints over the frequency and size of the Fed’s interest rate cuts.

An interpretation of this sort could be similar to antidiscrimination law or whistleblower law, which make it illegal for employers to fire someone for a fake or a flimsy reason to cover up their true motive – such as discrimination or retaliation.

What counts as due process?

As a matter of constitutional law, government workers who can only be terminated for cause have the right to receive “due process” from their employer prior to termination.

This process is known as a “Loudermill” hearing – named after the leading case on point – which generally consists of a presentation of the evidence against the worker and the opportunity to respond.

The lower court ruled that Cook had not been provided due process. At the Supreme Court, the government’s attorney tried to argue that Cook was given the equivalent of a Loudermill hearing, based on a Truth Social post that Trump made on Aug. 20, 2025, calling for her to resign. It was linked to apparent evidence in a news report about mortgage applications Cook filed in 2021.

The attorney argued that the five-day delay between Trump’s first post and Cook’s firing gave her an opportunity to respond.

Some Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism that social media posts can satisfy the Loudermill standard. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, pointedly asked, “Why couldn’t those resources (used to litigate the case) have been put into a hearing?”

Yet I also got the sense that some justices, especially Kavanaugh, seemed reluctant to hang their hat on due process alone.

A hearing and an opportunity to respond – without a meaningful definition of “cause” – wouldn’t limit the reasons a member of the Fed could be terminated. It would only require a president to go through the motions of showing how he or she reached a foregone conclusion.

And, in my view, that is no substitute for independence.

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

– ref. How the Supreme Court might protect the Fed’s independence by using employment law in Trump v. Cook – https://theconversation.com/how-the-supreme-court-might-protect-the-feds-independence-by-using-employment-law-in-trump-v-cook-274264

January 29, 2026

Pierre Poilievre: The most successful unsuccessful leader in Canadian politics?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stewart Prest, Lecturer, Political Science, University of British Columbia

Nine months after falling definitively short in the 2025 federal election, Pierre Poilievre is facing a mandatory leadership review at this weekend’s Conservative Party convention.

By all accounts, he’s likely to cruise through the review, since he enjoys strong support among Conservative Party members.

That support extends to the broader voting coalition Poilievre has assembled, which continues to stand behind his leadership for the most part. Recent polling suggests that more than three quarters of Conservative voters view him as doing an “excellent” job.

The problem for Poilievre and the party, however, is that among those who did not vote Conservative, the view is starkly different. In that same recent Abacus poll, 62 per cent of non-Conservative voters reported he’s doing a “poor” or “very poor” job.

In a sense, Poilievre is the most successful unsuccessful leader in Canadian politics.

The Justin Trudeau problem

If you count by share of the vote, Poilievre led the party to its best showing in nearly 40 years. Brian Mulroney was the last leader of a Conservative party to crack 40 per cent of the vote share across the country. He also got the party to its best share of seats since Stephen Harper’s lone majority victory in 2011.

Poilievre managed to pull together, and even expand, the coalition of Conservative voters, appealing in particular to younger male voters, and was making inroads with labour voters — at least until Donald Trump showed up for his second term as American president.

Thanks largely due to Trump’s threats to make Canada a 51st state, Liberals performed even better in the election. Defying the odds, newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney led the Liberals back from what seemed like certain defeat, assisted by the emergence of a far more more belligerent United States following Trump’s return.

The Liberals bested the Conservatives in vote share and seat share, cementing Carney’s leadership of the country.

An even bigger problem for Poilievre is that his own approach to politics as opposition leader almost certainly influenced the Liberal rebound after Justin Trudeau stepped down — and when an electoral landslide seemed all but assured for the Conservatives.

Because Canadians considered Trudeau a problem, Poilievre’s take-no-prisoners approach paid significant dividends. The Conservatives led the Liberals by an increasingly comfortable margin throughout 2024. Language about the country being broken didn’t seem out of place to those tired of the status quo.

The Donald Trump impact

As soon as Trump made himself the problem, however, most Canadians looked for a much more fulsome response than Poilievre was able to offer. Rather than a leader focused on criticizing Canada, the majority of Canadians above all wanted one who promised to stand up against the American threat.

Similarities between Poilievre and Trump — sometimes rhetorical, other times substantive, and sometimes both — deepened the suspicion.

This divisiveness has continued to plague the party in the months since the 2025 election. One Conservative MP has decided to resign and two others have actually crossed the floor to join the Liberals, bringing the governing party within a hair’s breadth of a majority.

Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont cited Poilievre’s leadership style specifically in explaining his decision to become a Liberal, suggesting the Conservative leader was too negative at a time when the country needed solutions-oriented politics.

This remains the quandary for the Conservative leader and the party: everything Poilievre does to secure the support of the more populist wing of the conservative movement in Canada tends to alienate the rest of the country, while any move to the centre risks condemnation from those further to the right.

Poilievre has won over core Conservatives and alienated the rest of the country, including that crucial share of voters necessary to push the Conservatives over the top.

Repelling more than he attracts

There is, to be sure, a path to victory still available to the Conservatives. A resurgent NDP, or some other wobble in Liberal fortunes, could be enough to put the Conservatives over the top next federal election.

They cannot count on such luck, however. Faced with the generational event that is the second Trump presidency, many Canadians are viewing the current Canada-U.S. tensions as an “us/them” existential battle, with other issues pushed into the background.

This week’s premier’s meeting in New Brunswick, for example, focused heavily on national unity. So too did Carney’s meeting with premiers in Ottawa.

This seems likely to persist so long as the U.S. poses a threat to Canadian security and prosperity. And as long as Poilievre presents himself as being sympathetic to Trump’s populist project, Canadians not already in the Conservative column will look to keep him out of the Prime Minister’s Office.

The most likely result, then, of this weekend’s review is a strong endorsement of Poilievre’s leadership and a continuation of the status quo: a country that has come together on a question of existential importance, but an opposition leader who divides, repelling more than he attracts.

Stewart Prest 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. Pierre Poilievre: The most successful unsuccessful leader in Canadian politics? – https://theconversation.com/pierre-poilievre-the-most-successful-unsuccessful-leader-in-canadian-politics-274358

January 29, 2026

With Iran weakened, Trump’s end goal may now be regime change. It’s an incredibly risky gamble

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran are once again on the brink of a major confrontation. This would have terrible ramifications for both countries, the region and the world.

All signs point in this direction, but the two sides also have an off-ramp: the possibility of reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and other disputed issues.

The Iranian regime has never been so besieged both internally and externally. It has just faced yet another widespread protest movement demanding the government’s ouster, while dealing with the threat of military action by the US, supported by its ally, Israel.

Even so, the regime remains resilient and defiant. It brutally crushed the recent protests at the cost of thousands of lives and mass arrests and has warned the US of an all-out war if it attacks.

At the same time, it has signalled a willingness to reach a deal with the US over its nuclear program to avoid such an outcome.

So, what happens next, and can war be avoided?

A regime in survival mode

The regime’s tenacity is embedded in its unique theocratic nature, in which societal subordination and confrontation with outside enemies are the modus operandi.

Since its inception 47 years ago, the regime has learned how to ensure its longevity. This requires having a strong and defendable state, armed with all the necessary repressive instruments of state power, along with an ideology that mixes the concept of Shia Islamic martyrdom with fierce Iranian nationalism.

Given this, the regime has operated within a jihadi (combative) and ijtihadi (pragmatist) framework for its survival.

It has prepared for both war and making deals. This is not the first time Iran’s clerical leaders have been put in a tight corner by their own people and outside adversaries. They have always found a way to work through challenges and threats to their existence.

Still, the current challenge is bigger than any they’ve faced before. Over the past month, US President Donald Trump has vowed to punish the regime for its repression of the Iranian people, and now for its refusal to reach a deal on its nuclear program.

Some believe his ultimate goal, though, is to create the conditions for regime change.

Regime change not a given

Trump must know that regime change in Iran will not happen easily. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his fellow clerics are ready to fight to the very end. They know that if the Islamic system they created goes down, everyone in the regime is most likely to perish with it.

The regime has built sufficient fanatical forces (namely, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij paramilitary force) and advanced missiles and drones to defend itself. It also has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz, though which 20% of the world’s oil and 25% of its liquefied natural gas flows every day.

The regime also has the backing of China, Russia and North Korea, which means any US assault could quickly escalate into a broader regional war.

Although Trump has not favoured regime change in the past, he now seems as if he’s not ruling it out. (His ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long had this aim.)

But even though Trump now has a “massive armada” of ships and fighter jets in the region, the Iranian regime cannot be toppled by air and sea alone. And a ground invasion is not on Trump’s agenda, given the United States’ bitter experiences with ground offensives in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The regime could only crumble if a sizeable part of its security forces defected to the opposition. So far, they have remained quite loyal and solidly behind the leadership – as the brutal crackdown to the recent protests shows.

