Two months into the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz is still mostly shut. Vessel traffic is running at a fraction of pre-war levels, with the patchwork of ceasefires, blockades and re-closures since February 28 not restoring confidence on the bridge of any tanker.

Hormuz has long been understood as one of the world’s central trade chokepoints. It normally carries around 20 million barrels of crude and oil products each day, as well as roughly a fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. A third of the world’s helium and a similar amount of the urea that ends up as fertiliser also pass through the strait.

Plans and projects to diversify away from Hormuz have been on drawing boards for decades, and those workarounds are now being stress-tested as never before. The bypass infrastructure is doing roughly what architects had hoped, providing around 3.5 million barrels to 5.5 million barrels a day of crude capacity.

But this is still nowhere near enough.

Hormuz workarounds

The most important pipeline on the planet right now runs across Saudi Arabia. The East-West Pipeline – also known as Petroline – was built in the 1980s during the original Tanker war, when Iran and Iraq attacked merchant vessels in the Gulf as part of their wider conflict.

The pipeline’s capacity was expanded to a 7 million barrel emergency ceiling in 2019. However, the loading terminals in the city of Yanbu on Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coast were never designed to carry this much oil this fast, and analysts tracking tanker traffic estimate that less oil is currently flowing through the pipeline than its theoretical ceiling.

From Yanbu, oil bound for Europe still has to cross Egypt via the Sumed pipeline, which has a capacity of just 2.5 million barrels per day. Although oil flows through this pipeline have surged by 150% since the start of the war, its comparatively small capacity remains a binding constraint on European supply.

Iran noticed the geoeconomic importance of Petroline and has targeted it accordingly. An Iranian drone strike on a pumping station in April knocked 700,000 barrels a day offline. Saudi Aramco, the operator, had the line back at full capacity within three days. While the repair time is reassuring, the fact of the strike is not.

The other half of the Gulf bypass story runs through the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (Adcop) goes from Habshan to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman side of the country. With a capacity of just under 2 million barrels per day, Adcop is the only major bypass that exits the Gulf directly into the Indian Ocean.

But as with Petroline, it has been targeted during the war. Iranian drone strikes on Fujairah on March 3, 14 and 16 set storage tanks on fire and suspended loadings. While Adcop offers some diversification for the UAE, it does not solve the targeting problem.

The situation is worse for the Gulf region’s other big oil producers. Iraq’s 3.4 million barrels per day of pre-war crude exports went almost entirely through the southern port city of Basra and the Strait of Hormuz.

There is one northern pipeline, connecting oil fields in Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey. This pipeline was reopened in September 2025 after a two-and-a-half-year halt, with flows ramped up to 250,000 barrels a day in March. But this volume pales in comparison to what Iraq has lost.

Kuwait has it worse still. Pre-war crude exports ran at around 2 million barrels per day, with every barrel exiting through Hormuz. Kuwait has no pipeline alternative. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation declared force majeure in March, temporarily allowing it to suspend its obligations to meet delivery contracts.

This was extended on April 20, with the oil company saying it could not meet contractual obligations even if Hormuz reopened. Overcoming the damage that has been inflicted on Kuwait’s production base – and then ramping up production – will take months.

Qatar’s vulnerability is a different shape. Its pre-war crude exports were smaller than its Gulf neigbours, at around 0.6 million barrels per day. These exports all left Qatar via the strait. For Qatar, the story is gas. Its 77 million tonne LNG capacity at Ras Laffan is the largest in the world, supplying about 19% of global LNG trade. There is no alternative to shipping this gas through Hormuz.

Iran itself has built a Hormuz bypass: a 1,000-kilometre pipeline from Goreh at the head of the Gulf to a terminal at Jask on the Gulf of Oman. It is designed for 1 million barrels per day. But in practice, sanctions and unfinished terminal infrastructure have kept actual throughput at a fraction of design.

The US Energy Information Administration estimated that, in summer 2024, under 70,000 barrels per day were flowing through the pipeline. Loadings stopped altogether that September. According to Kpler, which provides real-time data on global shipping movements, only a single tanker – around two million barrels – has loaded at Jask in the war so far.

A call for more pipes in the Gulf, as there have been since the war began, is understandable. But it is no answer. Replicating Hormuz in pipelines would cost hundreds of billions of US dollars and a decade of construction. And at the end of it, new pipelines and terminals at Yanbu, Fujairah and wherever else would be no harder to reach with a drone than the old ones.

David B Roberts 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.

To mark International Dawn Chorus day we’ve asked wildlife experts to make their case for why their favourite songbird deserves your vote. Cast your vote in the poll at the end of the article and let us know why in the comments. We hope their words will inspire you to step outside and soak up some birdsong this spring.

Song thrush

Championed by Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu, Research Fellow in Ecology and Evolution, University of Sussex

When people talk about the UK’s best bird songs they often go straight for the big names – loud, dramatic performers that grab your attention. But quietly in the background is the song thrush, a bird whose song is far more impressive than it first appears.

What sets the song thrush apart is not volume or flair, but structure. Its song is built from short, clear phrases, each repeated two or three times before moving on. It’s as if the bird is politely checking that its audience is paying attention. In a dawn chorus that often feels a bit chaotic, there’s something refreshingly organised about it. It’s a bird that’s actually thought things through.

It might not have the dramatic flair of the common nightingale, and it’s less showy than some of the usual favourites. There are no soaring crescendos or dramatic flourishes. But that’s part of its charm. The song is neat, rhythmic and surprisingly memorable once you start listening for it.

In the early morning soundscape, where many birds seem determined to out-sing one another, the song thrush isn’t trying to steal the spotlight. It just quietly does its thing, and does it very well. Underrated? Definitely. Worth your vote? I’d say so.

Robin

Championed by Judith Lock, Principal Teaching Fellow in Ecology and Evolution University of Southampton

The European robin is a delightfully common sight in gardens. You will very likely have heard the characteristic “tic”, followed by a tuneful verse lasting a few seconds. In noisy urban environments they sing louder, less complex songs, in order to be heard.

The male robins use their spring song (January to June) to signal their quality to females, then forming breeding pairs, and to signal competitive ability to other males. The spring song lasts one to three seconds, composed of four to six short motifs. They have an impressive repertoire of about 1,300 motifs, indicating that song is the particularly important for robins, in comparison to birds that rely more on colourful plumage or behavioural displays to communicate with each other.

Most birds sing mainly in the morning but robins sing all day. People often mistake their lovely evening song for a nightingale’s. Constant territory defence from non-migrating robins means that the robin song is a year-round soundtrack too. From July to December, both males and females sing the autumn song, of higher-pitched long, descending notes, with interspersed warbles. This song is to defend their individual winter territories. This indicates that song first evolved first in songbirds to ensure survival, before it became a signal used by males for reproduction. Each robin’s song is dynamic, constantly changing in response to the condition and age of the bird, and their rival.

