Författare: Rss .

At the start of his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump declared, “The golden age of America begins right now!”

A month later, Trump’s supporters gathered at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, in Oxon Hill, Maryland, from Feb. 19-22 to celebrate the advent of this golden age.

Gold glitter jackets, emblazoned with phrases like “Trump the Golden Era,” are for sale in the CPAC exhibition hall. There, attendees decked out in other MAGA-themed clothing and accessories network and mingle. They visit booths with politically charged signs that say “Defund Planned Parenthood” and collect brochures on topics like “The Gender Industrial Complex.”

Another booth with a yellow and black striped backdrop resembling a prison cell’s bars was called a “Deportation Center.” Attendees photographed themselves at this booth, posing beside full-size cutouts of Trump and his border czar, Tom Homan.

Former Jan. 6 prisoners, including Proud Boys’ former leader Enrique Tarrio, have also been a visible – and controversial – presence at CPAC.

The conference’s proceedings kicked off on Feb. 20 with an Arizona pastor, Joshua Navarrete, saying, to loud applause, “We are living in the greatest time of our era – the golden age!”

Many subsequent speakers repeated this phrase, celebrating the country’s “golden age.”

For many outside observers, claims of a golden age might seem odd.

Just months ago during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that an American apocalypse was underway, driven by a U.S. economy in shambles and major cities overrun by an “invasion” of “illegal alien” “terrorists,” “rapists” and “murderers.”

Now, Trump’s critics argue, the U.S. is led by a convicted felon who is implementing policies that are reckless, stupid and harmful.

Further, these critics contend, Trump’s illegal power grabs are leading to a constitutional crisis that could cause democracy to crumble in the U.S.

How, they wonder, could anyone believe the country is in a golden age?

As an anthropologist of U.S. political culture, I have been studying the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement for years. I wrote a related 2021 book, “It Can Happen Here.” And I continue to do MAGA research at places like this year’s CPAC, where the mood has been giddy.

Here are three reasons why the MAGA faithful believe a golden age has begun. The list begins, and ends, with Trump.

Elon Musk holds a painting of himself during CPAC in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 20, 2025.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

1. The warrior hero

Trump supporters contend that after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attacks, which they consider a “peaceful protest,” Trump became a political pariah and victim.

Like many a mythic hero, Trump’s response was “never surrender.” In 2023, he repeatedly told his MAGA faithful, “I am your warrior, I am your justice.”

Trump’s heroism, his supporters believe, was illustrated after a bullet grazed his ear during an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania in July 2024. Trump quickly rose to his feet, pumped his fist in the air and yelled, “Fight, fight, fight.”

The phrase became a MAGA rally cry and, in February 2025, it has been stamped on CPAC attendees’ shirts and jackets.

After Trump’s 2024 election victory, many Trump supporters dubbed it
“the greatest comeback in political history.” MAGA populist Steven Bannon invoked this phrase at a pre-CPAC event on Feb. 19.

When Bannon spoke on the CPAC main stage on Feb. 20, he led the crowd in a raucous “fight, fight, fight” chant. He compared Trump with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington and called for him to run again for president in 2028.

This is despite the fact that Trump running for a third term would violate the Constitution.

2. A wrecking ball

The MAGA faithful believe that Trump is like a human “wrecking ball,” as evangelical leader Lance Wallnau said in 2015. This metaphor speaks to how Trump supporters believe the president is tearing down an entrenched, corrupt system.

The day Trump took office, MAGA stalwarts underscore, he began to “drain the swamp” with a slew of executive orders.

One established the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which is devoted to eliminating government waste. DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, has dismantled USAID and fired thousands of government workers whom MAGA views as part of an anti-Trump “deep state.”

Musk stole the show at CPAC on Feb. 20. Speaking to a cheering crowd, Musk held up a large red chain saw and yelled, “This is the chain saw for bureaucracy.”

Speaker after speaker at this year’s CPAC have celebrated this and other wrecking-ball achievements on panels with titles like “Red Tape Reckoning,” “Crushing Woke Board Rooms” and “The Takedown of Left Tech.”

3. The Midas touch

A golden age requires a builder. Who better, the MAGA faithful believe, than a billionaire businessman with a self-proclaimed “Midas touch.” This refers to King Midas, a figure in Greek mythology who turns everything he touches into pure gold.

“Trump Will Fix It” signs filled his 2024 campaign rallies. And MAGA supporters note that Trump began fixing the country on Day 1 by “flooding the zone” with executive orders aimed at implementing his four-pronged “America First” promise. In addition to draining the swamp, this plan pledges to “make America safe again,” “make America affordable and energy dominant again” and “bring back American values.”

These themes run through the remarks of almost every CPAC speaker, who offer nonstop praise about how Trump is securing the country’s borders, increasing energy independence, repatriating who they call illegal aliens, restoring free speech and reducing government regulation and waste.

CPAC speakers said that Trump has already racked up a slew of successes just a month into his presidency.

This includes Trump using the threat of tariffs to bring other countries to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, Trump supporters are pleased that he has been working to cut deals to end the conflict in Gaza and the war between Russia and Ukraine, while reorienting U.S. foreign policy to focus on China.

House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed the prevailing MAGA sentiment when he stated at CPAC that Trump “wrote the art of the deal. He knows what he’s doing.”

CPAC attendees wear Trump-themed clothing at the four-day political conference on Feb. 20, 2025.
Andrew Harnick/Getty Images

American exceptionalism restored

The golden-age celebration at CPAC centered on Trump and his mission to “make America great again.”

Speaker after speaker, including foreign conservative leaders from around the world, paid homage to Trump and this message.

During her CPAC speech, Liz Truss, the former prime minister of the U.K., stated, “This is truly the golden age of America.” Truss, who does not have a current political position, told the CPAC audience that she wanted to copy the MAGA playbook in order to “make Britain great again.”

