Johansen.se

Refugees haven’t been welcome in the United States since the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he signed an executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 90 days. Despite a February 2025 federal court order to resume refugee resettlement, the administration has said that won’t be happening any time soon because the country’s refugee system has been so thoroughly dismantled.

Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order discontinued regular refugee processing and halted all federal funding for refugee resettlement. It ended the State Department’s 2023 Welcome Corps program, which allowed U.S. citizens to privately sponsor refugees, as well as a program that resettled children from Central America and certain family members. Trump also suspended the follow-to-join visas that reunited refugee families.

Together, these programs make up the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Created in 1980, the program resettles refugees nationwide through partnerships between the government and U.S.-based resettlement agencies. It had made the U.S. the global leader in refugee resettlement.

As a scholar of refugees and displacement, I expect refugee admissions to remain close to zero for the rest of Trump’s term. Thousands of refugees, both at home and abroad, will suffer as a result. So will the many Americans who work within the country’s sprawling refugee resettlement network.

Brief history of US refugee policies

Under U.S. and international law, refugees are people fleeing “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion or national origin.

While refugees have come to the U.S. since its founding, the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 was the country’s first official “refugee” law. The act, which expired in 1952, allowed more than 350,000 European refugees displaced by World War II to enter the U.S. within the constraints of an existing quota system that defined how many refugees the country would admit each year, and from which countries.

Between 1952 and 1980, numerous international refugee crises spurred Congress to pass a series of laws welcoming certain groups into the country.

Political calculations played a major role in these decisions. For instance, as part of America’s Cold War anti-Communist strategy, Congress passed laws in 1962 and 1966 giving tens of thousands of Cubans fleeing Fidel Castro’s regime sanctuary in the U.S.

In the 1970s and 1980s, following its loss to communist North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, the U.S. welcomed approximately 1.4 million refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

President Gerald R. Ford holds one of the first children evacuated from Vietnam during Operation Babylift at San Francisco Airport on April 5, 1975.
David Hume Kennerly/Bettmann/Corbis via Getty Images

In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, which amended existing law to raise the annual ceiling for refugees and created a formal process for refugee resettlement.

Every year, through presidential determination, the president in consultation with Congress establishes refugee admissions levels. This decision takes into account U.S. national interests and international humanitarian crises. The caps are announced in the fall.

On average, since 1980, the annual presidential determination number has exceeded 95,000 people. Since 2000, Presidential determinations have ranged from a low of 27,131 – after the 9/11 attacks – to last year’s ceiling of 125,000 refugees per year.

How to get refugee status

To vet potential refugees and assist qualifying refugees in the resettlement process, several U.S. government agencies coordinate closely: The State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services.

To qualify for consideration, refugees must be living overseas. The resettlement process begins with registration with the U.N. Refugee Agency. U.N. officials collect documentation and perform an initial screening, then refer qualifying individuals to one of seven U.S. State Department resettlement support centers worldwide.

State Department officials interview applicants and submit them to a rigorous screening that includes an FBI background check. Highly trained immigration officers posted overseas then try to confirm whether applicants meet the legal standards of a refugee. They conduct face-to-face interviews to verify who they are and what forced them to flee. Testimonies are evaluated for consistency with country conditions.

The process takes 18 to 36 months or longer.

Once refugees are accepted into the U.S., 10 national refugee resettlement agencies in coordination with local nonprofit partners support them during their first 90 days in the country.

Previous suspensions

Critics of resettlement, including Trump, have argued that refugees threaten U.S. national security, are unvetted and do not assimilate into the U.S. economy and society.

However, research show that refugees contribute both economically and socially through taxes and entrepreneurship. They also revitalize towns with declining populations.

Between 2005 and 2019, refugees yielded a net positive fiscal impact of US$123.8 billion, at both federal and state levels, and generated an estimated $581 billion for governments at all levels. A 2023 American Immigration Council report found that the spending power of refugees in just one state, California, totaled more than $20.7 billion.

There is no link between refugees and crime, nor is there any notable link to terrorism.

Although the 9/11 attacks were not committed by refugees, President George W. Bush in 2001 suspended refugee admissions for several months, leaving 23,000 refugees already approved for resettlement in limbo, mainly in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Many had sold their belongings and homes in anticipation of moving to the U.S.