Great tit

Championed by Josh Firth, Associate Professor of Behavioural Ecology, University of Leeds

Its song may not be as flashy as the nightingale or as poetically melancholy as the blackbird. But scientists have been taught so much by the great tit’s song, heard across British habitats from ancient woodlands to urban gardens. This spring marks 80 continuous years of UK-based scientists studying great tits at Wytham Woods, Oxford, the world’s longest-running study of individually-marked animals.

The unique dataset includes a family tree totaling over 100,000 great tits, with some birds’ lineages traceable back 37 generations. Early research on Wytham’s great tits during 1970s-1980s resulted in some the first studies to inform the scientific world about how bird song can help males find mates and defend territories, how larger song repertoires can bring more reproductive success, and how young birds learn these repertoires from neighbours (not just their fathers).

And a pioneering study published in 1987 taught us how male great tit song even tracks female fertility, increasing their singing efforts as their female partner’s egg-laying period approaches, and then quietening after she starts laying. Modern technological advances are allowing insight into the hidden meaning embedded in great tits’ songs. In-depth processing of 109,000 recordings of great tit songs has revealed how each bird’s melody tells the story of their own identity as well as that of their local culture and social circles.

A great tit’s age also affects their song: older males keep singing rarer, fading song types while younger birds adopt newer ones. So, Britain’s greatest song belongs to the great tit’s “teacher-teacher” call, for all it has taught us, and for all we have left to learn.

Chaffinch

Championed by Joey Baxter, PhD Candidate in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Sheffield

Why change a winning formula? As far as I’m concerned, the chaffinch sings the biggest banger that UK birds have to offer. While the blackcap attempts to impress with ostentatious bells and whistles, the chaffinch keeps things simple with a catchy riff. Where the starling goes for quantity and novelty, with a frankly plagiaristic repertoire of mimicry, the chaffinch goes for quality, singing proudly in the knowledge that it is delivering a true earworm.

Bubbling trills accelerate before tumbling downwards, slowing to rich watery chirps and finishing with the final flourish. This jaunty lick, the real hook of the song, is often punctuated by an upward inflection at its end, the rising intonation giving it the air of an unanswered question. The chaffinch’s song has rhythm, it has melody, and it’s instantly recognisable. It possesses the wisdom that sometimes it is better not to do everything, but to do one thing well.

Joey Baxter receives funding from UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), via the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Josh Firth receives from UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), via the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu and Judith Lock 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.

When parents separate, decisions about children are often among the most contested aspects of the legal process. In cases involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), judges are often tasked with resolving disputes of extraordinary complexity as they try to balance children’s best interests and safety with parents’ rights to remain involved in their kids’ lives.

In these types of cases, rulings about access to the children are about more than determining parenting schedules. Decisions shape whether children are protected and if abuse continues through the legal system itself.

Bill C-223, the Keeping Children Safe Act, is Parliament’s attempt to address how Canadian courts navigate these tensions. Introduced in September 2025 by Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, the bill proposes changes to the Divorce Act aimed at strengthening how courts address family violence during divorce and custody proceedings.

Misused parental alienation claims

Research shows that accusations of parental alienation are sometimes used to undermine or silence parents who report abuse or coercive control. This dynamic disproportionately affects mothers.

IPV survivor support groups and advocates have long raised concerns about the weaponization of parental alienation claims against mothers in cases involving IPV — especially against those who raise concerns about their children’s contact with an abusive parent.

This dynamic often follows a familiar pattern — a mother experiencing IPV may seek to limit parenting time due to child safety concerns. In response, the other parent may allege parental alienation.

When courts accept these allegations, the focus shifts away from abuse and toward the primary caregiver’s behaviour, which can then be interpreted as manipulation.

In some cases, this has led to expanded or even court-ordered contact, including reunification interventions, despite children’s expressed fears or resistance to contact with the other parent.

Requiring evidence, facts

Bill C-223 aims to address this by directing courts to rely on evidence-based understandings of coercive control, trauma and abuse dynamics rather than on the assumption that violence stops when partners separate or that children’s resistance to contact with one parent is always the result of influence from the other.

Organizations like the National Association of Women and the Law and Battered Women’s Support Services have argued that the bill addresses well-established research findings that in cases where alienation is alleged and IPV has happened, protective mothers are often penalized for prioritizing their children’s safety.

Limiting alienation claims, then, is not a denial that children can be harmed when one parent undermines their relationship with the other. Instead, it acts as a safeguard against post-separation abuse continuing through the legal process.

Oversimplifying complex family situations

Despite support for the bill among advocacy groups, some legal scholars and family justice researchers have raised concerns about how it may limit judges’ ability to respond effectively. This is particularly the case in situations where one parent has genuinely undermined a child’s relationship with the other parent, even in the absence of IPV.

Critics point out that when children resist contact with one parent, it’s often due to a mix of emotional, relational and environmental factors, including loyalty conflicts, emotional pressures or prolonged exposure to parental conflict or abuse — even if that abuse wasn’t directed at them.

It is precisely because similar dynamics can arise in both abusive and non-abusive situations that critics argue judges require broad discretion to examine multiple possible explanations for a child’s resistance, including — in some cases — deliberate interference by a parent.

This suggests that limiting reliance on alienation-style evidence could restrict how courts evaluate such complexity, raising concerns about how effectively high-conflict parenting disputes can be resolved.

Critics of the bill aren’t defending or overlooking the historic misuse or weaponization of alienation claims. Instead, they question whether the bill risks replacing one flawed framework with another — one that may be poorly suited to ambiguous or less typical cases.

Balancing protection and children’s voices

At the centre of debates over Bill C-223 is a broader question about what effective child protection should look like in family law.

On one hand, the bill strengthens children’s voices and moves away from reducing their views as simply a product of parental influence.

At the same time, there is value in maintaining judicial flexibility. Even though clearer legislation may reduce the misuse of claims like parental alienation, there is still risk when limiting the range of options available to judges faced with complex situations.

Bill C-223 certainly reflects a positive shift in Canadian law towards trauma- and violence-informed approaches. It’s a clear effort to align legal frameworks with the research on abuse, coercive control and child well-being

But whether the bill ultimately achieves its intended goal will depend not only on its final wording, but also how courts interpret and apply its principles in practice.

As debates over Bill C-223 continue, the question is not whether reform is needed, but how to develop legal frameworks that protect children from harm while also preserving the flexibility that is needed to respond to complex, highly individualized cases.

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.

When people picture a rabbi, they may imagine a man standing in front of a congregation in a synagogue. But “rabbi” means much more than that. For example, a rabbi could be a teacher, a nonprofit executive for a Jewish organization, or a scholar of Jewish law – and, increasingly, some of those roles are held by Orthodox women.

For decades, liberal denominations have permitted women to be ordained. Orthodox Judaism, however, has largely prohibited it. Yet attitudes toward women’s study of rabbinic texts is changing, leading some Orthodox leaders to conclude that women are qualified for rabbinic jobs.