The MAGA faithful believe that Trump is restoring an era of American exceptionalism in which the U.S. is an economic powerhouse, common sense is the rule, and traditional values centered on God, family and freedom are celebrated.

And they believe in a future where the U.S. is, as Trump said in his inaugural address, “the envy of every nation.” Läs mer…

“The Queen’s had an attack of gout! Hurry!”

So exclaimed the crotchety Mrs Meg in Yorgos Lanthimos’s The Favourite, in which Olivia Colman plays a moribund and overweight Queen Anne. The queen was afflicted with, among many other conditions, gout – a disorder which causes joint inflammation and severe pain.

In the film, while screaming out in pain, her swollen feet are wrapped in strips of soothing beef. The next day her soon-to-be new favourite, Abigail, collects wild herbs to make a poultice for her. A bit more effective than raw steak, she finds.

You’ve got to feel sorry for Queen Anne. She really didn’t have much of a chance, since doctors of her day had no options for treating gout other than quackery.

She may have been subject to many other absurd treatments of the time to alleviate the symptoms, like scorching the blood vessels supplying the feet, slathering them in goose fat, or bloodletting with leeches. By the time she passed away in 1714 aged just 49, death may have come as a welcome relief.

Queen Anne wasn’t the only member of royalty to suffer with gout. Prince Regent George (later George IV) was similarly afflicted. Gout, then, came to be associated with the aristocracy and over indulgence.

Gout still affects many people. In fact, it is estimated that in 2020 gout affected nearly 56 million people worldwide, a figure that’s predicted to grow to 96 million by 2050. So, a condition that was once considered the disease of kings and queens is a now a disease of the masses, with younger patients also being diagnosed.

Luckily, raw meat strips and herbs are no longer required. We now know much more about how to treat gout and how to prevent it recurring.

Understanding gout

Gout is a crystal arthropathy – a group of joint disorders that occur when crystals build up in joints and soft tissues. Gout develops when uric acid levels rise in the bloodstream, before infiltrating the joints where it solidifies and becomes needle-like crystals that inflame the joints, making them incredibly sore.

And when I say “sore”, I really do mean sore: many people who experience gout often describe it as one of the worst pains they have ever felt. It most commonly affects the big toe and it can make even the lightest touch to the skin unbearable.

Some gout patients sleep with a special cage over their foot that lifts up the bedclothes because they can’t bear even the weight of a bed sheet on the affected joint.

Gout can affect other joints. It may also cause “tophi” to develop (hard swellings around joints and the ears).

The Gout by James Gillray. Published May 14th 1799.
Wikimedia Commons

Gout typically occurs in bouts or attacks, before settling with treatment and becoming dormant. But it can reoccur, requiring more acute treatment.

A diagnosis of gout is based around the classic symptoms: excruciating pain,
swelling in and around the affected joint and redness. Microscopic examination of the fluid taken from the swollen joint may also show crystals and there is usually raised uric acid levels on blood tests.

High uric acid

High uric acid levels are usually linked to alcohol excess, obesity, diabetes and hypertension. A diet high in purine-rich foods has been found to have the strongest association.

Purines are compounds comprised of uric acid. Purine-rich foods include meat and offal, oily fish like mackerel and anchovies, and yeasty foods, like Marmite and beer. It may be a good idea to avoid these foods in excess if you suffer from frequent episodes of gout.

Medication

But dietary changes alone are unlikely to stave off symptoms of gout. Medications can treat both an acute episode of gout and prevent it recurring.

When the joints are inflamed, options include anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, naproxen, or steroid medications. Another option is colchicine, which is typically used for short periods and can be very effective – though it commonly causes bouts of diarrhoea.

When the inflammation has settled down, it is important to prevent future attacks. Allopurinol can reduce uric acid levels and therefore the risk of further bouts. There’s also evidence to suggest that eating cherries or drinking tart cherry juice could reduce the risk of gout attacks, especially if combined with alloprinol.

If you want to stay free of gout then perhaps it’s time to consider taking preventative action by making subtle lifestyle modifications. Maintain a healthy weight, eat a balanced diet, cut down on alcohol and avoid binge drinking, take regular exercise and keep yourself well hydrated. Läs mer…

The unprecedented postponement of the tabling of South Africa’s 2025 budget because of disagreement within the coalition government over a two percentage point increase in value added tax (VAT), highlights the country’s dilemma.

The government needs to raise revenue to deliver on its constitutional obligations. But in a context where the global outlook is uncertain and unpredictable, trade-offs are required.

South Africa has a deficit of around 4.3% of GDP, accounting for R377 billion (US$20,479 billion). According to the Unpublished budget review public debt stands at 76.1% of its GDP.

Whereas the public debt as a percentage of GDP is in line with that of similarly sized economies, its debt servicing costs are considerably higher. The country pays around 5% on public debt interest as a share of GDP while developing and upper-middle-income countries pay, on average, 2.2% and 1.8% respectively.

These figures point to why the finance minister wanted to raise more revenue. Treasury’s estimates in the 2025 unpublished Budget Review were that the increase in Vat and other tax adjustments plus factoring in tax foregone due to expanding the basket of zero-rated goods would have brought in an additional R58 billion (US$3.1 billion) for the 2025/26 financial year.

To date, debates around previous years’ budgets have mostly been about expenditure, with very little scrutiny of the revenue side. Not since the 2013 Davis Tax Committee has there been public debate about reforming the tax policy.

Read more:
South Africa’s economy needs a shot in the arm, not austerity: 3 key areas where more public spending would get results

Based on our academic research we believe the crucial question around tax reform is: who will bear the burden of the reform? And how taxes connect to the promise of the South African social compact. The social compact since democracy, expressed in the constitution, promises to uphold the rights of all citizens.

Evidence shows that increases in the rate of VAT affect poor households more, particularly women-headed households.

While the government is concerned about financing its budget and being able to raise the resources needed to make the state work, a rethink is needed about who must bear the burden of raising the money.