In 2017, Trump in his first term in office issued executive order 13769. The directive suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and barred entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – for 90 days. It also indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.

Trump also lowered the annual refugee admissions cap, from 110,000 in 2017 to 45,000 in 2018, and continued dropping it each year. By 2021, his administration had set the lowest refugee cap in U.S. history, at 15,000.

What happens when refugee resettlement pauses

The second suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program drastically affected refugees waiting abroad for resettlement and those already in the U.S.

Arabic-speaking refugees in particular struggled with discrimination and psychosocial challenges such as stress and other medical issues, leading to poorer social integration.

During Trump’s first term, a ban on refugees from Muslim-majority countries created chaos at U.S. airports.
David McNew/Getty Images

The U.S. economy suffered, too. One researcher estimated that Trump’s 2017 suspension of refugee resettlement deprived the country of $9.1 billion in economic activity per year and sapped public coffers at all levels of government of over $2 billion a year. More than 300 Americans who worked in refugee resettlement were laid off in 2017 alone.

Trump’s Muslim ban created an enormous backlog of immigration cases. In 2021, for instance, the incoming Biden administration inherited petitions for 25,994 unprocessed refugee family reunification cases.

Many other vetted refugees were not allowed entry, including U.S.-affiliated Iraqis and Afghans who remained trapped in violent contexts.

Immediate impact of Trump’s order on refugee resettlement

Similar repercussions are already seen today.

As of Jan. 22, 2025, the Trump administration had canceled the flights of 10,000 vetted refugees into the U.S. Most of them were coming from the 10 countries that the U.S. had accepted refugees from in recent years, including Venezuela, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Sudan and Iraq.

These refugees are now at acute risk of persecution and violence.

Recently arrived refugees, who would normally receive assistance for their first 90 days, are likewise losing support for basic essentials such as warm clothing, food and housing assistance.

Resettlement agencies nationwide are also feeling the pain of Trump cutting federal funding for refugee resettlement.

Several nonprofits have lost millions in government contracts allocated to assist new arrivals. They were forced to fire dozens or in some cases hundreds of staffers.

Three refugee resettlement agencies have sued the federal government for withholding congressionally appropriated funding for refugee processing and services. On Feb. 25, 2025, a federal judge in Seattle agreed with the plaintiffs in Pacito v. Trump that Trump likely exceeded his authority and temporarily blocked the refugee program’s suspension.

The legal battle over America’s refugee system has just begun. History suggests everyone involved with the program and the U.S. economy will suffer for years to come. Läs mer…

Throughout history, when pioneers set out across uncharted territory to settle in distant lands, they carried with them only the essentials: tools, seeds and clothing. Anything else would have to come from their new environment.

So they built shelter from local timber, rocks and sod; foraged for food and cultivated the soil beneath their feet; and fabricated tools from whatever they could scrounge up. It was difficult, but ultimately the successful ones made everything they needed to survive.

Something similar will take place when humanity leaves Earth for destinations such as the Moon and Mars – although astronauts will face even greater challenges than, for example, the Vikings did when they reached Greenland and Newfoundland. Not only will the astronauts have limited supplies and the need to live off the land; they won’t even be able to breathe the air.

Instead of axes and plows, however, today’s space pioneers will bring 3D printers. As an engineer and professor who is developing technologies to extend the human presence beyond Earth, I focus my work and research on these remarkable machines.

3D printers will make the tools, structures and habitats space pioneers need to survive in a hostile alien environment. They will enable long-term human presence on the Moon and Mars.

NASA astronaut Barry Wilmore holds a 3D-printed wrench made aboard the International Space Station.
NASA

From hammers to habitats

On Earth, 3D printing can fabricate, layer by layer, thousands of things, from replacement hips to hammers to homes. These devices take raw materials, such as plastic, concrete or metal, and deposit it on a computerized programmed path to build a part. It’s often called “additive manufacturing,” because you keep adding material to make the part, rather than removing material, as is done in conventional machining.

Already, 3D printing in space is underway. On the International Space Station, astronauts use 3D printers to make tools and spare parts, such as ratchet wrenches, clamps and brackets. Depending on the part, printing time can take from around 30 minutes to several hours.

For now, the print materials are mostly hauled up from Earth. But NASA has also begun recycling some of those materials, such as waste plastic, to make new parts with the Refabricator, an advanced 3D printer installed in 2019.