A possible destabilising future

Even if the regime were to crumble from within by some chance, what would come next?

Iran is a large and complex country, with an ethnically mixed population. While Persians form a slim majority of the population, the country has significant minority groups, such as the Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Balochis. They all have a history of movements for secession and autonomy.

With the exception of two short periods of experimenting with democracy in the early and mid-20th century, Iran has been governed by authoritarian rulers. In the event of a power vacuum, it remains prone to chaos and disintegration.

It is doubtful that Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled from 1941–79, will command sufficient public support and organisational strength to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. He has lived most of his life in exile in the US and has been closely identified with Israeli and American interests.

Netanyahu would be pleased to see a disintegrated Iran, as he has always wanted to prevent the formation of a united Muslim front against Israel. But the fall-out from a destabilised Iran would be problematic for the region.

These considerations are probably weighing on Trump’s mind, delaying his promise to the Iranian protesters that “help is on its way”.

Diplomacy is the better way forward. The time has come for the Iranian and American leadership to compromise and resurrect their July 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump withdrew in 2018.

This should be urgently followed by Iran’s clerical rulers opening their iron fist and allowing the Iranian people to determine their future and that of their country within a democratic framework.

Otherwise, the volatility that has long dominated this oil-rich country, where between 30–40% of the population lives in poverty, will eventually devour the regime.

Amin Saikal 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. With Iran weakened, Trump’s end goal may now be regime change. It’s an incredibly risky gamble – https://theconversation.com/with-iran-weakened-trumps-end-goal-may-now-be-regime-change-its-an-incredibly-risky-gamble-274626

January 29, 2026

Death in Minneapolis and the battle for truth in Trump’s America

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

How BBC Verify analysed available video footage of Alex Pretti’s death.

However, a concerted campaign by liberal lawmakers including Jimmy Roosevelt inside Congress, as well as legions of well-organised activists, managed to consign Huac to history’s dustbin in 1975.

Ukraine: diplomatic stalemate

War in Iran?

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Death in Minneapolis and the battle for truth in Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/death-in-minneapolis-and-the-battle-for-truth-in-trumps-america-274675

January 29, 2026

Winter changes more than the weather — it changes how we connect. Here’s how to stay socially engaged

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kiffer George Card, Assistant Professor in Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Throughout Earth’s history, life in temperate and polar zones has had to contend with the cold and darkness of winter. Across species, seasonal adaptation is the norm. Some animals hibernate, others migrate, and many reduce activity, conserve energy, and narrow their social and ecological range until conditions improve. These strategies evolved over millennia as reliable responses to predictable environmental stress.

Humans are no exception. Seasonal cycles have a deep impact on our psychology and well-being — after all, for most of our evolutionary and recorded history, winter has shaped how we live, work and relate to one another. For our ancestors, food was scarcer, travel more difficult and daily activity contracted due to shorter days. Social life often shifted indoors and inward, and organized around smaller groups, shared labour and mutual dependence.

While modern societies have reduced many of winter’s material hardships, the season continues to exert a powerful influence on human behaviour and well-being.

As a social ecologist interested in human wellness, my research focuses on how our natural and social environments shape our well-being and what we can do to improve our relationships with these environments to maximize our well-being.

In this work, I study the drivers of emotional responses, such as loneliness and eco-anxiety. This work has taught me how inseparably connected we are to each other and to our environments, and one of my key areas of interest is how our social and natural worlds are intertwined.

Understanding how well-being is affected by weather

One area of research that has fascinated me is how humans respond to the weather and day-night cycles of the places they live. For example, research has shown that colder temperatures, greater precipitaiton and shorter periods of sunshine are associated with outcomes such as greater tiredness, stress, loneliness, and poorer life satisfaction and self-rated health.

As such, it makes sense that we are more likely to have depressive symptoms or feel tired and lonely in the winter compared to the spring and summer. Perhaps most concerning, studies of suicide attempts, loneliness and their seasonality indicate that winter weather can contribute to each, suggesting that seasonal shifts in social connection may intensify vulnerability during these periods.

Taken together, I believe this body of work suggests that the most consequential pathway linking winter conditions to well-being may not be weather exposure itself, but its effects on social connection. After all, human beings are fundamentally social animals — we greatly rely on each other for our happiness, health and survival.

Fortunately, the effect of weather on our mood is small and people can overcome it through intentional efforts. Indeed, human beings are incredibly adaptive to their environments, meaning even in poor weather contexts we can find ways to meet our social needs.