The cost of food

VAT is a flat tax on consumption of goods and services, usually paid by the end consumer. It affects lower income households more because they spend a greater share of their income on goods such as food, electricity and water.

The uproar over the recent proposed increase is therefore not surprising.

At least 34% of the yearly income of poor households is spent on food and groceries. Almost 50% of South Africans live under the poverty line. This is where the impact will be felt in a number of ways.

Firstly, the net effect of an increase in VAT will mean that mean that already financially stretched households will be paying more for food. This comes on top of
food inflation was 8% between 2023 and 2024.

Secondly, meagre increases in social grant payments in the last decade – over 28 million grants are paid out every month – have not kept pace with inflation.

One of the largest grants is the old age pension grant. There are around 3.9 million beneficiaries. It amounts to R2,190 (US$118) a month for those between 65 and 74 years and is the sole source of income for many families.

Between 2023 and 2024 this grant increased by R110 (US$5.45) – a 5.2 % increase, while inflation stood at 4.5%. However, after taking into account inflation, the grant amounts to R2,091 (just over US$107), having the net grant increase (after adjusting for inflation) of meagre R11 (the grant was in 2023 R2.080).

A VAT increase would raise their cost of living for working-class South African households (those earning between R8,000 (US$432) and R22,000 (US$1,188) a month) too. This cohort is already using 67% of their income to cover their debts. Middle class households (earning between R22,000 (US$1,188) and R35,000 (US$1,893) a month) use 69% of their income to cover their debts. A VAT-induced increase in the cost of living may push some to neglect servicing debt to maintain their living standards.

If middle and working class households defaulted in large numbers on their debt obligations, a vicious cycle might unfold.

Firstly, banks and financial institutions might face significant losses due to unpaid loans. This could trigger an economic recession as consumption could fall, leading to lower revenue collection. This could increase government debt as the state might need to bail out banks or get loans to cover the revenue shortfall. The result would be a credit downgrade which might make it more expensive to borrow money on international markets.

In a country with such a limited and vulnerable tax base (in 2024, only 7.4 million people of 63 million paid income tax) these risks should not be taken lightly.

Poor households spend 34% of their income on food.
Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

Wealthy South Africans

Wealthy South Africans will not be as badly affected by an increase in VAT. Their consumption as a share of their incomes is less. Yet they remain central to the government’s dilemma about raising money from taxes. That’s because taxing wealthier South Africans will result in a push-back, and in some cases put a strain on struggling companies and industries that are central for job creation.

However, the most likely reason a VAT increase was chosen as opposed to a higher income tax for high income earners, taxes on capital gains, or taxes on wealth is that the government knows the wealthy elites (including those in government) will oppose increases taxes targeted at them. They are more organised and have more leverage over the government than vulnerable households.

What next?

The government needs to spend money properly and meet its constitutional obligations. And corruption must be reduced.

What the standoff over the VAT increase has highlighted is that, if South Africa aims to be a society where everyone actually counts, it should place the well-being of all its citizens at the forefront. This should be the principle that informs the process of raising the resources needed to drive future. Läs mer…

Brazilian politics are getting more dramatic again.

The South American country’s attorney general filed five criminal charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro and 33 others in its Supreme Court on Feb. 18, 2025, detonating political shock waves. The charges include plotting a coup d’état to prevent Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva’s presidency. The other defendants include several former prominent officials, including a former spy chief, defense minister, national security adviser and Bolsonaro’s running mate.

Lula took office in Brazil for a third time in January 2023, after he defeated Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election. Bolsonaro, a right-wing politician allied with U.S. President Donald Trump, had served the previous four-year term. Bolsonaro and his codefendants are also charged with trying to poison Lula and assassinate his vice presidential running mate, Geraldo Alckmin, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes; participating in an armed criminal organization; and seeking to violently overthrow the democratic rule of law. He denies doing anything wrong.

As a professor of Brazilian politics, I believe that Bolsonaro’s legal troubles threaten to definitively end his political career. There’s also a possibility that the 69-year-old former president will be sentenced to prison. But, at the same time, the charges could also galvanize Bolsonaro’s base – playing into a narrative that sees the right-wing leader as stymied, unfairly, by the government he used to run.

No sash passed

Bolsonaro’s behavior before, during and after his second presidential campaign was unusual for any president seeking another term. He claimed, when he was still in office, that Brazil’s electronic voting system was not secure and predicted that fraud might crop up in the 2022 elections.

Although he never produced any evidence to support this claim, he promoted it on social media, fostering skepticism about the election among some voters.

Bolsonaro never formally conceded his narrow electoral defeat to Lula in October 2022, insinuating that instead the election had been stolen. In 2023, Brazil’s Supreme Electoral Court ruled that he had abused his power and banned him from running for political office again for the next eight years.

Instead of attending Lula’s inauguration on Jan. 1, 2023, where he would have been expected to participate in the traditional passing of the sash from the incumbent to the incoming president, Bolsonaro flew to Orlando, Florida, on Dec. 30, 2022. He stayed in Kissimmee, Florida, for the next three months.

That meant Bolsonaro was not in Brazil when thousands of his supporters rampaged through and vandalized three government buildings in Brasília on Jan. 8, 2023. The incident was strikingly similar to Trump supporters’ assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The new charges accuse Bolsonaro of taking part in a conspiracy to delegitimize the elections. The indictment also alleges that after the results were announced, Bolsonaro and the other defendants encouraged protests and urged the armed forces to intervene, declare a state of siege and prevent the peaceful transition of power from Bolsonaro to Lula.

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro can still draw crowds of supporters, as happened on Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro on April 21, 2024.
Buda Mendes/Getty Images

Possibility of prison

The evidence in this indictment is based, in part, on plea-bargained testimony by one of the alleged conspirators, the former presidential adviser and army Lt. Col. Mauro Cid.