Israel’s chief rabbis – known as the Rabbinate, and historically seen as the top authority for the country’s Orthodox institutions – do not recognize women as rabbis or permit their ordination. But on April 27, 2026, after an hourslong delay and an emergency injunction from the country’s High Court of Justice, three women sat for one of the Rabbinate’s exams about Jewish law. The exam followed a legal battle over the course of the past few years, culminating in a High Court of Justice decision in July 2025 that women must be allowed to take the tests. The chief rabbis appealed the decision, but the court rejected their request for a retrial.

These tests are required to apply for public sector jobs as any kind of Jewish religious authority in Israel: ensuring that restaurants adhere to Jewish dietary laws, for example. Passing does not make someone an ordained rabbi; ordination is conferred through private rabbis and schools, and most Orthodox communities do not recognize female rabbis. But it does allow women to apply for jobs previously available only to men and receive higher salaries for the educational jobs they have already. Most importantly, the High Court of Justice’s decision recognized that women have achieved high levels of education in rabbinic law.

I am a scholar of Jewish women and gender who researches religious authority among Orthodox women. While there have always been highly educated women, the court’s ruling reflects a growing trend among Orthodox women, while also opening up professional opportunities.

From Torah to Talmud

Formed in the 19th century, Orthodox Judaism is oriented around a strict observance of Jewish law and commitment to traditional gender roles. The denomination contains many divisions, each one adjusting their observance of Jewish law differently in response to modernity. While boys and men have been traditionally educated in Torah and rabbinic texts, historically girls and women did not have access to any formal Jewish education.

In the early 20th century, Jewish Polish teacher Sarah Schenirer revolutionized Orthodox girls’ education by founding the Bais Yaakov school system, now found in many countries. The Bais Yaakov education focused on teaching women Torah, while maintaining women’s place within the Jewish home.

But soon another debate arose: whether women could study Talmud. This text, composed between the second and seventh centuries C.E., contains the building blocks of rabbinic law. Studying the Talmud means learning the language, references and argument style of the Jewish legal system, called “halakha.”

Supporters and opponents of Talmud study for women both argued that it would forever alter orthodoxy. Opponents feared that if women understood Talmudic discussions, they would be interested in participating more in public religious life, upsetting the gender norms at the heart of orthodoxy.

Yet, in the 1970s, some well-known rabbis in Israel and America invited women into Talmud study. Since then, the number of Orthodox institutions that offer advanced Talmud study for women has grown significantly. Fifty years ago, there were only two options: Stern College of Yeshiva University in New York, or Michlelet Bruriah in Israel, now called Midreshet Lindenbaum. Today, dozens of institutions offer programs for Orthodox women who want to study rabbinic law.

The institutions where women can learn Talmud and rabbinic law span the Orthodox landscape. Many are affiliated with open or modern orthodoxy, which have embraced changes related to gender roles. Some cater to the Haredi or “ultra-Orthodox” population, and others to communities in between.

Most students who complete these programs are not seeking traditional ordination as rabbis. But the women graduate prepared for several other types of religious leadership, such as Jewish education, or as halakha guides for other women. Some programs prepare students to answer Jewish legal questions in particular areas, such as practices during menstruation or childbirth.

Feminist network

This growth in opportunities for Orthodox women is the result of a network of Orthodox feminists working across borders since the 1970s.

Michlelet Bruriah, for example, was founded by two American Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1960s. Several other educational institutions developed through this network – including Matan, Nishmat and Drisha, which are currently located in Israel.

Yeshivat Maharat, the first Orthodox seminary to ordain women as rabbis, is in New York. Several of its teachers and students came from these Israeli institutions, and some of their donors have also supported the schools in Israel.

The lawsuit challenging the Israeli chief rabbis’ restriction on women taking the Jewish law exam was filed by several people involved in this network.

Rabbi Seth Farber, for example, is an American immigrant to Israel and the founder of ITIM, a nonprofit that advocates for Jewish religious pluralism within Israeli society. He filed the lawsuit along with his wife, Michelle Cohen Farber, another American immigrant to Israel. She uses the title “rabbanit,” which traditionally refers to someone married to a rabbi. In her case, it also refers to her own expertise in Jewish legal texts: She co-founded Hadran, an organization that promotes Talmud study among women.

Other petitioners include Rabbanit Avital Engelberg, an Israeli-born graduate of Yeshivat Maharat who directs the seminary’s Israeli branch.

Impact

Women’s training allows them to enter a variety of fields. Opportunities for Orthodox women’s religious leadership is growing, and it’s not all about ordination. “Yoatzot halacha,” for example, counsel other women about issues related to marriage, sex and reproduction.

More broadly, these programs – and the fact that women have now actually taken one of the Rabbinate’s exams – validate women’s religious leadership. For decades, many Orthodox Jews have looked to Israel’s Orthodox Rabbinate as the arbiter of religious authenticity. The ruling from the Israeli High Court of Justice forces Orthodox Judaism worldwide to recognize that women can achieve high levels of Talmudic education.

Finally, the proliferation of educational programs reflects – and creates – a need within orthodoxy. It is not just a small cadre of women seeking these opportunities. Programs continue to open because there is a demand among Orthodox women for the chance to study rabbinic texts. As more institutions create programs for women, they are creating a new reality: one where Orthodox women are religious leaders.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Nov. 19, 2025.

Michal Raucher received funding from the Israel Institute, the University of Cincinnati, and the Hadassah Brandeis Institute to conduct research related to this article.

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a chain of crisis pregnancy centers based in New Jersey to challenge a subpoena from New Jersey’s attorney general.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers operates at several locations throughout New Jersey. There are more than 2,500 of these Christian-led nonprofits in the United States. Most try to discourage pregnant women from obtaining abortions. Some offer free medical services, such as over-the-counter pregnancy tests and sonograms. Many give their clients clothing, diapers and other items that the parents of babies require.

First Choice caught the attention of Matthew Platkin in 2023 while he served as the state’s attorney general. He suspected that it violated New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by misleading its donors about its mission and operations. According to court filings, Platkin wanted to determine if First Choice had misled its donors and patients into believing that the centers provide “comprehensive reproductive health care services, including abortion care and contraception, when they in fact have an objective of deterring individuals from seeking such services.”

As part of New Jersey’s investigation, Platkin issued a subpoena demanding that First Choice produce donation records, including the personal information of the donors, over a 10-year period so that his office could “contact a representative sample” of them to determine if they had “been misled” by First Choice about what the group does – that is, whether or not it provided abortions.

First Choice asserted that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights, and that it had a right to sue New Jersey’s attorney general in federal court to quash the subpoena.

The Supreme Court sided with First Choice in its unanimous ruling on First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. The case now bears the name of New Jersey’s current attorney general, Jennifer Davenport.

In my view as a privacy and constitutional law scholar, the court ruled correctly by concluding that issuing a subpoena for personal information regarding a crisis pregnancy center’s donors may deter those donors from supporting the organization.

Quashing New Jersey’s subpoena

After First Choice sued to block the subpoena, Platkin argued that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. That’s because First Choice’s alleged injury – deterring donors from supporting the organization – had not yet materialized because New Jersey had not yet tried to enforce the subpoena in court.

