Some time earlier this year, an employee at tech giant Meta built a system to track how much each staff member was using artificial intelligence (AI).

Named “Claudeonomics” after the Claude chatbot, the system created a leaderboard ranked by the number of tokens each user was exchanging with AI models, with leaders given titles such as “Token Legend”. (Tokens are tiny chunks of text, each around four characters long, that language models use for processing.)

Meta is not alone in its fascination with “tokenmaxxing”: AI labs OpenAI and Anthropic, e-commerce company Shopify, and tech investment firm Sequoia capital are all reportedly monitoring AI usage and rewarding heavy users, some of whom burn billions of tokens in a week.

Reducing a person’s performance to a single metric can be appealing for management in large corporations. But the choice of what to measure isn’t a neutral one – and if we’re not careful, it can start to rewrite our vision of what we actually value.

The score keeps the score

One of the more full-throated advocates of tokenmaxxing is Jensen Huang, chief executive of chipmaker Nvidia, who envisions a future in which tech employees negotiate high token budgets and consume tokens at rates commensurate with their salaries. Around 80% of those tokens are currently processed via Nvidia’s chips, so Huang’s enthusiasm makes sense.

But is token consumption a helpful metric for those of us who do not profit directly from AI processing volume?

In a recent book, The Score, philosopher C. Thi Nguyen analyses the rise of metrics throughout modern society and offers some helpful insights.

As Nguyen emphasises, what we measure shapes our goals. We develop metrics as tools of convenience; they standardise our measurement of values so we can compare large numbers of otherwise disparate things.

This standardisation comes at the expense of variation and distinctiveness, Nguyen argues. In business, it can make workers seem interchangeable.

Determining which employees in a large organisation are consuming the most tokens in a week is fairly straightforward. But it tells us nothing about the quality or impact of their work.

Bad metrics, bad results

In the past, questionable metrics have contributed to dramatically bad outcomes.

Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, for example, many financial institutions had sophisticated systems of measures designed to incentivise selling as many loans as possible, as quickly as possible. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of those loans turned out to be far riskier than anyone realised.

Nguyen emphasises that these types of metrics can tempt us into thinking they are unavoidable. But one of the central lessons of moral philosophy is that we ought to pause at moments like these and ask a couple of basic questions: what is a good life, and what values are actually worth chasing?

Huang and others usually don’t present tokenmaxxing as an answer to these question. But that’s how it functions. What is worth devoting your professional and creative energy to? Simple: grinding through tokens.

A new vision of the good life?

Silicon Valley has, of late, produced a striking number of manifestos and quasi-constitutions.

Consider Anthropic’s Claude’s Constitution, published in January 2026, which sets out the company’s aspirations for its model’s values and speech. Or look at venture capitalist Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto, which makes the case for ambitiously accelerating technological advancements in the service of promoting human flourishing.

Some of the most influential texts in the history of moral and political philosophy take this form. Thomas Jefferson wrote one – the US Declaration of Independence. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote another – The Communist Manifesto.

One way to view these Silicon Valley proclamations, and trends like tokenmaxxing, is as repackaging familiar commonplaces of corporate life – recasting mission statements and key performance indicators in a loftier register. But another is to see them as attempts to do something far more ambitious: sketch the outlines of a new and far-reaching vision of the good life.

On that view, the metrics used to measure progress against the vision matter. Tokenmaxxing, for example, is already creeping beyond the bounds of the tech industry – one report from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania suggests many organisations are prioritising staff AI usage and spending as metrics.

Metrics can be useful – if we’re careful

Metrics do have their place in an ordered and complex society. There are many instances in which we might happily defer to the scores produced by simple metrics, trading nuance for convenience. Aggregate ratings on product or restaurant review sites, for example, can simplify our decision-making, even if they aren’t tailored to our specific preferences.

The problem is what Nguyen calls “value capture” – when we uncritically allow external metrics to determine our own goals and behaviour. Resisting this process involves questioning what is being measured and reframing it.

Instead of counting tokens, for example, we might use an equivalent metric such as energy consumption. Energymaxxing might sound more like conspicuous wastage, rather than improved performance.

Counting tokens is one measure of AI activity, which is itself intended as a measure of productivity, which in turn leaves aside the question of what is being produced. Not only is tokenmaxxing a dubious metric in itself, but it may also distort our vision of what matters.

Victoria Lorrimar receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation.

Tim Smartt 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.

Summer is here – the perfect time to take a walk on a beach. But doing so is not always as simple as it might sound.

In Wisconsin, for instance, a legal case has stretched for months over whether Paul Florsheim may keep walking on a Lake Michigan beach he has walked for over 50 years.

In July 2025, Florsheim, a retired professor of public health at the university where we work, got a ticket for trespassing on a beach. The person who owns the land adjacent to the sand says the beach is a private backyard. The judge found Florsheim guilty, but Florsheim has appealed.

The case has sparked widespread discussion around the Great Lakes and raises a question hotly debated in many of the country’s coastal communities: Who is allowed on which beaches?

We are water law and policy researchers studying shoreline access in the Great Lakes region and beyond. Research shows there are many physical and psychological benefits to visiting waterside spaces. But our center’s research has found that getting to the water’s edge isn’t as straightforward as it might seem – or as many people might like.

An ancient right in modern times

A legal principle known as the public trust doctrine establishes people’s rights to use certain lands and waters.

The concept originated in Roman law and was carried through English common law into the laws of Britain’s American colonies, and on to the rest of the United States. It is well settled federal law that as states joined the union, the U.S. government transferred to those states the ownership of navigable waters and the beds beneath them, to be held in trust for all the people.

The division between those public trust areas and private land is usually set at what is called the “ordinary high-water mark,” or “mean high tide line.” That designation refers to a specific location on the shore established by a discernible line, often based on debris buildup or vegetation growth, on the land side of the point at which the water contacts the shore.

Historically, public trust rights included the “right of passage” on foot over land below the ordinary high-water mark. However, the specific rules for any given location are a patchwork established by states along the U.S. seashores, the Great Lakes and smaller bodies of water. And in some states, there’s no clear legal answer to whether beach walking is allowed.

Legislatures or courts have not consistently addressed beach walking below the high tide line on the oceans. California’s Constitution and Coastal Act strongly protect public access in this zone, while Massachusetts and Maine, because they were carved out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, say even land to the low tide line can be privately owned.

Only three of the eight Great Lakes states have taken up the issue – Indiana, Michigan and New York. All have uniformly recognized the legal right to walk on Great Lakes beaches below the high-water mark.

But that leaves a lot of states – and a lot of beaches – without clear guidance on the matter.

A long-running dispute

In the southern Maine coastal community of Wells, there is a yearslong fight between people who want to walk on the beach and people who claim to own it.

In 1989, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that shorefront property extends beyond the mean high tide line, all the way to the mean low tide line, and that the only public activities allowed between the tide lines are “fishing, fowling, and navigation” – not walking.

In 2021, local residents filed a lawsuit asking courts to change that ruling, to declare that the area between the low tide and high tide lines should be held in trust for the people’s use – including walking and running. The case is still in litigation today, with some parties to the case saying they want to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But in the meantime, the property owners are standing their ground. In 2023, they laid a line of seaweed marking what they said was the public-private boundary. The following year, they erected “no trespassing,” “private beach,” and “no loitering” signs and called police on people they said were on private property.