Illustrating this, research comparing levels of social isolation across neighbourhoods during cold weather highlights differences in how some communities respond to cold weather, with those choosing more indoor time throughout the day experiencing greater social isolation.

Research also suggests that our personality traits shape how resilient we are to weather changes. Studies such as these underscore that our responses to cold weather can shape its effects on us. Environment is not destiny, if we know how to address it.

So what can we do during the cold dark winter months to stay connected, and therefore happy and healthy? The research consistently shows that staying socially engaged, even in small ways, protects mental health and promotes well-being.

Ways to get connected in the cold

While winter may reduce incidental social contact, connection can be maintained through deliberate routines and low-threshold forms of engagement, including:

• committing to a weekly or biweekly group activity, such as a book club, exercise class, faith-based group or hobby circle

• organizing small, recurring gatherings, such as rotating dinners, shared meals or weekend brunches

• scheduling regular phone or video check-ins with family or friends and treating them as fixed commitments

• integrating social contact into daily activities, such as walking, running errands, exercising or having coffee together

• using daylight strategically by planning brief outdoor meetups or spending time in naturally lit public spaces

• participating in year-round volunteer roles that provide regular contact and a sense of purpose

• enrolling in short-term courses or workshops that create repeated contact over several weeks

• connecting through shared projects, such as creative work, community caregiving or co-hosted events

• initiating contact with others who may also be withdrawing socially during winter

It’s not always easy, but it is worth it

Of course, such activities take time and energy and are not always the easiest to do. Snow-caked roads and reduced sunlight hours can pose real mobility challenges. So while we might want to connect, we are not always able to when we face such environmental barriers.

In fact, one of my favourite findings in the literature is that while people naturally feel inclined to seek out social affiliation in response to cold weather (something I believe to be a survival strategy we’ve inherited from our less technologically equipped ancestors), physical warmth acts psychologically as a satisfactory replacement — even if it lacks the long-term benefits of social connection.

In other words, the modern amenities of space heaters and cozy blankets make it easier for us to isolate — and many of us are happy to enjoy the warmth from these instead of the warmth offered by social connection.

However, knowing the central importance of social connection to well-being, it’s important to not fall trap to these creature comforts. There is not anything wrong with being alone from time to time, but winter is too long a season to spend alone safely.

Intentional effort

In short, we need to recognize that winter weather has a predictable effect on our well-being, and this effect calls for deliberate social adaptation. Human well-being has always depended on the ability to respond collectively to seasonal constraint, and the contemporary winter environment is no different, even if its risks are less visible.

The evidence reviewed above suggests that while the cold, darkness and reduced mobility can heighten vulnerability, their effects are shaped by how individuals and communities organize daily life, social routines and sources of connection. Comfort, convenience and withdrawal may offer short-term relief, but they do not substitute for the protective role of sustained social engagement.

Winter demands intention rather than retreat. By recognizing social connection as a seasonal health behaviour rather than a discretionary luxury, individuals and communities can better align modern living with enduring human needs, reducing risk and supporting well-being across the long months of cold and dark.

Kiffer George Card is president of the Mental Health and Climate Change Alliance and Social Health Canada and has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Health Research British Columbia, Canadian Red Cross, Public Health Agency of Canada, Government of British Columbia, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research for his work related to the social and natural environmental factors shaping wellbeing.

– ref. Winter changes more than the weather — it changes how we connect. Here’s how to stay socially engaged – https://theconversation.com/winter-changes-more-than-the-weather-it-changes-how-we-connect-heres-how-to-stay-socially-engaged-273684

January 29, 2026

Filing taxes for someone else? Here’s how to do it safely

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Celine Latulipe, Professor, Computer Science, University of Manitoba

Filing taxes every year is an important and necessary task in Canada. But for many, tax preparation and filing can be overwhelming. One reason is that tax forms can sometimes be hard to interpret, especially because most people only deal with them once a year.

Another factor is the shift to digital: tax forms are often delivered electronically; tax software has become the preferred method for tax preparation and filing; and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) prefers to send all tax information electronically through the CRA MyAccount.

With this digital system, it’s typically necessary to access tax forms and previous Notices of Assessment by logging in to your CRA MyAccount. This can be a barrier for those with less experience using computers and online accounts, such as some older adults.

Many people act as informal tax helpers by filing taxes for older parents, relatives or friends. In fact, half of Canadians filing taxes have someone else do their taxes for them. Of those, one in five reports getting help from a friend or family member acting as an informal tax helper.