The attorney general has also accused Bolsonaro and his associates of being linked to businessmen who paid for buses to take Bolsonaro supporters to Brasília so they could participate in the Jan. 8 attacks, which caused damage estimated at 20 million Brazilian reais (US$3.5 million). And the indictment alleges that the coup plot failed because the commanders of Brazil’s army and air force refused to support the conspiracy, although the commander of the navy did, which explains why he was named as a defendant.

If Brazil’s Supreme Court accepts the charges, which seems likely, the legal battle will begin. If Bolsonaro is convicted, he could go to prison.

Bolsonaro’s defense team, for its part, says that the charges are “inept” and unconvincing. His lawyers expressed confidence that they could win the case.

President Lula, wearing a hat, walks alongside Brazil’s first lady, Rosangela Janja da Silva, in a pink suit, during a rally in Brasilia on Jan. 8, 2025 – two years after supporters of his predecessor staged a failed coup attempt.
Claudio Reis/Getty Images

Narrow path

Bolsonaro and his supporters have long criticized Brazil’s Supreme Court, arguing that it has exceeded its constitutional powers and become a judicial “dictatorship.” They have also pushed for Congress to grant amnesty to everyone who took part in or helped carry out the Jan. 8 attacks, including Bolsonaro.

To date, Brazil’s Supreme Court has convicted 371 people for participating in the attacks. Those convicted have received prison sentences of between three and 17 years.

Unlike in the United States, however, there has been a broad consensus in Brazil that the attacks were illegitimate and unacceptable. This consensus includes many lawmakers on the right and center-right in Brazil’s Congress, as well as in state and local governments.

So, although the example of Donald Trump returning to the presidency and pardoning the participants in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol inspires Bolsonaro’s supporters, his path to achieving a similar result is narrower than was Trump’s.

Meanwhile, Trump’s media company, which owns Truth Social and Rumble, sued Moraes, the judge Bolsonaro is accused of plotting to kill, for ordering the suspension of social media accounts and thereby undermining the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. The case was filed in federal court in Tampa, Florida, on Feb. 19.

Any trial of Bolsonaro and the other alleged coup plotters could spark a political struggle.

Brazil’s right wing is currently divided between advocates of hard-line Bolsonarismo – a disruptive ideology that advocates social conservatism, a lightly regulated economy, militarism and a strong executive branch – and a more pragmatic conservatism that works within the conventional rules of politics and is mainly focused on patronage and the management of the spoils of office.

Should Bolsonaro and his fellow defendants be tried in the Supreme Court, those hard-liners could be mobilized and energized.

They would see the trial as the political establishment’s persecution of their political hero. And a struggle to find Bolsanaro’s successor, most likely between his son Eduardo and the former president’s wife, Michelle, would ensue.

The successor would claim the mantle of opposition to Lula, who is eligible to seek a fourth presidential term and claims to want to run for reelection in 2026 – when he would be about to celebrate his 81st birthday.

High stakes

There are, to be sure, some Brazilian politicians who are more moderate than Bolsonaro and would also like to run against Lula next time. They would bring much less baggage to that presidential race.

Their candidacies might offer a possible return to the relative political stability Brazil had experienced for almost two decades before 2013, when the main dividing line in Brazilian politics was between coalitions led by the center-right Social Democratic Party and the center-left Workers’ Party.

To be clear, it’s hard to overstate the potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s deliberation and judgment in this case.

The trial, should it occur, would be televised and also have a geopolitical dimension, because it would be closely watched by advocates of hard-right populism in other countries across the Americas and beyond. The stakes are high.

In the meantime, I have no doubt that Bolsonaro’s supporters will try to use his legal woes to rally his political movement. The judgment of Brazil’s Supreme Court, should it decide to hear this case, could therefore end Bolsonaro’s political career. However, no matter what happens, I believe that Bolsonarismo would still be alive and well as a political force in Brazil and a factor in the 2026 elections. Läs mer…

President Donald Trump has vowed to target his political enemies, and experts have warned that he could weaponize U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct mass surveillance on his targets.

Mass surveillance is the widespread monitoring of civilians. Governments typically target specific groups – such as religious minorities, certain races or ethnicities, or migrants – for surveillance and use the information gathered to “contain” these populations, for example by arresting and imprisoning people.

We are experts in social control, or how governments coerce compliance, and we specialize in surveillance. Based on our expertise and years of research, we expect Trump’s second White House term may usher in a wave of spying against people of color and immigrants.

A man apprehended in an immigration raid on Jan. 28, 2025, sits in a holding cell in New York City.
Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Spreading moral panic

Trump is already actively deploying a key tactic in expanding mass surveillance: causing moral panics. Moral panics are created when politicians exaggerate a public concern to manipulate real fears people may have.

Take Trump on crime, for example. Despite FBI data showing that crime has been dropping across the U.S. for decades, Trump has repeatedly claimed that “crime is out of control.” Stoking fear makes people more likely to back harsh measures purportedly targeting crime.

Trump has also worked to create a moral panic about immigration.

He has said, for example, that “illegal” migrants are taking American jobs. In truth, only 5% of the 30 million immigrants in the workforce as of 2022 were unauthorized to work. And in his Jan. 25, 2025, presidential proclamation on immigration, Trump likened immigration at the southern border to an “invasion,” evoking the language of war to describe a population that includes many asylum-seeking women and children.

The second step in causing moral panics is to label racial, ethnic and religious minorities as villains to justify expanding mass surveillance.

Building on his rhetoric about crime and immigration, Trump frequently connects the two issues. He has said that migrants murder because they have “bad genes,” echoing beliefs expressed by white supremacists. During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s coinage “bad hombre” invoked stereotypes of dangerous migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to steal jobs and sell drugs.

The president has similarly connected Black communities with crime. At an August 2024 rally in Atlanta, Georgia, Trump called the majority-Black city “a killing field.” The month prior, he said the same thing about Washington, D.C.

Primary targets

History shows that in the U.S. moral panics are most likely to target Latino, Indigenous and Black communities as a precursor to surveillance and subjugation.