Barring access

There are other ways people are excluded from walking on beaches, even in states with clear protections for public access. If they can’t even get to the sand – or rising waters mean there’s no beach at all – they can’t enjoy walking on it.

In some places, developers install seawalls to protect their land against rising waters. But those walls tend to cut off beach access and can even cause more erosion.

North Carolina, California, New Jersey and Florida have responded by enacting laws to protect public access to beaches when developers request erosion-control structures. But state agencies have ended up in court defending state protections against private property owners and developers.

And in Michigan, where the state Supreme Court has said the public can walk on Great Lakes beaches, some Lake Michigan shoreline property owners are building miles of seawalls and rock barriers. Those new structures may fight erosion, but they also are either built on what used to be beaches or are private structures that are hard to climb over to reach the sand.

Some property owners block beach access by closing roads leading to the sand, as one California property owner illegally did by locking two gates for years, according to a series of rulings by the state’s coastal commission. In June 2026, a Milwaukee TV station reported that one Wisconsin property owner had roped off a stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline historically accessed by the public and erected multiple “no trespassing” signs and a mounted trail camera to monitor activity.

Some local governments restrict beach access by allowing only local residents to park close to beaches or selling beach-access points to private developers.

In some places, such as Forest Park, Illinois, and Norwalk, Connecticut, local governments have rules requiring nonresidents to pay to park or use the beach.

Taking a different approach

Some communities are taking matters into their own hands to protect public access. For example, a group of municipalities in Door County, Wisconsin, have invested more than $26 million to acquire over 2,700 feet of Lake Michigan shoreline and 128 acres of waterfront land for public use.

The effort was spurred in part by fears that private development would restrict public access and use of the shoreline. But this is an unusual approach: About 80% of the U.S. Great Lakes coastal uplands are privately owned, and other municipalities are seeking commercial shoreline development rather than public use.

Public access to those Door County beaches is protected, but the Florsheim case will decide – for the first time in the state – whether the public may walk on as much as 800 miles of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes beaches. Yet because of other efforts to block access to the water itself, that is just one aspect of the legal questions about who can actually get sand between their toes.

Melissa Scanlan is the founder of Midwest Environmental Advocates, the organization that represents Paul Florsheim in his beach walking lawsuit. She no longer works for the organization and does not serve on its board of directors.

Will Matuska 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.

Did you know your body has an inbuilt sewerage system?

It’s called the lymphatic system, and is a crucial part of how your body fights infection and disease.

Lately the lymphatic system is causing a stir online, with some social media personalities promoting “lymphatic drainage” for beauty and skin health.

So what is lymphatic drainage? And is it backed by science?

What does the lymphatic system do?

The lymphatic system is a network of tiny vessels that, like your blood vessels, branch out to most tissues in the human body.

These vessels carry lymph, a colourless fluid that contains specialised white blood cells known as lymphocytes. Lymphocytes help the body fight infection.

Unlike blood, which circulates around your body in a loop, lymph moves in one direction. It starts off as extra fluid in the tissues in your body, which is then picked up by lymphatic capillaries. From there it travels through to larger lymph vessels and nodes, before draining back into the bloodstream.

The lymphatic system has three main jobs:

• draining excess fluid, mainly to prevent swelling
• supporting immunity, by helping the immune system detect and respond to unwanted substances such as bacteria, viruses, parasites and cancer cells
• absorbing fats, mainly from food, to transport them back into the body.

When something’s wrong

If the lymphatic system is not working properly, the affected body part can start to swell. This swelling is known as lymphoedema, and most commonly affects the arms or legs.

There are two main types of lymphoedema.

Primary lymphoedema occurs when the lymphatic system does not develop properly. This may be due to a genetic condition which impacts the number of lymphatic vessels you have, or their ability to pump fluid. Primary lymphoedema may be present from birth, or may develop during puberty or in adulthood.

Secondary lymphoedema occurs when the lymphatic system is damaged in some way. A common cause of secondary lymphoedema is cancer. This is because cancer treatment may involve surgically removing lymph nodes or unintentionally damaging them with radiation therapy.

Lymphoedema is a sign your lymph fluid isn’t draining properly. To keep things moving, your body pushes lymph into the tiny lymphatic capillaries near your skin. It’s similar to a traffic jam, where cars need to leave the highway to drive on backroads. However, these backroads soon become congested because they aren’t designed to handle that much traffic.

A special type of imaging known as indocyanine green lymphography can test whether your lymphatic system is congested. If your limbs show signs of persistent swelling, your GP will first assess the swelling to rule out other common causes. If they suspect lymphoedema is the cause, they can refer you to a lymphoedema specialist who may request indocyanine green lymphography to help with diagnosis and/or treatment.

People with lymphoedema may also be more vulnerable to infections because their lymphatic system isn’t working as it should. A common and potentially serious one is cellulitis, a bacterial skin infection which can leave you with red, swollen skin.

---

Read more: What are lymph nodes? And can a massage really improve lymphatic drainage?

---

What is ‘lymphatic drainage’?

The main treatment for lymphoedema is compression. This involves using medical stockings or bandaging to apply pressure to the swollen body part. This helps move excess fluid from the affected area while also softening any hard, swollen tissue.

Exercise and skincare may also help treat lymphoedema. When your muscles contract during exercise, they act like a pump and help move fluids – such as lymph – around the body. Daily skincare, which may involve washing with a pH-neutral soap and applying moisturiser, is important for keeping the skin clean and well-moisturised. It also helps prevent cracks and infections, which might make lymphoedema worse.

Some people with lymphoedema may benefit from manual lymphatic drainage. This usually involves a trained lymphoedema practitioner using specialised massage techniques that help move fluid out of congested areas. This ensures your body drains lymph fluid if, for some reason, it can’t do so properly by itself.

However, there’s little evidence that manual lymphatic drainage alone treats lymphoedema in any significant or lasting way. This is also the case with claims – mainly circulated on social media – that manual lymphatic drainage can make your skin healthier and more beautiful. The research here is even more limited, and any potential benefits are likely to be small or short-lived.

The bottom line

If your lymphatic system is healthy and you don’t have any swelling, you probably don’t need “lymphatic drainage”. To keep your lymphatic system working well, it’s best to have a balanced diet, stay hydrated and exercise regularly.

If you do notice any swelling or have concerns about your lymphatic system, speak to your GP. If you are having treatment for cancer, you should consult an accredited lymphoedema practitioner. If they recommend trying manual lymphatic drainage, it should be done by a trained lymphoedema therapist. And you should receive it alongside other evidence-based treatments such as compression, exercise and skin care.

Belinda Thompson receives funding from Essity and Haddenham Healthcare.

Louise Koelmeyer receives funding from Essity and Haddenham Healthcare.

Early summer is a valuable time for parents and young people to prepare for the transition to college in the fall.

As first-year college students arrive on campus every fall, a predictable pattern unfolds. Rates of heavy drinking spike, social pressures intensify, and the risk of sexual assault, injury and other harms increases.

Many parents feel trepidation about their teens navigating this landscape of opportunity and risk. And unfortunately, too often, students don’t receive guidance from schools or caregivers as they make this major life transition.