This means about 10 per cent of tax filers in Canada rely on family or friends to file their taxes. The CRA has a Represent a Client program that allows informal tax helpers to log in to the CRA MyAccount of the person they are helping to access relevant tax forms. However, a study that I recently conducted with colleauges shows that this mechanism is under-utilized.

How informal tax helpers access CRA accounts

Getting help with taxes can take many forms: hiring an accountant, visiting a tax preparation company, getting help from a volunteer through the Canadian Volunteer Income Tax Program (CVITP) or delegating to an informal tax helper.

Tax accountants, tax preparers and CVITP volunteers have business IDs or Group IDs for accessing CRA MyAccounts of the clients they assist. Similarly, informal tax helpers can sign up with CRA’s Represent a Client program to get RepIDs, which are ID numbers provided by the CRA to people whose identity is verified by having their own CRA MyAccount.

As an example, having a RepID allows me to access my daughter’s CRA MyAccount to get her Notices of Assessments, download tax forms and use NetFile to file her taxes. I could ask my daughter to log in and download those items for me, but it is faster for me to do it, as I know what forms I’m looking for and where to find them.

The Canada Revenue Agency’s ‘Represent a Client’ landing page.
(Canada Revenue Agency)

Having a RepID does not give access to everyone’s tax records. A link needs to be established between the helper’s RepID and the CRA MyAccount of the person they are assisting. This can be done by uploading a signed form from the taxpayer or by sending an authorization request through the CRA system, which the taxpayer must approve.

The risks of sharing login credentials

In our study, we investigated CRA delegation mechanisms. We conducted a semi-structured interview study with 19 participants, including older adults, formal tax volunteers and informal tax helpers, to understand the challenges and experiences of tax delegation.

We found that only one informal tax helper used a RepID. Most either did everything using paper forms provided by the person they are helping, or they accessed that person’s CRA MyAccount using that individual’s credentials to log in.

In some cases, informal tax helpers may actually be setting up the CRA MyAccounts for the people they are helping, which means they know the login credentials. This violates the terms of service of the CRA MyAccount — you are not supposed to share your password with anyone.

While informal tax helpers are providing a valuable and helpful service to their friends and families, using a person’s credentials to access their CRA MyAccounts is problematic.

When an informal tax helper knows someone else’s CRA login credentials, they could log in as that user, change the mailing address and banking deposit details, and then make bogus tax and benefit claims. In this case, the CRA has no way to tell that it is someone else logging in and taking actions on behalf of the taxpayer associated with the account.

However, if an informal tax helper uses a RepID to access someone’s CRA MyAccount, the CRA knows exactly who is doing what. They don’t allow informal tax helpers to change the mailing address or bank deposit information, which goes a long way to preventing tax fraud.

Make tax help safer with a CRA RepID

If someone is helping you file your taxes, ask them to get a CRA RepID. It’s a quick process for them, and then they can access tax forms in your CRA MyAccount safely. This way, the CRA will know when it is them signing in to your account versus you, and your helper will only be able to access the appropriate functions.

The interface for requesting access, on the 'select authorization level' step. Level 1 allows a representative to view client information, while Level 2 allows a representative to view information and perform actions on behalf of a client. — The Canada Revenue Agency’s Represent a Client web page. Two levels of access are available, and neither allows the editing of critical details like bank deposit information or client address. An expiry date can also be set so that access does not have to be granted indefinitely.
(Canada Revenue Agency)

Most informal tax helpers are honest, helpful people and they shouldn’t have to impersonate you to get your taxes done. Using the CRA’s Represent a Client system provides legitimacy to informal tax helpers and safety for those getting assistance.

With the tax deadline of April 30, 2026 approaching, if you plan to have someone assist you with tax filing, it’s a good time to check with them to make sure they use a RepID to access your CRA MyAccount. Doing this early can help avoid last-minute stress, ensure your tax return is filed accurately and give you confidence that your information is secure.

Celine Latulipe receives funding from NSERC.

– ref. Filing taxes for someone else? Here’s how to do it safely – https://theconversation.com/filing-taxes-for-someone-else-heres-how-to-do-it-safely-271924

January 29, 2026

Why drug approval in Canada should not rely on foreign regulators

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joel Lexchin, Associate professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto; York University, Canada; University of Sydney

Without much fanfare, Health Canada announced in the Canada Gazette Part 1 on Dec. 22, 2025 that it was beginning a 70-day consultation period on using the decisions of foreign drug regulators such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to approve new drugs in Canada.