In the 18th century, Colonial politicians passed legislation likening the Indigenous people of the American colonies to “savages” and passed laws identifying Indigenous tribes as political enemies to be assimilated. If “killing the Indian” out of people didn’t work, they were to be tracked down and removed from the population through imprisonment or death.

Another early form of moral panics escalating to spying and mass surveillance were southern slave patrols, which emerged in the early 1700s after pro-slavery politicians proclaimed that Black escapees would terrorize white communities. Slave patrols tracked down and captured not only Black escapees but also free Black people, whom they sold into bondage. They also imprisoned any person, enslaved or not, suspected of sheltering escapees.

Once a group of people becomes the subject of moral panics and targeted for government surveillance, our research shows, the effects are felt for generations.

Black and Indigenous communities are still arrested and incarcerated at disproportionately high rates compared with their percentage in the U.S. population. This even affects children, with Indigenous girls imprisoned at four times the rate of white girls, and Black girls at more than twice the rate of white girls.

Low-tech methods

These 21st-century numbers reflect decades of targeted surveillance.

In the 1950s, the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover created the counter-intelligence programs COINTELPRO, allegedly for investigating communists and radical political groups, and the Ghetto Informant Program. In practice, both programs broadly targeted people of color. From Martin Luther King Jr. to U.S. Rep. John Lewis, Black activists were identified as a threat, spied on, investigated and sometimes jailed.

A 1964 letter from J. Edgar Hoover expressing his dislike for Martin Luther King Jr.
Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on crime,” a sweeping set of federal changes that militarized local police in urban communities, continued this mass surveillance in the 1960s. Later came the “war on drugs,” which an aide to President Richard Nixon later said was designed explicitly to target Black people.

In subsequent decades, politicians would stir up new moral panics about Black communities – remember the “crack babies” who never really existed? – and use fear to justify police surveillance, arrests and mass incarceration.

These early examples of mass surveillance lacked the technology that enables spying today, such as CCTV and hacked laptop cameras. Nonetheless, past U.S. administrations have been remarkably effective at achieving social control by creating moral panics then deploying mass surveillance to contain the “threat.” They enlisted droves of police officers, recruited informants to infiltrate groups and locked people away.

These textbook surveillance methods are still routinely used now.

Police fusion centers

For many Americans, the term “mass surveillance” evokes the Department of Homeland Security, which was founded after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This national agency, which forms part of a federal intelligence apparatus of more than 20 agencies focused on surveillance, has played a key role in mass surveillance since 2001, especially of Muslim Americans.

But it has local help in the form of police units known as fusion centers. These units feed identification information and physical evidence such as video footage to federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA, according to a 2023 whistleblower report from Rutgers Law School.

The New Jersey Regional Operations Intelligence Center, for example, is a police fusion center overseeing New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It employs advanced military technology to gather massive amounts of personal data on people perceived as potential security threats. According to the Rutgers report, these “threats” are highly concentrated in Black, Latino and Arab communities, as well as areas with a high concentration of political organizing, such as Black Lives Matter groups and immigrant aid organizations.

The New Jersey police fusion approach leads to increased arrest rates, according to the report, but there’s no real evidence that it prevents crime or terrorism.

Guantanamo and black sites

Given Trump’s pledges to further militarize border enforcement and expand U.S. jails and prisons, we anticipate a rise in spending on fusion centers and other tools of mass surveillance under Trump. The moral panics he’s been stirring up since 2015 suggest that the targets of government surveillance will include immigrants and Black people.

Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event on April 2, 2024, in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Sometimes, victims of mass surveillance go missing.

The Guardian reported in 2015 that Chicago police had been temporarily “disappearing” people at local and federal police “black sites” since at least 2009. At these clandestine jails, under the guise of national security, officers questioned detainees without attorneys and held them for up to 24 hours without any outside contact. Many of the victims were Black.

Another infamous black site was housed at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba, where the CIA detained and secretly interrogated suspected terrorists following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Trump seems to be reviving the Guantanamo black site, flying about 150 Venezuelan migrants to the base since January 2025. It’s unclear whether the U.S. government can lawfully detain migrants there abroad, yet deportation flights continue.

The administration has not shared the identities of many of the people imprisoned there. Läs mer…

You have probably heard the saying that the eyes are the windows to the soul, but now it turns out that they are also connected to how we breathe. Scientists have long studied the size of our pupils to understand attention, emotion and even medical conditions. But now, new research has surprisingly revealed that they change size in sync with our breathing.

Our pupils are never static; they constantly adjust in response to both external and internal factors. The most well known is that they control how much light enters the eye, just like a camera aperture.

You can easily test this yourself: look into a mirror and shine a light into your eye, and you’ll see your pupils shrink. This process directly affects our visual perception. Larger pupils help us to detect faint objects, particularly in our peripheral vision, while smaller pupils enhance sharpness, improving tasks like reading.

Indeed, this reflex is so reliable that doctors use it to assess brain function. If a pupil fails to react to light, it could signal a medical emergency such as a stroke.

Doctors will check patients’ pupils to see if they’ve had a stroke.
Doodeez

However, it is not just light that our pupils respond to. It’s also well established that our pupils constrict when focusing on a nearby object, and dilate in response to cognitive effort or emotional arousal.

As the German pupil-research pioneer Irene Loewenfeld once said: “Man may either blush or turn pale when emotionally agitated, but his pupils always dilate.”

For this reason, pupil size is often used in psychology and neuroscience research as a measure of mental effort and attention.

The fourth response

For many decades, these three kinds of pupil response were the only ones that scientists were sure existed. Now, myself and our team of researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have confirmed that breathing is a fourth.

In what will now be known as “pupillary respiratory phase response”, pupils tend to be largest during exhalation and smallest around the start of inhalation. Unlike other pupil responses, this one originates exclusively in the body and of course happens constantly. Equally uniquely, it covers both dilation and constriction.

There had in fact been anecdotal hints of a connection between breathing and our pupils for more than 50 years. But when the team reviewed past studies the evidence was inconclusive at best. Given how widely pupil size is used in both medicine and research, we realised it was crucial to investigate this further.