Research suggests that the summer before college can be a critical window to help students prepare for the social and emotional realities they are about to face, and to reduce risks before they begin. And parents and caregivers can play a key role.

We are a sociologist and a research scientist, and each of us studies different aspects of prevention science.

When we went to college in the 1980s and early 2000s, the dominant message to families was to step back and let students figure things out on their own, and we struggled to adjust. Looking back, we wish our families had received clear guidance and resources for how to stay connected and support us during this transition.

A perfect storm

While students may legally be adults when they leave for college, key parts of the brain – particularly those involved in judgment, impulse control, emotional regulation and decision-making – are still developing well into their mid-20s. At the same time, the parts of the brain tied to reward, emotion and social belonging are especially sensitive during this stage of life.

This combination can make young people more likely to prioritize immediate rewards, peer acceptance and emotional reactions over careful assessments of risk – especially in environments with fewer guardrails and greater access to alcohol and other drugs.

Students are also navigating enormous change: separation from family, pressure to fit in, loneliness, uncertainty and the challenge of building a new identity and social network. Even positive transitions such as moving or getting a new job can create significant stress.

Many students turn to alcohol and other substances to manage stress, reduce anxiety and navigate social belonging in environments where substance use is often normalized – or even expected.

Unfortunately, substance use impairs judgment, increases impulsivity and amplifies vulnerability to a range of other high-risk behaviors and harms. And this struggle, as one of us, Beverly Kingston, experienced, can be more than a phase.

The risks are real, but they can be addressed

The spike in drinking and other risky behaviors during the transition to college is not inevitable. And parents and other adults in young peoples’ lives matter during this developmental transition to adulthood, more than many realize.

For instance, research clearly shows that parents’ attitudes and norms around drinking play a big role in how their children engage with alcohol, both as teens and in adulthood. When students believe their parents are permissive about alcohol, they are more likely to drink and binge-drink.

Even well-intended efforts to encourage “safe” drinking send the wrong message. Many parents believe letting teens drink at home in a supervised environment is safer, but decades of research in the U.S. and internationally show that this unintentionally signals to teens that drinking is acceptable and contributes to higher alcohol use later on.

Yet when parents communicate clear expectations and have honest conversations about alcohol, it can reduce risk and support healthier decision-making. Conversations about binge drinking, peer pressure, stress and decision-making can help students navigate environments where alcohol use is often normalized.

One of us, Clara Hill, works on research related to a tool for navigating these conversations, a parent handbook called “First Years Away from Home: Letting Go and Staying Connected.” In a randomized clinical trial, the most rigorous type of research study available, students whose parents used this handbook during the summer before college were significantly less likely to start or increase substance use during their first semester.

However, the focus of the handbook is not only on substance use. It also serves as a tool kit to guide parents in talking to their young adults about values, expectations and relationships.

Support, not surveillance

Many students say they want their parents involved in their lives – just not overly involved. They want emotional connection, guidance and support while also being trusted to grow into independent young adults.

To achieve this balance, parents may find it helpful to think of themselves as holding three important roles during the college years. These roles are the cheerleader, who provides emotional support; the coach, who supports autonomy by helping students clarify their values and problem-solve; and the safety monitor, who communicates clear expectations around issues of potential harm and checks in about health and risk behaviors.

Different scenarios – roommate conflicts, poor grades, mental health struggles – will call for parents to embody new parenting roles during this time, distinct from what children needed during adolescence or childhood.

Support can begin with honest conversations before students ever arrive on campus. Parents can talk with their students about stress, loneliness, belonging, alcohol and substance use, relationships, values, safety and how to respond when things do not go as planned.

Looking back, both of us entered college carrying expectations and fears we did not fully understand. When the transition became harder than expected, it fell to us to navigate loneliness, uncertainty and the pressure to fit in.

Finding the right balance

Parents, too, often feel adrift; they want to help, but may receive mixed messages from the media and from colleges about how much they should be involved in their new college student’s life.

Feeling pressure to optimize their young adult children’s success, while also being cautioned against “helicopter parenting,” can lead parents to step back more than necessary when it comes to offering guidance and support.

Today, researchers know much more about what helps young people navigate this major life transition and thrive. Students do not stop needing support when they leave home, and parents do not have to disappear in the name of independence; parents can lovingly support young adults’ growing autonomy.

When students are surrounded by connection, guidance and support, the transition to college can be healthier, safer and less overwhelming. And the time to begin building that support is before students ever arrive on campus.

Clara Hill works for Washington State University, where the "First Years Away from Home: Letting Go & Staying Connected" handbook was developed. She receives funding to disseminate the handbook to universities in Washington State from State Opioid Relief funds, which are granted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) to the Washington State Health Care Authority.

Beverly Kingston 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.

The current diphtheria outbreak – which has spread across four Australian states and possibly claimed one man’s life – may seem unexpected.

But a closer look shows it is yet another example of inequitable systems – including inadequate housing, a lack of washing facilities and under-investment in preventive health care – driving the spread of infectious disease in Australia’s remote communities.

For decades, groups such as the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation – Australia’s national authority on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health care – has urged authorities to address these issues.

So why do they still exist? And can we fix them?

An historic outbreak

Diphtheria is caused by a toxin-producing bacteria, Corynebacterium diphtheriae.

This potentially fatal disease can spread between people through respiratory droplets, or direct contact with infected wounds, skin sores or bodily fluids.

In this latest outbreak, roughly 70% of cases have presented as cutaneous (skin) diphtheria and about 30% as respiratory (throat) diphtheria.

Cutaneous diphtheria is usually less severe, but remains a public health concern as skin sores can facilitate the spread of the disease.

Respiratory diphtheria is the form most associated with severe illness and death.

As of 25 May, authorities say there has been one possible death related to diphtheria in the Northern Territory. The latest data shows Australia has recorded more than 230 diphtheria cases since January 2026.

The federal government recently pledged A$7.2 million to help curb this outbreak, working in close collaboration with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation.

However, we are not only concerned about diphtheria itself, but the inequitable conditions that may help it spread.

---

Read more: Australia is battling its worst diphtheria outbreak in decades. But vaccines could curb it

---

Why is it spreading so quickly?

We believe the conditions contributing to the high rates of skin infections in remote Australia are driving this historic diphtheria outbreak.

Remote Aboriginal communities face high rates of preventable skin sores, which can cause severe diseases including sepsis, acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease.

These sores, generally caused by Streptococcus pyogenes and Staphylococcus aureus, are preventable. But doctors and health care workers may miss them, especially if they are working in busy, under-resourced remote clinics.

Certain environmental factors may allow skin sores, and related diseases such as diphtheria, to spread more rapidly in First Nations communities.

One is insufficient housing. A lack of safe, clean housing may cause infectious diseases – such as strep, staph and diphtheria – to spread more quickly from person to person. In remote communities, this can happen in households, in schools and at community events.

Another environmental factor is overcrowding. Overcrowding puts pressure on home plumbing systems, meaning blocked toilets, broken taps and leaking pipes become more common. If people can’t wash their hands or bodies, this increases their risk of getting infectious diseases such as diphtheria. Research shows even simple hygiene practices, such as handwashing with soap and water, reduces skin sores.