If the proposal is approved, Health Canada will evaluate reports from the other regulators, and provided those reports are satisfactory and that the drugs met certain conditions (for example, the drug being considered by Health Canada has the same strength, dosage form, route of administration, medicinal ingredient and indications as the foreign drug), the new drug will be approved.

This announcement appears to be a continuation of the federal government’s Red Tape Review launched in July 2025. According to a report on this initiative, Health Canada’s rationale for this change is that “industry stakeholders have indicated that they face undue burden due to overlapping or unclear regulatory requirements, complex regulatory approvals, and onerous reporting and information demands” and have “raised concerns about the time it takes to get products to market.”

Health Canada states that “enhanced international regulatory alignment reduces burden for industry and can support increased health product submissions to Canada” and increase the number of new drugs available to Canadians.

These views reflected in the Red Tape Review align with those of the pharmaceutical industry. In its 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government, Innovative Medicines Canada (IMC), the main pharma industry lobby group, said that “reliance on trusted foreign regulatory reviews where appropriate…will streamline drug approvals and enable Health Canada to be a global regulatory leader.”

Faster drug approvals would also mean a shorter timeline to revenue generation for drug companies.

Benefits need to be evaluated

On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable initiative; countries with strong regulatory systems can draw on each other’s strengths so that tasks are not unnecessarily duplicated. In Canada’s case, our resources and capacity are limited compared with those of other leading regulatory authorities like the FDA and the EMA.

But before Canada starts using decisions from other jurisdictions, there is a need to evaluate whether this new way of approving drugs is actually going to be beneficial.

Australia has been using such a system since 2018. One of the benefits touted by the Australian government was that new drugs would be submitted faster to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the equivalent of Health Canada.

But comparing the gap in the timing of submissions to the FDA and the TGA since Australia began using foreign regulator decisions doesn’t provide any convincing evidence that this has actually happened.

My new study, currently under peer review, looks at the 29 drugs that have so far used the Australian system. Twenty-two of those drugs have been evaluated by one or more organizations that look at how much additional therapeutic value new drugs provide compared to existing therapies. Sixteen of the 22 offered only minor new gains and just two were a major benefit.

FDA standards and approval pathways

The U.S. approves more new drugs than Canada does. But a recent study that compared Canada and the U.S. found that many drugs available in the U.S., but not north of the border, already had existing alternatives that are therapeutically and chemically similar. The small number of drugs that were unique to the U.S. were not very clinically important.

Some industry observers think the standards that the FDA uses to approve new drugs have been declining over the past 15-20 years.

The FDA has increased its reliance on what are called expedited drug approval pathways in recent decades. These allow drugs onto the market with lower levels of evidence. Although they were initially designed for drugs that treat rare conditions or life-threatening illnesses that don’t have effective treatments, researchers have found that these expedited pathways are being increasingly used for drugs that may not be innovative.

If Canada were already using foreign decisions, aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) might have been put on the market in Canada as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. In the U.S., the FDA approved aducanumab despite a lack of evidence that it would benefit Alzheimer’s patients, and despite and the negative vote of 10 of the 11 members of the FDA’s advisory committee — the 11th member abstained — and the subsequent resignation of three of the committee members. The manufacturer eventually pulled Aduhelm from the U.S. market because almost no doctors were prescribing it.

Different regulatory cultures, different decisions

We also need to think about the consequences of the homogenization of drug approval standards. Homogenization ignores the development of different regulatory cultures in different jurisdictions that arise from networks of individuals who produce regulatory policy, determine testing standards and ultimately decide on market access for new drugs.

When presented with essentially the same evidence, the FDA and the EMA often make different decisions about oncology drugs. A 2020 study found frequent discordance between the FDA and the EMA. Another study compared the approval of 42 cancer drugs between 1995 and 2008 by the FDA and the EMA, and showed that in almost 50 per cent of cases, there was a discrepancy between EMA and FDA decisions.

So far, there is no evidence to back up the claim that using decisions made by foreign drug regulators will lead to faster access to newer and better drugs. Before Canada proceeds down this pathway, Health Canada needs to show that it will improve public health.

Between 2022-2025, Joel Lexchin received payments for writing a brief for a legal firm on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions for opioids, for being on a panel about pharmacare and for co-writing an article for a peer-reviewed medical journal on semaglutide. He is a member of the Board of the Canadian Health Coalition. He receives royalties from University of Toronto Press and James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. for books he has written. He has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in the past.

– ref. Why drug approval in Canada should not rely on foreign regulators – https://theconversation.com/why-drug-approval-in-canada-should-not-rely-on-foreign-regulators-273693