We confirmed through a series of five experiments with more than 200 participants that pupil size fluctuates in sync with breathing, and also that this effect is remarkably robust. In these studies, we invited the participants to our lab and recorded their pupil size and breathing pattern while they were relaxing or performing tasks on a computer screen.

We systematically varied the other key pupil-response factors throughout the study – lighting, fixation distance and mental effort required for tasks. In all cases, the way that breathing affects the pupils remained constant.

Whichever way you breathe, the effect on pupil size remains the same.
LuckyStep

Additionally, we examined how different breathing patterns affected the response.

Participants were instructed to breathe solely through their nose or mouth and to adjust their breathing rate, as well as slowing it down and speeding it up. In all cases, the same pattern emerged: pupil size remained smallest around the onset of inhalation and largest during exhalation.

What now

This discovery changes the way we think about both breathing and vision. It suggests a deeper connection between breathing and the nervous system than we previously realised. The next big question is whether these subtle changes in pupil size affect how we see the world.

The fluctuations are only fractions of a millimetre, which is less than the pupil response to light, but similar to the pupil response to mental effort or arousal. The size of these fluctuations is theoretically large enough to influence our visual perception. It may therefore be that our vision subtly shifts within a single breath between optimising for detecting faint objects (with larger pupils) and distinguishing fine details (with smaller pupils).

In addition, just as the pupillary light response is used as a diagnostic tool, changes in the link between pupil size and breathing could be an early sign of neurological disorders.

This research is part of a broader effort to understand how our internal bodily rhythms influence perception. Scientists are increasingly finding that our brain doesn’t process external information in isolation – it integrates signals from within our bodies, too. For example, information from our heart and gastric rhythms have also been suggested to enhance or hinder the processing of incoming sensory stimuli.

If our breathing affects how our pupils change, could it also shape how we perceive the world around us? This opens the door to new research on how bodily rhythms shape perception – one breath at a time. Läs mer…

In the weeks ahead of the German election, the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) consistently polled around 20%. For the first time, the AfD poses a challenge to mainstream parties’ longstanding strategy of isolating the far right.

The rise of the AfD is striking, given the country’s history of authoritarianism and National Socialism during the 1930s and 1940s. For decades, far-right movements were generally stigmatised and treated as pariahs. Political elites, mainstream parties, the media and civil society effectively marginalised the far right and limited its electoral prospects.

The AfD’s breakthrough in the 2017 federal election shattered this status quo. Winning 12.6% of the vote and securing 94 Bundestag seats, it became Germany’s third-largest party — unlocking viable political space to the right of the centre-right party CDU/CSU for the first time in the postwar era.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

The AfD was founded in 2013 by disaffected CDU members. This included economics professors Bernd Lucke and Joachim Starbatty, and conservative journalists Konrad Adam and Alexander Gauland. It began as a single-issue, anti-euro party advocating Germany’s exit from the Eurozone.

Dubbed a “party of professors”, it gained credibility through the support of academics and former mainstream politicians, lending it an “unusual gravitas” for a protest party. While nativist elements were arguably present from the start, the AfD was not initially conceived as a far-right party.

When it first ran for the Bundestag in 2013, its four-page manifesto focused exclusively on dissolving the Eurozone. At the time, the party advocated political asylum for the persecuted and avoided harsh anti-immigrant or anti-Islam rhetoric, cultivating more of a “bourgeois” image.

This helped the AfD build what political scientist Elisabeth Ivarsflaten has called a reputational shield — a legacy used to deflect social stigma and accusations of extremism.

Initially, the AfD distanced itself from far-right parties in neighbouring countries. However, successive leadership changes between 2015 and 2017 saw the party adopt a more hardline position, particularly on immigration, Islam and national identity. By 2016, its platform had largely aligned with those of populist radical right parties elsewhere.

Far-right views

Today, the party can unequivocally be classified as far right. This umbrella term captures the growing links between “(populist) radical right” (illiberal-democratic) and “extreme right” (anti-democratic) parties and movements. Ideologically, the far right is characterised by nativism and authoritarianism.

Nativism is a xenophobic form of nationalism, which holds that non-native elements form a threat to the homogeneous nation-state. In Germany, nativism carries a historical legacy. “Völkisch nationalism” was one of the core ideas of the 19th and early 20th centuries that was broadly adopted by National Socialism to justify deportations and, ultimately, the Holocaust.

Völkisch ideology is based on the essentialist idea that the German people are inextricably connected to the soil. Thus, other people cannot be part of the völkisch community.

The AfD has evolved into a far-right party by continuously radicalising its positions. It acted like a Trojan horse, importing völkisch nationalist ideology into the parliamentary and public arena, which used to be blocked by the gatekeeping mechanisms of German democracy.

The AfD carved out a niche for itself by advocating stricter anti-immigration policies. This came in response to the so-called “refugee crisis”, when then-Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed more than a million asylum seekers into Germany. At its campaign kickoff rally in January 2025, AfD’s chancellor candidate Alice Weidel vowed to implement “large-scale repatriations” (or “remigration”) of immigrants.

AfD co-chairwoman Alice Weidel delivers a speech at the meeting of the German Bundestag.
Filip Singer/EPA-EFE

The party advocates a return to a blood-based citizenship, insisting that, with very few exceptions for well-assimilated migrants, citizenship can only be determined by ancestry and bloodline rather than birthright.

Additionally, the party upholds the white, nuclear family as an ideal and has pledged to dismiss university professors accused of promoting “leftist, woke gender ideology”. The party also calls for the immediate lifting of sanctions against Russia and opposes weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

In recent years, the party has embraced the far-right strategy of flooding the media and public discourse with controversy, misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric, to dominate attention and transgress traditional political norms.