Many remote households also struggle to access basic maintenance or repair services. Even basic jobs, such as fixing a leaking tap, washing machine or a broken hot water system, may take weeks or months. This has direct health impacts, as people may not have the water or facilities to wash themselves or their clothes.

---

Read more: Why simple school sores often lead to heart and kidney disease in Indigenous children

---

So, what can we do?

In the current outbreak, vaccine boosters are essential to preventing severe illness and death. But long-term, vaccines alone won’t stop the spread of diphtheria and other infectious diseases.

For that, we need to fix our systems. Research suggests public health responses tend to focus on specific diseases, instead of the structural problems that drive their spread.

So to prevent future diphtheria and other outbreaks, we need to invest more in remote communities. We must build and maintain homes that have the space, water and washing facilities to keep people clean and healthy at home. We also need to make hygiene and cleaning supplies more affordable by aligning prices in remote communities with those in urban areas.

We must also involve First Nations communities in all public health initiatives. In many cases, remote communities already know the solutions to the issues they face. This was evident during the COVID pandemic, when Aboriginal leaders spearheaded the public health response in remote communities. As a result, Australia recorded far fewer Indigenous deaths than other countries.

Sitting with and listening to our First Nations communities takes time. But it demonstrates a commitment to working together, and is key to making public health responses as effective and sustainable as possible.

---

Read more: How we partnered with local communities to halve skin sores among Aboriginal children in remote WA

---

Asha Bowen receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Medical Research Futures Fund of Australia.

Lorraine Anderson is affiliated with RACGP and AMA.

Stephanie Enkel 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.

The Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU) in Florence is home to a wealth of public documents and records of decisions issued by EU institutions along with artefacts illustrating pro-European movements and initiatives led by prominent personalities that helped shape the EU as we know it today. May 9 is Europe Day which celebrates the European Union’s founding values of unity, solidarity, democracy, human rights and shared prosperity. This year marks the 76th anniversary of Robert Schuman’s historic declaration. In 1950, the birth of a union of coal and steel was at the centre of the vision of a united Europe backed by the governments of France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Dieter Schlenker is the Director of the Historical Archives of the European Union at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence which is now in its 50th year and has grown into a thriving community centred around interdisciplinary research and public engagement. We asked him to walk us through the archives that retrace the history of the European Union and its institutions, and the trajectory of the EUI from its conceptual beginnings in the post-war period to its consolidation as an international centre for research and intellectual exchange.

---

The Conversation: The historical archives provide the public with a written memory of the European integration process since the early 1940s. What is available to visitors, and which resources would be of particular interest to researchers?

Dieter Schlenker: The HAEU has received over the last 40 years more than 300 holdings that comprise almost 1 million paper files stored at Villa Salviati on 10 kilometres of dedicated roller shelving. During the Open day on May 9 visitors will have the unique opportunity to discover archival documents, artefacts and materials in various forms, in a high security, climate-controlled environment that is normally closed to the public. Almost 1.000 visitors will be invited to take a tour through the Villa and the Archives on the open day. They will be accompanied by a professional archivist who will explain the mission and holdings of the archives and show them a selection of documents including the authentic copy of the Maastricht Treaty, historical letters, notes, photos and even objects that belonged to European politicians and EU officials, plus a selection of media formats for audio-visual and digital archives that have become obsolete (magnetic tapes, floppy disks, CDs, etc), and which show the volatility of modern archives and the challenge of preserving and maintaining them so they remain accessible to the general public.

Researchers can consult the archives in the reading room at Villa Salviati from Monday to Friday. Approximately 40% of the hard copies of the archives have been digitised, so they are available online in the archives database. The holdings comprise the archives of EU institutions, such as the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament along with a unique collection of archives from other highly relevant European organisations, such as the European Space Agency, the European Free Trade Association, and the European Cultural Foundation. The HAEU is also home to the archives of various European movements and associations, and political groups in the European Parliament. Finally, more than 100 personal papers have been deposited by important European political figures, from pioneers, such as Alcide De Gasperi and Altiero Spinelli, through to Commission Presidents, such as Jacques Delors and Romano Prodi, and numerous Commissioners and Members of European Parliament.

How are the archives organised, and what are visitors most drawn to?

D.S.: Visitors can discover the physical infrastructure and how the numerous archives are stored in different rooms, in boxes and files, organised according to where they originate from and by the type of archive. They also get to see the complex coding and classification systems in place that facilitate the storage and retrieval of the documents. Guided tours also allow visitors to see documents on display and extended photo collections that are mounted on the walls, and can ask questions about their conservation and access conditions, the history and context of the creation of the documents and the people featured on the photos.

Monetary policy or EU expansion, what significant moments are captured in the archives?

D.S.: The Historical Archives of the European Union’s mission is to collect and provide the broadest possible archival legacy of European integration and European Union in a single location. This is why many different topics of European history since World War II can be studied on the basis of numerous original primary sources. These reach from the first pro-European federalist movements emerging during WWII, the important Congress of The Hague 1948 that led to the creation of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, the whole negotiation process of the Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community, then all the policies and actions taken by the Commission created by the Rome Treaties in 1957, all plenary and committee sessions of the Parliament, the Council and European Council meetings, the various enlargments, all procedure files of the European Court of Justice, etc. All EU documents are opened to the public after a 30-year period and shipped here to Florence by the respective institution for public access, which is why the documentation currently available approximately goes up to the mid-1990s.

How are the archives used and which documents have proven to be the most thought-provoking for academic research?

D.S.: The archives provide such a large base for research that the points of view, research interests and findings change all the time. More than 120 researchers register every year at the archives reading room and conduct 1.000 research sessions. The output reaches from the first works on European integration, mostly biographic studies on the founders, such as the works of Raymond Poidevin on Robert Schuman and the Biography of Jean Monnet by François Duchêne, or institutional history, such as Dirk Spierenburg’s book on the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. Today, historical research covers practically all different areas of European policies, and we may highlight the many diverse publications produced by the members of the European Union Liaison Committee of Historians that also edits the Journal of European Integration History (JEIH), or mention the current EUI Chair on European integration history, Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, who works on European Monetary Union.

The HAEU also hosts the historical archives of the European Space Agency including the records of the continent’s earliest major efforts to develop a space programme, what are the highlights on display?

D.S.: The European Space Agency in Paris decided to entrust the HAEU with their historical archives in 1989 and revised the deposit contract in 2020 to deepen cooperation and set focus on digital access, data protection and information security. This included the archives of the forerunner organisations ELDO and ESRO and therefore provides researchers with thousands of paper files documenting all aspects of European ambition in space since the early 1960s. These archives provide unique insight into the various joint European satellite, earth observation and human space flight projects of the past 60 years.

Looking back at the archives, what insights do we gain about European identity today? What values still stand and how are they reflected in visitors’ feedback?

D.S.: Looking at the recently published catalogue commemorating the 40th anniversary of the archives, we can see how all the many facets of European cooperation and integration are covered and referred to in the archival holdings preserved in Florence. It offers a fascinating trip back in time. Certainly, the documents on a peaceful and democratic post-War Europe expressed by those resisting against the Nazi and Fascist regimes provide a highly visionary humanistic picture of a united Europe, while the later negotiations on European treaties, policies, enlargements and external relations become much more multi-faceted, detailed, technical and concern very concrete political, economic and social arguments.