In other words, Platkin argued that the case was premature.

But First Choice argued that merely issuing a subpoena can deter donors from making a gift. To further its argument, First Choice presented what it said was an “anonymous declaration from several donors describing the present chill on their First Amendment-protected association.” In its view, the injury was real and concrete enough for the federal courts to decide the case.

The justices have now cleared the way for First Choice to continue with its lawsuit against New Jersey authorities in federal court.

Court ruled on a related case in 2018

The First Choice case might sound similar to a case the court decided in 2018.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Supreme Court considered a different First Amendment claim asserted by a California-based organization that counsels crisis pregnancy centers.

In 2015, California enacted the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, better known as the Reproductive FACT Act. That law required clinics to inform their patients of California’s free or low-cost access to family-planning services, prenatal care and abortion. Several anti-abortion groups objected to California’s mandate, claiming the Reproductive FACT Act unconstitutionally compelled crisis pregnancy centers to disclose a message they do not support.

The Supreme Court agreed. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, concluded that the Reproductive FACT Act required clinics to “provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored activities” that the clinics opposed.

In the court’s view, this violated the clinics’ First Amendment rights because it compelled them to speak a message containing an implicit viewpoint – support for abortion – that the clinics fundamentally opposed.

Both cases sit at the intersection of abortion politics and the First Amendment, but they raise distinct questions. The prior one, which addressed California’s attempt to regulate crisis pregnancy centers, asked whether the government can force those centers to make mandated statements. This new one, First Choice, asks whether the government can force the centers to disclose their donors’ identities.

Precedent set in an old NAACP case

The court has found previously that donations are a form of protected speech, including in its Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission ruling. In that 2010 decision, the majority recognized that “All speakers, including individuals … use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech.”

As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the Free Choice ruling, each right protected by the First Amendment “necessarily carries with it a corresponding right to associate with others.” Without such a right, he added, “no two men could safely share the same soapbox.”

This crisis pregnancy center ruling also reaffirms what the court decided about seven decades earlier in NAACP v. Alabama. The NAACP, founded in 1909, is one of the nation’s biggest civil rights groups.

In this 1958 ruling, the court concluded that any government actions that “may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate” warrant the highest form of protection under the First Amendment.

That ruling protected the privacy of NAACP members in Alabama. While there were no donors involved in that case, I believe that the rights of donors in the First Choice case are analogous to the rights of the NAACP’s members in the 1958 case – in that both have the right to the protection of their privacy.

In the 1950s, Alabama Attorney General John Patterson wanted to shut down the local NAACP chapter, based on his belief that the civil rights organization was “causing irreparable injury to the property and civil rights of the residents and citizens of the State of Alabama” by operating within the state as an unincorporated association.

As a part of his effort to oust the NAACP from Alabama, Patterson sought the membership lists of the local chapter, which, if disclosed, would have unquestionably caused “intimidation, vilification, economic reprisals, and physical harm.”

Similarly, in the 2026 First Choice case, Gorsuch, who wrote the 9-0 decision, “demands for private donor information inevitably carry with them a deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

That is similar to Alabama’s demand for the NAACP’s membership list in 1958.

“It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association,” Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II declared in the ruling, which essentially shut down Alabama’s effort to ban the NAACP.

“This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations,” Harlan added.

How to read this ruling

Many conservatives today will surely see the court’s decision as a win for the anti-abortion movement and its associated organizations. And many progressives will perceive it as another ruling from a supermajority conservative court that favors the rights of Americans who oppose access to abortion over those who support abortion rights.

The court, for example, overturned the nationwide right to abortion in 2022 in its Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization ruling.

I think both interpretations are wrong because this case is more about free speech than abortion.

The fundamental principle the court asserted in NAACP v. Alabama remains intact – there is a vital relationship between the right to privacy and the freedom to associate.

Since its ratification in 1791, the First Amendment has protected much more than the rights that are expressly mentioned in its text. It protects the right to speak freely, just as it protects the right not to speak and the right to speak anonymously.

The First Amendment protects the right to associate with groups and organizations, just as it protects the right to associate with those groups and organizations anonymously.

It protects the right to think freely, to hold certain beliefs and to reject others. And as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the First Choice case, the First Amendment protects individuals’ rights to associate with organizations that align with their beliefs by donating to them.

Wayne Unger 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.

Spring’s warmer weather lures people outdoors – and into possible contact with ticks that spread Lyme disease.

Already, the 2026 tick season is booming. On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that emergency room visits due to tick bites are at their highest level since 2017. That may portend an especially severe season for Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses.

State health departments reported more than 89,000 cases of Lyme disease in 2023, the last year for which data is available. But public health experts believe that close to 500,000 people in the U.S. get Lyme disease every year.

As an infectious disease doctor with experience treating some of this infection’s long-term outcomes, I know that Lyme disease can be tricky because people often don’t notice tick bites and may overlook early symptoms of an infection. But left untreated, the infection can cause serious lingering – and even permanent – health issues.

Here’s what you need to know about Lyme disease to stay safe this season:

What causes Lyme disease?

Lyme disease, named after the Connecticut town where the disease was first identified in 1975, is caused by a group of bacteria called Borrelia – most often, the species Borrelia burgdorferi.

Deer ticks – also called black-legged ticks, and members of a group called Ixodes – transmit the disease after feeding on an infected animal, usually a bird, mouse or deer. When they then bite a person, they can transmit the bacteria into the person’s bloodstream.
Usually, the tick must attach for 24-48 hours to transmit the bacteria causing Lyme disease.

Where and when does Lyme disease occur?

Lyme disease can occur in most regions where deer ticks live.

These ticks are most active in late spring, summer and fall – usually April to November in most regions. They emerge when the temperature is above freezing. In years when winter is shorter, ticks can emerge earlier. And they may be active year-round in regions where freezing temperatures are rare.

Approximately 90% of U.S. cases are reported from states in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic from Virginia to eastern Canada, and Upper Midwest regions including Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. A few cases occasionally pop up in California, Oregon and Washington.

Since 1995, the incidence of Lyme disease in the U.S. has almost doubled.

Warmer weather and changes in rainfall patterns now allow ticks to survive in new regions of the country – and for longer periods. But even in regions where ticks lived before, Lyme disease has become more common due to increases in deer populations. As woodland areas are increasingly being developed, it may be bringing the habitat of deer and mice closer to people, increasing the risk of transmission.

Lyme disease symptoms to watch for

Early symptoms of Lyme disease – fever, muscle aches and fatigue – generally emerge within three to 30 days after a tick bite. Another classic symptom in the first month is a target or bull’s eye rash at the site of tick bite, which occurs in about 70% to 80% of cases.

Other rashes following a tick bite can also occur. Some may be due to irritation from the bite, and not necessarily an infection.