A striking example is former AfD-leader Alexander Gauland’s 2018 claim that the 12 years of Nazi rule were “mere bird shit in over 1,000 years of successful German history”. With this remark, he sought to reframe modern Germany as a continuation of its pre-1933 history, while downplaying the significance of the Nazi era.

Normalising the AfD

Until recently, the far right was consistently excluded by mainstream political parties. It was a founding myth of the old Federal Republic of Germany that democratic forces do not cooperate with the far right. At least on the parliamentary level, this worked quite well as a part of Germany’s “militant democracy”.

However, the political firewall — the Brandmauer — has started to crumble. The AfD has since celebrated the election of its first mayors at the local level.

The success of the AfD has especially been fuelled by the narrative of a “refugee crisis” in Germany. Harsh political rhetoric about migration has contributed to the party’s electoral success, as well as mainstream adoption of some of its positions.

Oddly enough, the AfD is especially successful in rural, remote areas with low levels of migration. It is weak in more globalised, university-oriented urban areas.

Read more:
German party leaders are united against immigration – but there is little evidence for a key part of their argument

Ahead of the 2025 elections, Friedrich Merz, the lead candidate of the CDU, broke a longstanding political taboo when his proposal to tighten asylum policies narrowly passed in the Bundestag with backing from the AfD. Meanwhile, German media have increasingly treated AfD representatives as legitimate political contenders.

Protests in Berlin against the cooperation between Christian Democrats and the far-right AfD party.
Hannibal Hanschke/EPA-EFE

Once marginalised in political debates, they are now regularly invited to talk shows. And they have received international legitimacy from figures such as US vice-president J.D. Vance, and X owner Elon Musk.

This election may give an indication of how far the AfD’s normalisation will go and how it will affect Germany’s political future. Beyond electoral success, the main question will be to what extent mainstream parties will incorporate far-right ideas in their political agenda.

What is already clear, however, is that the political landscape has shifted. The boundaries that once kept the far right at the margins are no longer as firm as they once were Läs mer…

When three former PayPal employees, Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, registered the domain www.youtube.com 20 years ago, they wanted to create an online dating site based around videos of users. In 2016, Chen told the SXSW conference: “We thought dating would be the obvious choice.”

But despite offering to pay users to upload videos of themselves, nobody came forward. When their concept failed, they hatched a new idea for the same domain: “OK, forget the dating aspect, let’s just open it up to any video,” said Chen.

What followed was revolutionary. Having started as a small project, YouTube rapidly grew into one of the most influential platforms in media history, reshaping journalism, media, entertainment and social interactions.

Its first-ever video, “Me at the Zoo” – featuring Karim casually describing the elephants at San Diego Zoo – set the tone for democratised content creation, and also the type of content that would become so significant for YouTube: vlogging – where people communicate their own blog-style entries on video, often delivered direct to camera.

The simplicity of uploading and sharing any type of video, combined with the potential of online content going viral, made the platform an instant hit.

In October 2006, just over a year after the video platform’s launch, Google acquired YouTube for US$1.65 billion (£1.3 billion) – a move that proved one of the most significant tech acquisitions in history. The platform embarked on monetising its growing library of content via online advertising, not only generating huge profits for Google but also providing content creators with a share.

The increasing profits prompted content creators to deliver better content.

Whereas traditional media outlets such as television controlled video production and distribution, YouTube suddenly allowed anyone with a camera to share their voice. This shift led to the rise of independent creators, from beauty vloggers and gamers to educators and activists.

And so the platform has given birth to an entirely new profession: the YouTuber. Early pioneers built massive audiences, inspiring a new wave of content creators who could earn a living through ad revenue, sponsorships and crowdfunding.

In the UK in 2010, for example, a group of young content creators nicknamed “Brit Crew” became popular on YouTube. They were relatable, fun to watch, and uploaded videos regularly.

Today, the highest-paid YouTuber worldwide, according to Forbes magazine, is MrBeast, with more than 360 million subscribers and 10 billion views. In reality, MrBeast is Jimmy Donaldson, a content creator and businessman from Greenville, North Carolina. But the views his videos attract are still nowhere near the most-watched YouTube video of all time, “Baby Shark”, with 15 billion views.

Baby Shark: the YouTube video with most views to date.

Donaldson has often talked about understanding YouTube metrics and its algorithm as a key component to his success. He particularly pays attention to a measure known as “retention rate”, noting where viewers stop watching to improve his future videos. He says the algorithm prioritises things that are difficult to accomplish, such as getting high retention rates on a long video, over simply getting a large number of views.

MrBeast is emblematic of the rise of influencers on YouTube: content creators with lots of followers who look to them for inspiration and lifestyle tips. Established companies and brands have sought to develop partnerships with key influencers in order to promote products and services to their often huge global audiences.

Overall, detailed audience numbers for YouTube are difficult to come by. However, Statista reports that the platform now has more than 2.5 billion active monthly users.

Citizen journalism

YouTube also plays a critical role in modern journalism. The platform, along with others such as Facebook and Twitter-X, has allowed citizen journalists to document events in real time, from protests and social movements to natural disasters and political uprisings – especially since YouTube introduced live streaming in 2011.

During major global events such as the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter protests, influential coverage emerged from people capturing and sharing their footage on YouTube. This shift has challenged traditional news media, which now often relies on user-generated content as a key source of reporting.

Similarly, some major world events are streamed live on YouTube, from election coverage to the Olympics to the Glastonbury music festival. There has also been growth in the popularity of video podcasts on the platform – one of the most popular, the Joe Rogan Experience, attracts millions of views per episode.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories

Despite its success, YouTube has faced significant challenges. The rapid spread of hate speech, misinformation and conspiracy theories has led the platform to implement stricter content moderation policies. In recent years, YouTube says there has been a substantial drop in the number of videos that violate its policies as a result, although some experts say these numbers can be interpreted in different ways.

YouTube also continues to face controversies over its data collection, and how its algorithms reinforce conspiracy “rabbit holes”.