Manufacturing in space

You may be wondering why space explorers can’t simply bring everything they need with them. After all, that’s how the International Space Station was built decades ago – by hauling tons of prefabricated components from Earth.

But that’s impractical for building habitats on other worlds. Launching materials into space is incredibly expensive. Right now, every pound launched aboard a rocket just to get to low Earth orbit costs thousands of dollars. To get materials to the Moon, NASA estimates the initial cost at around US$500,000 per pound.

Still, manufacturing things in space is a challenge. In the microgravity of space, or the reduced gravity of the Moon or Mars, materials behave differently than they do on Earth. Decrease or remove gravity, and materials cool and recrystallize differently. The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth; Mars, about two-fifths. Engineers and scientists are working now to adapt 3D printers to function in these conditions.

An artist’s impressions of what a Mars base camp might look like.
peepo/E+ via Getty Images

Using otherworldly soil

On alien worlds, rather than plastic or metal, 3D printers will use the natural resources found in these environments. But finding the right raw materials is not easy. Habitats on the Moon and Mars must protect astronauts from the lack of air, extreme temperatures, micrometeorite impacts and radiation.

Regolith, the fine, dusty, sandlike particles that cover both the lunar and Martian surfaces, could be a primary ingredient to make these dwellings. Think of the regolith on both worlds as alien dirt – unlike Earth soil, it contains few nutrients, and as far as we know, no living organisms. But it might be a good raw material for 3D printing.

My colleagues began researching this possibility by first examining how regular cement behaves in space. I am now joining them to develop techniques for turning regolith into a printable material and to eventually test these on the Moon.

But obtaining otherworldly regolith is a problem. The regolith samples returned from the Moon during the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 70s are precious, difficult if not impossible to access for research purposes. So scientists are using regolith simulants to test ideas. Actual regolith may react quite differently than our simulants. We just don’t know.

What’s more, the regolith on the Moon is very different from what’s found on Mars. Martian regolith contains iron oxide –that’s what gives it a reddish color – but Moon regolith is mostly silicates; it’s much finer and more angular. Researchers will need to learn how to use both types in a 3D printer.

See models of otherworldly habitats.

Applications on Earth

NASA’s Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technology program, also known as MMPACT, is advancing the technology needed to print these habitats on alien worlds.

Among the approaches scientists are now exploring: a regolith-based concrete made in part from surface ice; melting the regolith at high temperatures, and then using molds to form it while it’s a liquid; and sintering, which means heating the regolith with concentrated sunlight, lasers or microwaves to fuse particles together without the need for binders.

Along those lines, my colleagues and I developed a Martian concrete we call MarsCrete, a material we used to 3D-print a small test structure for NASA in 2017.

Then, in May 2019, using another type of special concrete, we 3D-printed a one-third scale prototype Mars habitat that could support everything astronauts would need for long-term survival, including living, sleeping, research and food-production modules.

That prototype showcased the potential, and the challenges, of building housing on the red planet. But many of these technologies will benefit people on Earth too.

In the same way astronauts will make sustainable products from natural resources, homebuilders could make concretes from binders and aggregates found locally, and maybe even from recycled construction debris. Engineers are already adapting the techniques that could print Martian habitats to address housing shortages here at home. Indeed, 3D-printed homes are already on the market.

Meanwhile, the move continues toward establishing a human presence outside the Earth. Artemis III, now scheduled for liftoff in 2027, will be the first human Moon landing since 1972. A NASA trip to Mars could happen as early as 2035.

But wherever people go, and whenever they get there, I’m certain that 3D printers will be one of the primary tools to let human beings live off alien land. Läs mer…

I’m not sure when I first encountered the Serenity Prayer, or when it first occurred to me to ask who wrote it. For much of my life it never occurred to me that prayers were the kind of things that people actually wrote down, especially something as popular as the Serenity Prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to tell the difference.”

This simple, powerful sentence has been reprinted on everything from key chains and coffee mugs to tattoos and tea towels. For many people, it is probably most closely associated with 12-step recovery programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous. There, the prayer serves as a reminder both of human limits and of the fact that they do not define us.

Originally, however, the prayer was written by the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. For him, it was a call to confront the realities of the world with courage – relying not on one’s own power but on God’s grace.