If you know you’ve had a tick bite and experience flu-like symptoms – or if you see a bull’s-eye rash, whether you know you were bitten or not – it’s important to check with your healthcare provider about whether you should be treated with antibiotics.

A blood test for antibodies can help confirm the infection, but it can sometimes yield a false negative result, particularly in the first couple of weeks of the disease.

In most people, the rash goes away on its own. However, treatment may shorten its duration and is important for preventing other symptoms. A two- to four-week course of antibiotics can generally treat Lyme disease. Severe cases might require intravenous antibiotics.

A promising new vaccine for Lyme disease is currently being tested. In March 2026, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company developing it, announced that in a late-stage study, the vaccine prevented the disease in 70% of people who received it.

Later Lyme symptoms

If left untreated, the bacteria that causes Lyme can spread, potentially causing longer-term symptoms. About 60% of people who get Lyme disease and don’t treat it can develop arthritis.

In rare cases, Lyme disease can also affect the heart and the nervous system. Inflammation in the brain or the tissues surrounding it, called meninges, can cause headaches and neck pain, as well as balance issues and memory and behavior changes. It can also cause nerve damage that results in numbness, tingling and muscle weakness.

These symptoms can appear right away or much later – sometimes months to years after infection. And in cases where the disease wasn’t promptly treated, late-stage symptoms can linger even after antibiotics kill the bacteria.

Scientists don’t fully understand why, but one intriguing study found that some particles from the bacteria’s cell wall leak into the joints and can persist after treatment, spurring ongoing inflammation and arthritis symptoms.

Another reason for Lyme’s long-term effects is that it can trigger autoimmune disease, which is when the immune system attacks its own cells. What’s more, because the nervous system may be particularly sensitive to damage caused by the bacteria and related inflammation, it may take an especially long time to heal. In some situations, the damage could be permanent.

Preventing Lyme disease

Until a vaccine becomes available, there are steps you and your family can take to help protect against Lyme disease:

• Use tick and insect repellents such as DEET and picaridin, which can be applied to skin, and permethrin, which is sprayed onto clothing, to keep ticks at bay. Treating clothing with permethrin may be especially beneficial, since the substance withstands several washes.

• Wear long-sleeve shirts and pants while you are gardening, hiking or walking through grass or woods to prevent tick bites. Wearing light-colored clothes makes ticks more visible, and tucking your pants into your socks can also prevent the little buggers from traveling from your pants, shoes and socks onto your legs.

• Remove your outdoor clothes immediately. Washing and drying clothes at high temperature can help kill any ticks that managed to hitch a ride. And a quick shower immediately after spending time outdoors can wash ticks off the skin before they have a chance to attach.

• If you spend time outdoors, perform daily tick checks, paying special attention to warm areas like your armpits, neck, ears and underwear line. If you find a tick attached, pull it off with tweezers, holding them perpendicular to the skin.

• If you find a tick that may have been on the skin for more than 36 hours, ask your healthcare provider whether a dose of preventive antibiotics – generally given within 72 hours of the bite – would be appropriate.

Lakshmi Chauhan receives funding from NIH.

Justice Virginia Bell has handed the governor-general her interim findings from the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded immediately by promising to implement all its recommendations.

The interim report recommends specific changes to counter-terrorism policy – and a speedy resolution to the lagging gun buyback scheme.

These sorts of changes may help. But they don’t begin to answer deeper questions about how a terror attack on that scale could occur in Australia. The commission is yet to examine how underlying conditions might have fuelled the attack, and what else governments, their agencies and we as a society must do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

Read more: Months on from the Bondi terror attack, the national gun buyback is floundering

What does the interim report recommend?

The interim report contains 14 recommendations, five of them confidential.

Of the nine public recommendations, nearly all focus on counter-terrorism policy and the ways government agencies operate. For example, recommendations three through six focus on the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee: a high-level coordination body made up of senior members of government.

The interim report recommends the committee be included in the Australian government’s Crisis Management Framework. The committee should brief National Cabinet at least annually.

Recommendation seven says ministers on the National Security Committee of cabinet should participate in a counter-terrorism exercise within nine months of each federal election.

These changes will not stop a terrorist from committing another attack. And most Australians could be forgiven for having never heard of these committees.

There’s also no reason why this all couldn’t have been investigated, possibly more quickly, by the original, departmental inquiry announced by Albanese. This was to be led by former head of ASIO, Dennis Richardson.

Richardson recently resigned from the royal commission, saying he felt like an overpaid research officer. He was also worried the process would take too long to deliver concrete recommendations on policing and intelligence.

Back in 2019, Richardson undertook a comprehensive review of Australia’s intelligence and surveillance architecture. The interim report explains key findings from that review and others that preceded it.

This interim report reads more like a continuation of those earlier reviews, and less like a fundamental inquiry into how the Bondi terror attack could possibly have happened in Australia.

Still, it’s just the first step in a longer, ongoing process. We can’t expect, at this point, concrete answers on what, if anything, might have prevented the attack. More practical interim recommendations may well be found in the classified version.

The commission is also hamstrung somewhat, as it can’t take evidence or comment on anything that might prejudice the accused’s criminal trial. This includes statements from witnesses or details on how the attack unfolded.

What can we expect next?

Public hearings for the royal commission will begin next week. In the first round, people with lived experience of antisemitism are expected to give evidence.

After that, it remains to be seen where the inquiry will direct its focus.

Its terms of reference are extremely broad, covering antisemitism, social cohesion, training for law enforcement, border control and immigration, radicalisation, specific circumstances surrounding the attack, and anything else that might be “reasonably incidental” or relevant.

It has so far received more than 3,500 submissions. The commission must report back by December 14 this year, before the one-year anniversary of the attack.

To report meaningfully on all these topics on such a pressured timeline will be a monumental task. Some focus may be necessary, but there will be valid differences of opinion as to whether this inquiry is primarily about antisemitism, social cohesion, counter-terrorism, radicalisation, the Bondi attack, or all of the above.

Read more: These are the 6 key questions the antisemitism royal commission needs to answer

At the moment, it is about all these things, which may ultimately undermine what it is able to contribute on any one.

Bell clearly knows the scale of the task. She has warned that “examining the ways in which we might strengthen social cohesion in Australia could well be the work of years, not months”.

For now, there is little in the interim report for Australians to start making sense of last year’s terror and tragedy in Bondi.

Keiran Hardy receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Project on conspiracy-fuelled extremism.

NeeDoh is the latest squishy sensory toy to go viral. Social media is reporting how these blobs of gel are flying off the shelves, and are in short supply.

But squishy sensory toys have been around much longer than this latest fad. You might remember putty, slime or stress balls.

So why are these products so popular? And when are sensory objects more than just toys?

What are these products?

NeeDoh is one of many stress-ball-esque, pliable, squeezable products.

They’re mainly made from a type of rubber or polymer. And their composition affects their consistency, pliability, texture and ability to form shapes.

For instance, they can be soft, stretchy and oozy while still being able to hold a shape. Some form into a ball and can bounce.