Regulation has become a pressing concern. Governments worldwide are scrutinising YouTube for its role in spreading harmful content. Many countries are discussing how to better protect children online: in the UK, YouTube is the most popular website or app among younger users, used by nearly nine in ten children aged 3-17. (Officially, YouTube does not allow children below the age of 13 to use the platform without supervision, but there are clearly many ways around this for younger users.)

There is a also drive among regulators to ensure fair competition in the digital marketplace, given YouTube’s dominant position.

As YouTube enters its third decade, AI could become a powerful tool for creators – from speeding up the process of adding effects to videos, to creating video content from scratch. YouTube will also face continued competition from short-form video platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

In my opinion, the growing demand for high-quality, authentic content will shape YouTube’s future. The platform needs to focus on protecting and empowering its creators and their diversity, while nurturing its existing community.

One thing is clear: YouTube has transformed the way we both consume and create media. From its humble beginnings to becoming a cultural phenomenon, YouTube’s 20-year journey is a testament to the power of digital platforms and social media in shaping modern society. Whether it continues growing or evolves into something entirely new, its impact on global culture is undeniable. Läs mer…

South Africa’s finance minister, Enoch Godongwana, cancelled the unveiling of the country’s 2025 budget as it was due to be released. The move is unprecedented in the country’s history.

The reason for the abrupt cancellation was the failure of the minister to get cabinet approval for the proposal to raise value added tax (VAT) from 15% to 17%. VAT is the second biggest contributor to tax collection after personal income tax, followed by corporate taxes.

The strongest opposition to the idea came from parties that have joined the African National Congress in a government of national unity which was formed after the ruling party lost its majority in polls in June 2024.

To understand the finance minister’s efforts to raise VAT it’s helpful to revisit the revenue proposals of a year ago.

In the 2024 budget, all the additional revenue was to come from a “stealth tax” on personal income. Because personal income tax is levied at increasing rates as income rises, the tax burden rises as wages go up if tax thresholds are not adjusted for inflation.

In the Treasury’s estimates, R16.3 billion (US$889 million) was raised in 2024/25 by not making inflation-related adjustments to the personal income tax brackets and rebates. This meant that another 200,000 income-earners became taxpayers, and everyone’s effective tax rate was raised.

This has been a long-standing trend. Over the past decade, the tax threshold (for individuals under the age of 65) has declined from R115,000 (in today’s prices) to R95,750, bringing about 850,000 more people into the tax net.

Above the threshold, tax rates were raised by one percentage point in 2015 and the 45% rate was introduced in 2017.

As a strategy for raising personal income tax, the results have been impressive. Personal income tax has increased from 8% of GDP in 2014 to nearly 10%. In the nine months to December 2024, personal income tax increased by over 13% compared with the same period in 2023. Even after taking account of the revenue windfall from retirement fund withdrawals following recent reforms, this signals a substantial erosion of households’ disposable income.

But that is precisely the problem. Taxes collected on goods and services (mainly VAT and excise duties) increased by just 0.4% last year by comparison with 2023. Revenue from corporate income tax declined. The implication is clear: higher taxes on personal income are at least partially offset by reduced consumption and declines in revenue from other sources.

So the Treasury has taken the view, this year, that there should be relief given in the personal income tax and that additional revenue will have to come from taxes on consumption.

There are good reasons for this: personal income tax has contributed a rising share of the overall tax burden over the past decade, while households also face rising costs of electricity, housing and services. However, raising VAT also has its downsides: it generates revenue by raising prices relative to the costs of production, and effectively also reduces households’ spending power.

The Treasury’s estimate is that an increase in VAT from 15% to 17% would raise an additional R60 billion (US$3.3 billion) in revenue. To offset the impact on low-income households, the schedule of basic foods that don’t attract VAT will be extended beyond the present list of 21 items to include various specified meat cuts and tinned and bottled vegetables. In addition, above-inflation adjustments to social grants are proposed.

The main argument against increasing the VAT rate is that it is regressive – it has a greater impact on lower-income households than on the rich. But a two percentage point VAT increase would also be a substantial shock to overall consumption spending. It would temporarily raise inflation and it would have a negative impact on business income and profitability.

The arguments for a higher VAT rate, rather than other tax increases, are in part about its broad base and comparative ease of collection.

There are nonetheless valid concerns from an administrative perspective. The Treasury argues that other countries have higher VAT rates than South Africa (Morocco, Turkey, Brazil and India, for example). But this is not in itself protection against the potential impact of a higher tax rate on non-compliance and tax fraud.

The upsides

There may be deeper economic considerations behind the Treasury’s tax proposal.

The most compelling arguments for VAT as a revenue source are in its basic design structure: what is taxed and what is not. There are two key features. The first is that it taxes imports and zero-rates exports. The second is that the VAT base excludes investment.

The import VAT is sometimes seen as an unfair form of trade protection. But it simply levels the consumption tax across foreign and domestic-produced goods. And it’s simpler than excise and sales taxes.

The important consideration for domestic production is that the VAT encourages exports.

The exclusion of investment from the VAT base caused some controversy when the tax was introduced in 1990. Some argued that this would bias economic development in favour of capital and against labour. But investment and employment are complements. To achieve higher rates of employment, South Africa needs far greater levels of investment. Since 2013, investment has fallen as a percentage of GDP from 19% to less than 15%: nowhere enough to generate growth sufficient to bring down South Africa’s unemployment rate.

Because the VAT base is consumption, not investment, it supports expansion of the economy’s productive capacity.

Managing the fallout

But this doesn’t change the short-term impact on the cost of living that would result from a VAT rise. A higher tax burden will reduce demand and inhibit growth at first, before potentially contributing to fiscal stability and lower interest rates.

If the tax increase is to be avoided, then the spotlight will have to fall on the expenditure side of the budget. This is a far harder discussion than tax policy – there are a thousand options to consider, and there are vested interests wherever you look.

If Godongwana’s VAT rate increase is to be rejected, tough choices on the alternatives will have to be confronted. Läs mer…