Nonetheless, the fascination of how it all started in Hour Zero in 1945 as a vision of peace, democracy and solidarity remains very strong until today. Visitors often refer to the founders of the European Union and their foresight and long-term vision securing peace amongst European states since 80 years, which is particularly important as visitors are rather worried about the present and future of Europe in a multipolar globalised world.

Interview by Carly Lock, Journalist at The Conversation Europe & The Conversation France.

---

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

---

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

The gesture may lack the explosive drama of a rooftop fight or the tension of a car chase, but on May 11, 2026, a street sign honoring a legendary comics creator was unveiled in Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

After a lobbying effort by comics expert Roy Schwartz, the New York City Council in December 2025 approved the naming of a block of Essex Street between Delancey and Rivington streets in honor of Jack Kirby.

Kirby, born Jacob Kurtzberg in 1917 to Jewish immigrants, spent roughly the first 40 years of his life in New York, aside from a stint serving in the military during World War II. Before enlisting, he’d already embarked on a career as a comics artist. He went on to become a key figure during the medium’s golden age, a period that most scholars and fans agree began with the creation of Superman in 1938 and ended with the implementation of the Comics Code Authority in 1956, which heavily restricted content until enforcement weakened in the 1970s.

Though you may not have heard of Kirby, you’d have to deliberately avoid pop culture to miss his most influential creations: Captain America, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Black Panther.

For my part, however, as a scholar of American Jewish immigration history – and as a lifelong comic book fan – I hold a place of reverence for the man known as the “King of Comics.”

Jewish American history, immigration history, the history of New York City and the origins of the comics industry are inextricably linked. New York played a starring role in the golden age of comics. And like Kirby, many of the genre’s most famous artists were Jewish.

Jewish immigrants put pen and ink to paper

Comics found a wide audience in New York City during their early years in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from early newspaper strips like “The Yellow Kid” and “Abie the Agent” to later ones like “Little Orphan Annie.”

As World War II drew to a close in the summer of 1945, there was a citywide newspaper delivery strike, leaving many New Yorkers desperate for news and entertainment – so much so that Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia took it upon himself to read the Sunday comic strips over the radio, performing them with characteristic vigor and enthusiasm.

Among the first publications that would today be recognizable as “comic books” were compilations of these early newspaper strips, assembled by newsprint salesman and Jewish New Yorker Max Gaines. Gaines, born Maxwell Ginzburg, compiled various comic strips into neatly packaged, inexpensive entertainment for the masses, helping pioneer the saddle-stitched comic book – thin, stapled magazines that would become the primary format for superhero stories.

As the superhero genre took off in the late 1930s, other publishers emerged from Jewish New York. Harry Donenfeld and Jack Leibowitz, in partnership with Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, created Detective Comics and Action Comics, which helped establish the company later known as DC Comics.

In addition to early publishers, many pioneering comics artists were raised in New York City as the children of Jewish immigrants, including Marvel Universe architect Stan Lee and his brother, Larry Lieber; Will Eisner, creator of “The Spirit” and co-creator of “Sheena: Queen of the Jungle”; and Al Jaffee, a longtime contributor to Mad Magazine.

An ode to the Lower East Side

In Jack Kirby’s comics, the city shines through.

The Fantastic Four – the superhero squad that Kirby created with Stan Lee – operates out of midtown Manhattan’s fictional Baxter Building, which Kirby modeled after the city’s mid-century skyscrapers.

Kirby also based the character of Ben Grimm – The Thing – on himself, mining his own life to write Grimm’s backstory. Grimm’s home is on the fictional Yancy Street, a tribute to Kirby’s own working-class upbringing on the Lower East Side’s Delancey Street. The thoroughfare is rich with Jewish history and in close proximity to iconic businesses like Katz’s Deli and Russ and Daughters.

Another of Kirby’s most iconic characters was Steve Rogers – Captain America – which he co-created with Joe Simon.

A poor orphan from Brooklyn, Rogers attempts to enlist in the U.S. Army to fight the Axis powers during World War II, but is rejected as unfit for duty. He is later recruited into Project Rebirth, where he is transformed into a super-soldier after being injected with a serum designed to maximize human physical and mental abilities.

Captain America attracted legions of fans among American youth, many of whom saw themselves in the superhero. Though Rogers is Christian, his story of transformation from weakling to hero certainly spoke to young Jewish boys and men, who were often inaccurately portrayed in the media and press as intellectually superior but physically inferior.

Captain America, though fictional, is already recognized as a part of New York City history, and has a statue in Brooklyn, which was unveiled in 2016 with the inscription “I’m just a kid from Brooklyn.”

The city as a muse

Even comics created by artists outside New York City – like Ohio natives and Superman co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster – are, by virtue of their content, still in many ways New York comics.

The glittering Metropolis in “Superman” is widely understood as a stand-in for New York; for example, in the April 1950 issue of Action Comics, the Statue of Liberty is said to appear in “Metropolis Harbor.”

If Metropolis is the bright, shining, optimistic view of the city, then Gotham, the home of Batman, reprises the city through a grittier lens.

Writer Washington Irving had first described New York as Gotham in the early 1800s. But by the time Batman came on the scene, the term had become less common in everyday speech, and DC Comics repurposed the name for the fictional Gotham City. Beyond the name, Gotham City’s architecture, bridges, boroughs and neighborhoods are an homage to New York.

By officially recognizing Jack Kirby, the city adds the artist to a distinguished roster of politicians, community activists and celebrities honored with street names.

Jack Kirby Way celebrates a legendary comics artist while also acknowledging the immigrant creators who helped shape the genre. It’s a fitting tribute: As much as the comics industry is indebted to the city, the city is indebted to the comics industry.

Miriam Eve Mora 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.

“Digital authoritarianism” refers to governments using technology for surveillance and censorship to repress dissent.

China remains the master practitioner. There, sweeping surveillance and censorship at home is combined with cyber-espionage and disinformation, censorship and influence campaigns abroad.

But this problem is no longer confined to Moscow or Beijing. Democracies, too, are beginning to repress their citizens with the same tools, and export them abroad.

Two countries in particular – India and Israel – reveal how democracies are drifting toward the very digital authoritarianism they once opposed.

Israel: exporting spyware

Israel, a democracy, permits private firms to export spyware under a state-regulated system.

Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group, is marketed as a tool licensed to government agencies for counterterrorism and serious crime investigations.

However, investigations have linked it to the surveillance of journalists, activists, lawyers and political opponents.

Pegasus spyware can infiltrate smartphones without the user clicking on a link. It can grant access to messages, calls, microphones and cameras.

It has been linked to the surveillance of journalists in Mexico, opposition politicians in India and civil society groups in Hungary.

Israel tightened export rules in 2021, insisting sales go only to trusted governments for legitimate purposes. Yet the problem has not disappeared.

In early 2025, it was revealed Paragon Solutions, an Israeli spyware firm cofounded by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, developed a powerful surveillance tool capable of potentially compromising encrypted communications.

WhatsApp said last year nearly 100 journalists and members of civil society had been targeted using Paragon spyware.

Reporters at Citizen Lab later identified the spyware as a Paragon product, Graphite, and confirmed it had been used against journalists. It remains unclear who exactly the perpetrators were.