Often, the products are said to be non-toxic, durable and satisfying to squeeze repeatedly.

Why do people like them?

People find such products appealing for a number of reasons. This might depend on their personal preference, sensory sensitivity among neurodivergent people, energy levels, or a combination. They might:

• enjoy the tactile experience

• find it makes them feel calm

• allows them to focus more easily

• use these products to avoid other behaviours, such as nail biting.

Neuroscience helps explain some of this.

Brain regions associated with planning and emotional regulation are activated when adults squeeze a soft or medium density stress ball. This might explain why some people can feel calm or say they can focus on a task more easily.

The brain also wants fingers and hands to fidget and tinker, even when doing sedentary activities like reading. So rather than using hands for less accepted behaviours, such as skin picking or nail biting, they can be used to squish these objects. It can be comforting when we see others fidgeting too as it makes it more socially acceptable.

But not everyone likes how these squishable objects make them feel. Others find the sensation unpleasant or even painful.

We have neural circuits in our body and brain responsible for perceiving and processing incoming sensory information from the world around us, such as light, sound, pressure and temperature.

These circuits form a loop between our brain and body to work out if we find these sensations pleasant or unpleasant. If there is too much sensory input at one time, we can even find these sensations painful.

The serious side of sensory products

Sensory objects are more than a marketing gimmick. They are increasingly used in schools, but with mixed results.

There have been no formal studies on the educational benefits of NeeDoh. However, we can look at studies on fidget tools, such as fidget spinners or fidget cubes, in the classroom.

Some studies in primary school-age children show fidget tools increase on-task behaviour, decrease hyperactivity movements for children with ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). However, the results differ based on the type of fidget tool. There’s also limited evidence to show these tools help students accurately complete school work, such as answering a maths question.

Different children may also benefit from different types of fidget tool, depending on their needs and how stimulating their environment is. So it’s best to consult a health-care professional who will usually recommend a specific tool for a specific therapeutic purpose.

For instance, a wobble stool may be recommended to reduce hyperactive movement for one child or to increase movement and energy levels for a different child.

But the real benefit from the increased use of sensory objects in classrooms is this can increase acceptance of neurodivergence and make it more acceptable for those who once felt they had to mask their use.

Sensory tools are also being trialled in higher education. Our first-year students at Bond University set up “sensory toolboxes” to help the on-campus experience for neurodivergent students.

These boxes included items in a variety of textures and pliability. Items were “no sound” to reduce noise reverberation, which some people find unpleasant. Items included those that were smooth, bendy, stretchy, tactile and squishy. NeeDoh cubes were the most popular.

But these items weren’t only popular with students. Some educators said they also enjoyed the sensory stimulation of holding items from the box as they taught classes.

In a nutshell

If you enjoy their texture, and how they make you feel, there’s no harm in using squishable objects like NeeDoh.

These remind us that people experience textures and use their hands in different ways, and for different reasons.

But if you or your child want to use sensory tools therapeutically, check in with a health professional and your child’s inclusive-education teacher to match you with the right type. This may not be a squishable one.

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.

Each animal species has an optimal temperature at which it can metabolise food and its immune system can best fight off pathogens.

As our recent research shows, temperature directly affects the immune systems of vertebrates – regardless of how they moderate their own body temperatures. At first, slightly hotter temperatures actually give many animal immune systems a boost. But when temperatures get still hotter, conditions favour pathogens – organisms which cause disease.

This is a real problem, given many pathogens found in warmer areas are likely to expand their range as the climate changes.

The good news: learning more about how temperatures affect animal immune systems gives us new options, such as using “frog saunas” to help frogs fight off the lethal chytrid fungus.

How do animals maintain body temperatures?

Different types of vertebrates have very different ways of maintaining an optimal body temperature.

Mammals and birds are endotherms. In cold conditions, they can keep their body temperature close to optimal by burning energy stored as fat. Animals such as reindeer are able to live in temperatures as low as -40°C while keeping their core body temperature at 38-40°C.

At the other extreme are snakes, lizards and other poikilotherms – so-called “cold blooded” animals who rely on the environment to modify their temperature. If they’re too cold, they seek the sun. If too hot, they seek the shade.

Regardless of the method, the goal is the same: keep body temperature as close to optimal as possible.

Pathogens have temperature preferences too

Pathogens are very diverse. Some prefer hotter conditions and others cooler. For some, high temperatures can stop them replicating. But for others, heat is great. The lethal Ebola virus replicates best at 41°C.

The rhinoviruses which cause the common cold prefer the slightly cooler temperatures (33°C) found in human airways.

In birds, outbreaks of lethal H5N1 avian influenza have been shown to come shortly after a large sudden drop in temperatures.

The fungus causing devastating white-nose syndrome in bats likes colder temperatures of 12-16°C. When bats hibernate, their body temperatures drop and their immune response isn’t as strong. This is when the fungus can invade.

Most fish species are poikilotherms. If they move into water colder than their optimal, their immune defences are lowered and they’re more susceptible to pathogens such as viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus or the bacteria Flavobacterium psychrophilum causing coldwater disease.

Frogs and other amphibians are now declining globally. A major cause is the disease chytridiomycosis caused by the chytrid fungus. The disease is implicated in at least 90 extinctions. This fungus lives in water or damp soil and prefers the cold. As the world heats up, the fungus will likely gain access to new water bodies – and amphibian hosts.

Researchers found leopard frogs (Rana yavapaiensis) living in warmer water were infected less than those in colder water. Australian researchers are now building “frog saunas” which let infected frogs kill off the infection.

How does temperature affect animal immune systems?

When an animal’s body temperature is lower than optimal, it can’t mount as strong an immune defence against specific pathogens. Interestingly, we found this effect only seems to impair specific defences, while the animal’s innate defences aren’t affected.

Ground squirrels and many other species can go into short hibernation periods known as torpor. In this state, their metabolism slows down, body temperature drops and reduces numbers of cells and molecules responsible for specific immune defences circulating. In most cases, the lower body temperature also stops pathogens from replicating. Once an animal leaves the torpor state and its body warms up, its specific immune responses bounce back.

How does this work? When temperatures fall, changes take place in the physical structure of the molecules necessary to mount a specific defence against a pathogen, making an immune response impossible. For instance, the major histocompatibility complex, a key immune molecule found in almost all vertebrates, loses the ability to bind to other immune system molecules in the cold.

Heat acts differently. Humans and all other endotherms can induce a fever, which means the immune system raises the body temperature to stop an invading bacterium, virus or other pathogen from replicating. Fevers put most pathogens at a disadvantage and triggers specific immune responses. But too much heat is a problem, as it can stress the body or even kill. Luckily, special molecules called heat shock proteins can buffer cells against heat and help restore the proteins needed to induce a specific immune response.

Lizards, fish and other poikilotherms can’t increase their own body temperature. Instead, when they get an infection, they employ “behavioural fever” – moving to warmer environments to boost their immune response.

Can we use this to protect species?