Through its export control system for offensive cyber tools, Israel is still allowing Israeli firms such as NSO Group and Paragon Solutions to sell spyware abroad, including Pegasus and Graphite.

This has contributed to concerns about the normalisation of commercial spyware.

India: Pegasus turned inward

In India, Amnesty International’s Security Lab reported forensic evidence of Pegasus being used on the phones of high-profile journalists.

Earlier reporting alleged Indian journalists, activists, lawyers and opposition figures appeared among potential targets. Following a petition, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether there should be an investigation into “India’s alleged use of Pegasus spyware on journalists, activists and public officials”.

The perpetrator has not been conclusively identified in those forensic reports, but NSO Group says Pegasus is licensed only to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies of sovereign states and government agencies.

The Indian government has denied wrongdoing, with IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw saying such surveillance was not possible under Indian law. The government later declined to file a detailed affidavit before the Supreme Court, citing national security.

These allegations sit within a wider pattern of democratic erosion in India. Critics have linked the Pegasus controversy to broader state practices, including:

• frequent internet shutdowns and online censorship
• legal pressure on journalists and activists
• online harassment of journalists, activists and members of marginalised groups
• and the stifling of dissent.

In 2023, Apple warned at least 20 Indian opposition politicians and journalists that their iPhones may have been targeted by “state-sponsored attackers”, reviving allegations the Indian government was using electronic surveillance against domestic critics. The Indian government has rejected the implication, but has announced an investigation.

Social media platforms have also been pressured by Indian government agencies and regulators to remove posts critical of the government. And supporters of the ruling party are known to organise online harassment campaigns of government critics.

A global problem

Other democracies – from Hungary to Turkey to Mexico – have experimented with spyware and aggressive online controls.

Technologies once hailed as enabling protest, connecting citizens and amplifying marginalised voices are now being redeployed for surveillance and control.

In 2024, global internet freedom declined for the 14th consecutive year. This was driven by censorship, surveillance, disinformation, platform restrictions and controls on internet access.

Governments of all types are blocking platforms, expanding monitoring, and deploying trolls and bots to tilt online debate.

For instance, Russia’s state-linked online influence operations have used coordinated troll farms to manipulate political discussions at home and abroad. Turkey’s pro-government “AKtroll” networks have also been accused of amplifying official narratives and harassing opposition voices online.

Gradual erosion of freedoms

Digital authoritarianism does not arrive overnight. It advances through normalisation: spyware licensed as “security”, platforms nudged into silencing dissent, internet shutdowns excused as “temporary”.

These measures, taken alone, may appear minor. Together, they gradually erode freedoms until democratic life itself is hollowed out.

Reversing this requires democracies to commit to strict controls on spyware exports. These controls must be backed by transparency, accountability and robust oversight.

Surveillance powers and online restrictions must be publicly justified and subject to independent review.

Equally vital is the protection of civil society. Journalists, activists and opposition groups need guarantees they can operate freely.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The U.S. is in a bizarre situation in 2026: It’s facing a looming energy shortage, yet the Trump administration is making deals to pay offshore wind developers nearly US$2 billion in taxpayer money to walk away from energy projects.

These politically motivated moves are costing Americans far more than just the buyouts.

Communities have been laying the groundwork for offshore energy projects for years. Offshore wind development brings jobs and economic development that reshape regional economies, with the scale of public and private investment reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars over years. East Coast communities have built up ports to support the industry and launched job-training programs to prepare workers. Construction, maintenance and shipping businesses have sprung up, along with secondary businesses that support the industry.

Losing the projects, and the threat of losing other planned wind farms, will also likely mean higher energy prices. And while some offshore wind farms are moving ahead, developers must account for both lost momentum and increased uncertainty from the Trump administration.

As a result, Americans will bear the economic brunt of these decisions for decades ahead.

How America got to this point

To understand how the U.S. arrived in this predicament, let’s take a step back.

In March 2023, leaders from three U.S. federal agencies under the Biden administration met with the CEOs from American technology and manufacturing giants Microsoft, Amazon, Ford, GM, Dow Chemical and GE at the annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, under the banner of “Affordable, Reliable and Secure American-Made Energy”.

They agreed on a key point: The nation was staring down a severe shortage of electrons to drive American business forward.

Fortunately, solutions abounded. Enormous amounts of onshore wind and solar power had been deployed during the previous five years. More than 80% of all new power additions to the U.S. grid had come from these two sources.

Particularly exciting were plans to build large offshore wind farms up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Taken together, the wind farms would generate 30 gigawatts of new power by 2030, enough to power more than 10 million homes and reduce volatility in energy pricing thanks to long-term power purchase agreements.

The U.S. had one small wind farm at the time, off Rhode Island, and two wind turbines off Virginia, but Europe had been operating large offshore wind projects for over two decades and was building more.

In the months following the 2023 meeting, leasing and permitting for the U.S. mega projects continued, and in some areas construction got underway.

Then, the Trump administration arrived in 2025. As president, Donald Trump immediately issued an executive order to halt offshore wind lease sales and any approvals, permits or loans for wind farms. He had made his disdain for wind power clear ever since he lost a fight to stop construction of a small wind farm near his golf course in Scotland in the 2010s.

After a federal judge declared Trump’s executive order unconstitutional in December 2025, the administration shifted strategies.

In March 2026, news outlets began reporting on deals struck in which the federal government would pay three offshore wind project developers hundreds of millions of dollars to cease development of their permitted projects, agree not to build others and repurpose the funds toward fossil fuel projects.

According to reported discussions involving the French energy company TotalEnergies, the money would be paid out through the Department of Interior’s Judgment Fund, intended for payment of legal settlements, despite there not being any active litigation with TotalEnergies.

The other projects agreeing to Trump’s buyouts as of early May were Golden State Wind, in California, and Bluepoint Wind, off New Jersey and New York. Both are co-owned by Ocean Winds, a joint venture of the French energy company Engie and EDP Renewables, headquartered in Spain. The California Energy Commission and members of Congress are now investigating the moves.

Offshore wind means local investment

Regardless of whether these buyouts are even legal, the losing parties will be the American taxpayers and a U.S. economy that needs more electrons on the grid, not fewer.

One analysis projected that deploying 40 GW along the U.S. East Coast by 2035 would generate roughly $140 billion in investment, much of it concentrated in port infrastructure and supply chain development.

New York in early 2026 announced a $300 million state grant program to expand port infrastructure supporting offshore wind. And the New Jersey Wind Port represents an investment exceeding $600 million to enable manufacturing and assembly of turbines.

In 2025, California state lawmakers authorized $225.7 million in spending for offshore wind ports and related facilities.

For these projects to pay off for local communities, however, the regions will need to see the development of wind farms.

Killing jobs

The cancellations of the planned projects also take jobs away from hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

The construction and installation of offshore wind turbines requires the expertise of skilled electrical workers, pipe fitters, welders, pile drivers, iron workers, machinists and carpenters.

Future offshore wind costs depend on investments today. As infrastructure is established and expertise grows, each subsequent project becomes easier to build, less risky and less expensive.

This pattern is already evident globally: The levelized cost of electricity from offshore wind globally fell by 62% between 2010 and 2024.