Knowledge of how temperature affects animal immune systems lets us plan new ways of protecting threatened species.

We can use heat or cold to change body temperatures and trigger immune responses, or to stop pathogens replicating.

But as climate change intensifies, rapid temperature changes will bring many unwelcome changes for animals. Heat-loving pathogens such as malaria will expand their range, as will cold-hating parasites such as ticks. Milder winters in Canada and the United States, for instance, are letting winter ticks survive the cold. These blood-sucking parasites are now killing many young moose.

The more we understand about how temperatures and animal immune systems intersect, the better we are placed to help animals whatever is to come.

Brian Dixon receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Julie Old 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.

Few things matter more to us than our eyesight. We fear losing it even more than some life-threatening conditions.

Yet for many New Zealanders, access to routine eye care remains out of reach. This is despite the wide-ranging impacts of vision loss for both individuals and society.

It limits opportunities for work and study, raises the risks of traffic accidents and falls, and is linked with higher rates of depression and dementia. Globally, the annual cost in lost productivity has been estimated at nearly NZ$700 billion.

What’s more, it is mostly avoidable. More than 90% of vision loss can be prevented or treated with simple, cost-effective care such as glasses or cataract surgery.

In dollar terms, providing funding for spectacles and eye examinations for New Zealanders could provide a $36 benefit for every $1 spent.

If Aotearoa matched Australia’s public funding policies for community eye care, allocating just 1.2% of its health budget could fund 2.4 million eye examinations and 60,500 pairs of glasses. Current funding delivers eye care services to 25,000 children for about 0.02% of the health budget.

With the government now deliberating its 2026 health budget, our preliminary research looks at what it could cost to make routine eye care a reality for all New Zealanders.

A plight out of sight

Anyone reading this article in New Zealand through a pair of $2 reading glasses isn’t alone in choosing cheap solutions to improve their vision. As many as one in four Kiwi patients may be skipping or delaying specialised eye care because of the cost.

Routine eye examinations and spectacles are delivered almost exclusively by optometrists in private practice, with very little public funding to offset the costs.

This places New Zealand behind other countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States, which fund routine eye care for some or all of their population.

For Kiwis needing financial support for eye care, options are limited. The children of Community Services Card holders can access up to $287.50 for an eye test and glasses via Enable New Zealand.

People on low-incomes can apply for a $280 loan from Work and Income New Zealand, which must be repaid. Spectacles are not currently available in the public sector. Despite advertised “$0 eye tests” and discounted spectacles, the reality is that eye examinations and spectacles remain unaffordable for many.

Optometry services provide more than a new pair of frames. Regular eye examinations are essential to detect and treat progressive conditions such as glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy which are asymptomatic in their early stages.

By excluding this preventative eye care from the public health agenda, New Zealand is leaving some communities to live with an avoidable burden.

In particular, eye care services are two to three times less accessible for Māori and Pacific people than for other New Zealanders.

One recent study found that in an inner-city Auckland community with a high Māori and Pacific population, half of residents with vision loss had never had an eye examination, while three-quarters had never been prescribed custom spectacles.

Should NZ adopt Australia’s model?

If New Zealand seeks a fairer model for eye health, policymakers have only to look across the Tasman.

In Australia, all citizens and permanent residents are eligible for Medicare-funded, comprehensive eye examinations delivered by optometrists.

Around one-third of its population uses these services every year. Uptake is highest among older adults, while additional policies target Indigenous Australians, for example via state-funded spectacle subsidies.

If New Zealand saw similar uptake, we estimate that adopting a comparable model would cost around $349 million a year, funding approximately 2.4 million eye examinations.

An additional $13 million would deliver around 60,500 spectacles to people who need them the most. Even this generous costing is comparable with other health investments, such as the Labour Government’s 2023 proposed investment of $390 million to extend free dental care to approximately 800,000 19–30 year olds.

Universal funding is not the only option: more targeted approaches could prioritise those at greatest risk of avoidable vision loss.

For instance, our analysis indicates that public investment of $89 million could subsidise approximately 760,000 examinations for Community Services Card holders who are most likely to need financial support.

Just $37 million would fund eye care for children under 15 years, aligning with universal dental and GP services for this age group. At the other end of the age spectrum, around $166 million per year would support eye care for older adults, who have the greatest need.

This investment would arguably be more effective than the $61 million proposed within the 2020 health budget to fund one-off “eye health checks”, for which there is no evidence of population-level benefit.

Healthy eyes should not be a luxury. New Zealand can and should include eye examinations and spectacles within its health expenditure.

Preventative eye care is a cost-saving investment that will reduce the societal and economic impacts of vision loss. For policymakers, it as an opportunity to invest in an area of health that has remained out of sight for too long.

Lucy Goodman receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Jacqueline Ramke has received research funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Buchanan Charitable Foundation and the New Zealand Association of Optometrists.

Pushkar Silwal has received funding from Health Research Council of New Zealand.

In February 2025, the Canadian government announced Alto, a high-speed rail line that will eventually connect Toronto to Québec City. In November, the government said it would introduce new legislation to speed up the project.

One of its proposed benefits is that electrified, high-speed rail will help Canada reduce emissions and meet its climate targets. Alto says the project will help prevent many short-haul flights and remove the carbon emissions equivalent to 100,000 cars from the road each year.

But Alto is unlikely to meaningfully reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. There are indeed benefits from high-speed rail development, including bolstered regional connectivity and economic growth. However, a significant reduction in emissions is not a realistic outcome.

Claimed emissions reductions

Alto — the federal Crown corporation developing the project — said that by getting passengers out of vehicles, “we can collectively remove up to 90 billion vehicle kilometres travelled from the roads over the project’s lifecycle, equivalent to approximately 100 thousand cars’ worth of travel removed annually from the roads.”

While 39 million tonnes may sound large, it’s a relatively small GHG reduction from the point of view of a national-scale infrastructure project lasting more than 60 years. It’s akin to only 0.65 megatonnes of CO2 per year of the project through to the mid-2080s.

For reference, Canada’s annual emissions today are about 1,000 times greater than that. When framed in the context of existing annual emissions, the claimed reductions are modest.

Induced demand

Alto’s expected reduction in vehicle and air travel is likely an overestimate. Research into 210 projects in 14 nations found that ridership forecasts for high-speed rail are often higher than what eventually comes to pass. This gets at another challenge with high-speed rail’s energy impacts: induced demand.

One of the real benefits of high-speed rail development is economic growth. This arises because a new high-speed train makes new forms of economic activity possible.

It reduces the time it takes to travel between cities, making greater connectivity possible, while also increasing tourism opportunities. In theory, it also expands the distance that workers are willing to commute, which could create new housing development opportunities in regions that otherwise would not have experienced them.

Nevertheless, these same benefits potentially undermine some of the environmental arguments for high-speed rail. These new economic opportunities induce new transport demand — not only for the new train but for other modes of travel as well.

Research in this area suggests that about 20 per cent of high-speed rail traffic could be made up of new travellers who would not have made the trip otherwise. That does leave up to 80 per cent of high-speed rail travellers switching from another mode of transportation. However, there are a couple of reasons why that may not result in significant GHG reductions in Canada.

First, many travellers will be those who would have taken the conventional train and who will merely switch to the high-speed train instead. This would indeed mark a lower emissions journey given that VIA Rail’s current trains are diesel-powered. But it’s not as substantive a reduction as switching from air travel, for example.

In addition, sales of electric vehicles are expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. If EVs become more commonplace, or even the norm, the government must consider whether a diverted automobile trip in the decades to come would be diverting a passenger from a (GHG-emitting) combustion engine or a (non-emitting) electric one.

Much of the diverted automobile traffic for high-speed rail — by the time the train line is built — will likely come from EVs. That leaves diverting traffic from aircraft as the main way to reduce transport emissions. Yet even this sector is also expected to electrify in the coming decades.

In fact, it is precisely the short-haul flight market within the busy Québec City-Windsor corridor where small electric aircraft are set to debut in Canada. Airlines have already put in orders for electric planes, which may even enter into service before the first rail link is built.

Emissions from construction

Another significant effect that could increase GHG emissions would be the construction of the rail infrastructure itself. This would not be inconsequential: 1,000 kilometres of dedicated tracks within a swathe of land several dozen metres wide, featuring overpasses and tunnelling to ensure there are no grade crossings with roads, not to mention the need for overhead power lines.

The sheer amount of concrete, steel and copper required to build Alto will be immense, and would contribute to Canada’s GHG emissions during construction.

This is not to say Alto shouldn’t be built, nor that it’s a bad idea. The construction and operation of a high-speed rail line would generate growth and socioeconomic value for Canada.

It would create tens of thousands of construction jobs, billions of dollars in new opportunities annually and could help revive Canada’s suffering steel sector (currently dealing with tariff pressures from the United States).

Such infrastructure could very well be operated without producing much GHG emissions, and fit well within Canada’s aims for a future net-zero society. But this doesn’t mean that introducing a high-speed train itself would substantially help in Canada’s near-term climate mitigation efforts. It won’t.

Ryan M. Katz-Rosene 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.

Mali has been in a state of political turmoil since 2012. That year saw a military coup as well as armed groups taking over northern regions of the west African country. In the intervening years, efforts at establishing transitional governments have failed, culminating in the military junta dissolving and banning all political parties in May 2025.

In addition, the country has seen waves of military interventions by outside players like France, the US and most recently Russia. All have invested heavily in trying to contain the extremist threat in Mali.

But groups linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have continued to expand their influence. And in late April 2026 the military government found itself having to fend off coordinated attacks from separatists and jihadists across the country. The defence minister, General Sadio Camara, was killed.

Foreign interventions over the past decade have often misunderstood what was happening on the ground. Extremist groups have capitalised on issues such as land disputes, corruption, and resource competition to gain legitimacy, often aligning with the community’s tensions. The weakness of state institutions and security forces has allowed groups such as Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) to consolidate power.

These groups have adapted by forming alliances and tailoring their narratives to local grievances, prioritising immediate issues over ideological objectives.

We are political scientists who have researched the security situation in Mali and the Sahel. Our recently published paper showed that non-state armed groups in the Sahel, particularly in Mali, have emerged as key power brokers, shaping local governance by filling gaps left by weak state institutions.

While external actors such as France, the US and Russia have prioritised counter-terrorism and state-building, they often overlook the governance functions of non-state armed groups. These groups often provide essential services and gain local legitimacy.

Recognising the role of armed groups as local power holders does not mean accepting or legitimising their actions. However, ignoring this reality has led to policies that miss the mark. When interventions focus only on military solutions, they risk misunderstanding why people interact with these groups in the first place.

Our findings challenge conventional interventions that focus solely on defeating non-state armed groups or reinstating centralised state control. We argue that security solutions alone are insufficient. We advocate for a more nuanced approach that integrates the potential for non-state armed groups when it comes to governance, legitimacy and local agency. Non-state armed groups have provided governance over territories in countries like Colombia, Syria and South Sudan, among others.

Armed groups as de facto authorities

Armed groups in Mali are not just fighting forces. In many parts of the country, they play a more complex role. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of groups operating within Mali. The largest and best known, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wa al-Muslimeen, is a coalition of five organisations and claims to have over 10,000 fighters in the country.

In central and northern Mali, bordering Algeria, the state is often distant, absent or mistrusted. Armed groups step into this vacuum. They settle disputes, enforce rules, collect taxes, and sometimes provide a basic sense of order.

For communities living with daily insecurity, these functions are not abstract; they shape everyday life.

Our study established that this does not necessarily mean the population agrees with these groups or supports their ideology. Many do not. However, when there are few alternatives, people adapt. They follow the rules because they need to survive, not because they believe in them.

This distinction is important. This helps explain why these groups are so difficult to dislodge. Their strength does not come only from weapons but also from how deeply they are embedded in local realities.

Why military strategies fall short

International efforts have largely focused on fighting these groups and rebuilding the authority of the Malian state. Although well intentioned, these kinds of interventions often overlook something essential: what happens to the spaces these groups leave behind?

An example is France’s 2013 intervention. The French army helped the Malian army to regain control of the northern part of the country from advancing Islamists during Operation Serval. The aim was to stop extremist forces from advancing to Bamako. This did not end the conflict. Many fighters moved to rural areas where the state had little presence and built ties with local communities.

In central Mali, where cattle farming is a key source of income, this dynamic contributed to the spread of violence between Fulani and Dogon communities, reinforcing grievances exploited by extremist groups.

Simultaneously, attempts to strengthen state institutions have struggled. In some places, security forces are seen as ineffective and even abusive.

Faced with this reality, people often turn to whoever can offer some level of predictability and protection, even if that actor is an armed group.

External involvement has also become increasingly fragmented. France’s withdrawal, rising anti-western sentiment, and the arrival of Russian-linked forces have created a crowded and sometimes conflicting intervention landscape.

Different actors bring different agendas, and their presence does not always translate into greater security. In some cases, it can even worsen things by reinforcing tensions or weakening trust in already fragile institutions.

Caught in the middle, civilians make difficult choices daily. Their decisions are rarely ideological but rather about survival.

Rethinking the response

We conclude from our findings that a more grounded approach would begin by listening to local realities. It would address the gaps that allow armed groups to take root. This means improving access to justice and security, supporting local institutions, and taking grievances seriously. It also means recognising that legitimacy is built from the ground up, not imposed from above.

Mali’s experience shows that there are clear limits to what military force can achieve on its own. As long as interventions overlook the everyday realities of governance and survival, they are unlikely to bring about lasting change. Until that shift happens, armed groups will remain hard to dislodge, not only because they can fight but also because, in many places, they have become part of how life is organised.

Norman Sempijja is affiliated with Mohammed VI polytechnic University and based at the Faculty of Governance Economics and Social Sciences.

Mouhammed Ndiaye 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.