Canceling projects or buying back leases eliminates the electricity those projects would have generated. It also slows the accumulation of experience, scale and supply chain maturity that drive costs down over time.

The result is higher costs for future projects and for electricity ratepayers.

An energy crisis

Developing a robust offshore wind industry provides resilience in the face of an unstable global energy market.

Future U.S. and global energy demand is projected to grow significantly, largely driven by the rapid expansion of AI data centers and electrification of vehicles, homes and businesses.

Limiting the supply of homegrown energy will increase energy costs for Americans, especially in the regions where the wind farms were supposed to be located – New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and California.

With the federal buyouts, the U.S. is losing 8 GW of planned electricity generation, enough to power more than 3 million homes. That generation needs to be replaced by other energy sources and expanding power transmission lines that can take seven to 10 years to get permits for and build out. The leased projects were on their way to providing new clean power generation fairly quickly. Eliminating them restarts the project clock.

Reliance on dirtier, conventional forms of power generation will increase along with foreign energy imports, such as electricity delivered from Canada to New York, leading to higher and more volatile electricity prices.

Evidence from Europe shows that offshore wind can also reduce electricity costs for consumers by lowering wholesale prices and reducing dependence on fossil fuels and their volatile prices.

Vineyard Wind I, an offshore wind farm completed in 2026, with 806 MW of generation – enough to power about 400,000 homes – is projected to save Massachusetts customers about $1.4 billion on electricity bills over the next 20 years. With a fixed-price, 20-year contract, the project also lowered prices during cold snaps and peak demand for gas, reducing volatility and cost.

From jobs to local economic development to power costs, we believe canceling these offshore wind projects is a bad deal for American taxpayers.

Christopher Niezrecki receives funding from from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, ARROW Center, and several companies that support the WindSTAR Industry-University Cooperative Research Center.

Ben Link serves on the Maryland Clean Energy Center Board of Directors.

Zoe Getman-Pickering receives funding from The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and Maryland Energy Administration. She is affiliated with ARROW based at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. ARROW is a member of NE4Wind and sits on the advisory board for The Pacific Offshore Wind Consortium.

Thousands of Americans prayed on the National Mall on May 17, 2026, during “Rededicate 250”: a day-long rally to “come together in prayer and worship ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday,” as organizers described it. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, one of many Republican politicians and conservative Christian leaders to speak, led a prayer to “rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God.”

Planned by Freedom 250, a public-private partnership, the rally prompted criticism that it blurred the lines separating church and state. According to the Pew Research Center, 73% of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies, and only 19% of Americans say the United States should stop enforcing that principle.

But figures allied with the Trump administration have challenged the premise that the U.S. government should be – or was meant to be – separate from religion. In 2023, Johnson remarked that “The separation of church and state is a misnomer … it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church – not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life.”

As a scholar of American legal and religious history, I have written extensively about the development of religious freedom in the U.S., and the origins of the separation of church and state.

Two of the Founding Fathers shaped American views on these topics more than any other: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Yet their views have also become lightning rods for controversy as the “wall” between church and state comes under scrutiny.

My 2024 book, “The Grand Collaboration,” seeks to answer several questions: What was Jefferson’s and Madison’s understanding of religious freedom? And why were they so deeply committed to that principle?

Bedrock of law – in Virgina and beyond

Jefferson wrote the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777, the most comprehensive declaration of religious freedom at the time. The bill guaranteed freedom of conscience, protected religious assemblies from government oversight, prohibited government funding of religious institutions and boldly declared that religious opinions were outside the authority of civil officials.

Several years later, Madison guided these ideals into law. His “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” a protest against a proposal to support Christian teachers with tax money, affirmed the values of church-state separation and religious equality. He helped defeat the proposal – and set the stage for Virginia to adopt Jefferson’s bill.

As president, Jefferson went on to pen a letter to a Baptist association in Connecticut where he immortalized the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Bill of Rights contains two clauses about religion, both in the First Amendment: that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What qualifies as “establishment of religion,” however, is open to debate.

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced church-state separation as the guiding principle for interpreting the religion clauses, relying extensively on the two Virginians’ writings and actions. As Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

The duo’s documents served as the authority for the legal principle of church-state separation, and for more than five decades, their bona fides remained unquestioned in the law.

Shift at SCOTUS

Criticism of church-state separation intensified in the 1980s. As the religious right grew into a political force, commentators argued that the concept was anti-religious and did not represent the prevailing views about church and state during the founders’ time.

In recent decades, such arguments have attracted politicians and jurists, including members of the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas has written that the court’s earlier separationist interpretations of the Constitution “sometimes bordered on religious hostility.” Legal scholar Philip Hamburger has declared that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation” and “should at best be viewed with suspicion.”

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have rejected a separationist approach to church-state matters. For example, the conservative majority has allowed taxpayer dollars to be used at religious schools, the display of religious symbols on government property, and religious expression by public school employees.

In a 2022 dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor bemoaned that the court has turned the separation of church and state from a “constitutional commitment” to a “constitutional violation.”

The justices’ earlier reliance on Jefferson and Madison has borne the brunt of criticism that their views on church-state matters did not represent their peers, or that neither man was in favor of separation as he has been portrayed.

Exchange of ideas

To better understand Jefferson’s and Madison’s beliefs, I examined many of the 2,300 letters between the two on “Founders Online,” a National Archives website. I also looked at correspondence with other acquaintances.

Both founders had deistic leanings, meaning they believed in a supreme being, but thought science and reason were the best paths to understanding religion. They were only nominally observant Christians, but more protected from religious intolerance than other “dissenters” due to their high social standing and affiliation with the Anglican Church.

All the more striking, then, that they worked throughout their lives to advance religious freedom.

Religious matters were never far from their minds. For instance, in Madison and Jefferson’s exchanges discussing the need for a bill of rights, freedom of conscience was invariably at the top of the list. Both were convinced that government should avoid supporting religion, even if no particular religion was given preference. They also insisted that people should have broad religious freedoms.

These views were clearly on the vanguard, but other religious rationalists and religious dissenters also advocated a comprehensive understanding of religious freedom.

Both men were committed to advancing religious freedom because they saw it as deeply entwined with freedom of inquiry and conscience. “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error,” Jefferson wrote in 1784. Allowing people to investigate ideas freely “will support the true religion,” because “Truth can stand by itself.”

Similarly, Madison declared “the freedom of conscience to be a natural and absolute right.”

In their view, free inquiry was the fount of other rights. Religious freedom, for example, was a subset of freedom of conscience. And a healthy separation of church and state was key to ensuring those freedoms.

‘A pillar of support’

The letters reveal the extent to which Jefferson and Madison complemented and reinforced each other’s attitudes toward church and state. They also reveal the close intellectual and emotional affection that each man held for the other, and how much each man valued the other’s support.

In their final exchanges before Jefferson’s death on July 4, 1826, he implored Madison, “To myself, you have been a pillar of support thro’ life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections.”

Madison responded with similar affection: “You cannot look back to the long period of our private friendship & political harmony, with more affecting recollections than I do.”

Jefferson’s and Madison’s half-century of collaboration on behalf of religious freedom and equality is an important chapter in the nation’s founding history. I believe its legacy should be remembered and celebrated, not discarded.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 25, 2024.

Steven K. Green 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.

You go to hospital for treatment and to get better. But sometimes, you get something much less welcome: an infection.

Pneumonia, an infection of the lungs, is one of the most common and deadly infections people develop in hospital. Around 50,000 patients contract pneumonia in Australian hospitals every year. Around 1,900 of them die from it.

It’s rarely monitored and rarely reported. And to date, few studies have looked at how it can be prevented.

But our new trial, published today in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, shows a surprisingly simple action can make a major difference: brushing patients’ teeth.

We found this can reduce the chance of getting this type of pneumonia, called non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, by 60%.

What is this type of pneumonia?

Non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia occurs in patients who aren’t on a ventilator, usually outside of intensive care settings.

Patients are infected when bacteria from the mouth or throat are breathed into the lungs.

Patients who develop this type of pneumonia stay in hospital between ten and 48 days longer, and are around eight times more likely to die during their admission.

A simple intervention made a big difference

We studied 8,870 patients across three Australian hospitals to see whether improving oral care – which included tooth-brushing – could reduce this type of pneumonia.

Usually, when patients go to hospital, they don’t pack a toothbrush – especially in emergencies.

In busy hospital wards, oral care isn’t always given the attention it needs, nor are oral care products always readily available. Patients don’t always get reminders to brush their teeth and many patients need help with their oral care.

The intervention in our study was deliberately simple. We:

• gave patients in hospital a toothbrush and toothpaste in a bag when they were admitted

• educated patients and hospital staff about the importance of tooth-brushing. The toothbrush also had a written prompt on it – “Brush away pneumonia”

• assisted patients who needed help with tooth-brushing

• audited how oral care was being delivered and gave feedback to hospital wards.

We introduced the intervention into one ward at a time over 12 months at each hospital. This gradual roll-out is known as a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. It can test new health interventions when it’s too difficult to randomise individuals without revealing who is receiving the intervention and who isn’t.

We found that this relatively simple intervention increased the proportion of people who cleaned their teeth from 16% to 62%.

This increasing oral care led to a 60% reduction in the risk of acquiring pneumonia, from the equivalent of eight infections per month on a typical ward of 30 patients, to less than four infections per month.

This is the largest trial of its kind and the first completed across multiple hospitals.

Why does brushing teeth help?

The mouth is home to billions of bacteria. Oral hygiene often deteriorates when people are unwell, sedated, immobile, or taking certain medications.

When this happens, bacteria build up on the teeth, gums and tongue. If these bacteria are breathed in – even in tiny amounts – they can cause pneumonia.

Daily tooth-brushing reduces this bacteria. It’s a simple mechanical action with a powerful protective effect.

Yet in busy hospitals, oral care is often overlooked. Patients may not know just how important oral care is. Staff are often busy with competing priorities and oral care can be de-prioritised. There is also a general lack of understanding about the importance of oral care.

Patients can help protect themselves

One of the most important messages from our research is patients aren’t powerless. While health-care staff such as nurses play a crucial role, patients who are able to brush their own teeth can meaningfully reduce their own risk.

If you or a loved one is admitted to hospital, you can:

• bring your own toothbrush and toothpaste
• brush your teeth twice a day if you’re able
• ask staff for help if you can’t
• remind staff if oral care has been missed.

These small actions can reduce the risk of a serious, life-threatening infection.

What happens next?

Pneumonia is costly – in lives, hospital days and the financial cost of care. But because non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia isn’t routinely reported, it’s often invisible.

Our research challenges the assumption that hospital-acquired pneumonia is an unavoidable complication when you go to hospital.

It also highlights the need for hospitals to monitor non-ventilator hospital-acquired infections, in the same way they monitor falls, pressure injuries and other preventable harms.

Finally, our study strengthens the case for including oral care in national infection-prevention guidelines and nursing practice.

Oral care isn’t glamorous, expensive or technologically advanced – but it works. Sometimes, the simplest interventions are the most powerful.

Brett Mitchell receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund which helped fund the reported study. Brett also receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council through an Investigator grant. He is affiliated with Avondale University and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. Brett is Editor-in-Chief of Infection, Disease and Health.

Allen Cheng receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government for research studies and surveillance systems. He is a member of the Infection Prevention and Control Advisory Committee for the Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Healthcare - the views expressed in this article may not reflect the views of the committee.

Nicole White receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund which helped fund the reported study. She is a member of the Statistical Society of Australia and holds editorial roles with the Infection, Disease and Health journal and Significance magazine.

Philip Russo is an NHMRC Early Career Research Fellow at Monash University and Director of Nursing Research at Cabrini Health.

Peta Ellen Tehan 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.

Students who are Black, Hispanic, female, from low-income families or multilingual learners are less likely to be identified with autism in U.S. elementary schools than their white, male, higher-income or English-speaking peers. This finding comes from our new research, published in April 2026 in the academic journal Autism.

These disparities appear even among students who have similar levels of academic achievement and who are attending the same schools.

Our research shows there are big and recurring gaps in whether students are identified with having autism while they attend U.S. elementary schools. In both 2003 and 2019, for example, fourth grade female students were about 80% less likely to be identified with autism, as compared to similarly situated boys.

We found that for every 10 boys identified with autism, only about two girls in a comparable situation – including those displaying similar levels of reading achievement and attending the same schools – were identified.

We analyzed data repeatedly collected from 2003 to 2022, using large, nationally representative samples of about 160,000 fourth grade students participating in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

We specifically looked at data that included student academic achievement. This approach let us consider potential bias in how a student’s disability is identified.

Why it matters

Understanding these disparities in U.S. elementary schools is important to help ensure that all students with disabilities have equal access to appropriate services and supports.

Schools are one of the most common places that provide disability services to children and adolescents. This includes students who have autism.

Some research finds that teachers are more understanding of a student’s classroom struggles when informed that the student has autism.

School-based special education services, such as speech therapy, often benefit students with disabilities, including those of color. Student will not receive these services without an identified disabilty.

For example, recent analyses of public data from Massachusetts, Indiana and Connecticut compared the achievement trajectories of the same students before and after they received special education services. The students did better in both reading and mathematics when they received special education services.

Students with disabilities are also more likely to graduate from high school and attend college if they receive special education services.

What still isn’t known

We do not know whether these disparities in autism identification are occurring in other elementary grades, at least based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress data.

In another of our recent analyses, though, we did observed racial disparities in autism identification across elementary grades.

Some other research suggests that students of color and girls experience significant delays in receiving autism diagnoses.

Our analysis is based on students who completed the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading test. Students with severe autism and higher support needs who were unable to complete these assessments, even with accommodations, were not included in our analysis.

Future studies could examine whether sociodemographic disparities in autism identification are occurring in U.S. middle and high schools as well for students with significant impairments.

What’s next

Our additional preliminary analysis indicates there are other types of disparities at play. For example, we are finding that Black and Hispanic girls, low-income Black students and multilingual learners who are white or Hispanic are especially unlikely to be identified as having autism.

We are also exploring whether some of these disparities have grown, or otherwise changed, following recent increases in autism prevalence rates, including for students of color and girls.

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

Paul L. Morgan received funding from the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences to support these analyses. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the view of the U.S. Department of Education.