Christian realism

Over the years, the prayer has often been attributed to other Christian writers, including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Francis of Assisi. Many people might be surprised to discover that, far from being penned in an ancient European monastery, the Serenity Prayer was written less than a century ago in a cottage in western Massachusetts.

Niebuhr was born the son of a German American pastor in Wright City, Missouri. He became a pastor himself, serving a congregation in Detroit before moving to New York to teach at Union Theological Seminary, where he gained recognition as a theologian, activist and social critic. His brother, H. Richard Niebuhr, also became a well-known ethicist and theologian, as did his sister Hulda.

Reinhold Niebuhr photographed in 1963.
AP Photo

Today, Reinhold Niebuhr is probably best known as a founder of “Christian realism.” As I describe in my book “The Niebuhr Brothers for Armchair Theologians,” it is an approach to ethics grounded in the insight that human beings are called to strive toward their highest moral ideals, while recognizing our inability to fully achieve them.

This idea is captured by the title of one of his best-known books, “Moral Man and Immoral Society.” There Niebuhr argued that, while individuals are sometimes capable of acting purely from love for others, groups are not. When human beings form collectives, those collectives are ultimately capable of acting only from self-interest.

Therefore, the most that can be expected from any society is not love but justice – which approximates, but never fulfills, the demands of love.

Over the years, Niebuhr’s thought became particularly influential in politics. His work was read and respected by liberal politicians such as Arthur Schlesinger and Hubert Humphrey, who was vice president under Lyndon B. Johnson. Some of these admirers had little use for his religion, and even dubbed themselves “atheists for Niebuhr,” but they respected and embraced his insights into society.

2 versions

How then did Niebuhr come to write this prayer?

His daughter, Elisabeth Sifton, recounts the story in her book “The Serenity Prayer.” She was a girl when Niebuhr first composed the lines for a worship service near their summer home in Heath, Massachusetts. Later, as she tells it, he contributed a version to a prayer book for soldiers being shipped off to fight in World War II, and from there it eventually migrated to Alcoholics Anonymous.

A sobriety medallion used in an addiction recovery program, imprinted with the Serenity Prayer.
Joe van petten/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Niebuhr did not believe that prayers should be copyrighted, she writes, and never profited from its popularity – though friends would gift him with examples of Serenity Prayer kitsch, such as wood carvings and needlework.

Yet the best-known version of the prayer is not quite the version that Niebuhr originally wrote. According to Sifton, his first version read, “God, give us the grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, the courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”

The differences between the two versions are subtle but significant, emphasizing themes that were central to Niebuhr’s thought. He did not simply pray for serenity, but for grace. He did not pray for courage to change what can be changed, but only for what should be changed.

And crucially, it is not an individual prayer, but collective: “grant us,” not “grant me.” Niebuhr believed that while the highest moral achievements could be attained only by individuals, constructive social change was possible only by working together for justice.

‘Saved by hope’

The Serenity Prayer in all of its forms rests on Niebuhr’s hard-won sense of history’s tragic dimension, borne of his experience of two world wars and a global depression. He recognized that even the most courageous actions are not guaranteed to succeed.

But Niebuhr was no fatalist and did not believe uncertainty was a reason not to act. On the contrary, he believed that as human beings we are obligated to enter the fray of social conflict – not with an arrogant sense of our own superiority, but with a humble recognition of our limits.

As he wrote elsewhere: “Nothing worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.”

In the end, for Niebuhr, it is God’s grace that determines the final course of history, rather than our own actions – enabling us to accept the reality that the outcomes of our actions are often out of our hands. Läs mer…

Interest from the United States in Canada’s water is concerning, though nothing new. In the most recent development, the U.S. has paused negotiations the Columbia River Treaty, a key water-sharing agreement between both countries.

Geopolitical tensions, when coupled with demand that is outpacing a decreasing supply under a changing climate, are posing an imminent and very real threat to Canada.

An abandoned water project known as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) was tabled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s. It’s considered a zombie project, always resurfacing, never dead.

The $80 billion plan proposed construction of 369 structures that would divert water from the Yukon, Liard and Peace Rivers through a “Rocky Mountain trench” connecting Alaska to the Mississippi and Colorado River basins, and Alberta to the Great Lakes.

The goal was to convey massive volumes from the “water-rich” north to “water-deficient” but highly productive agricultural landscapes. Marc Reisner — an American environmentalist and author of Cadillac Desert, an account of water management and development across the Midwest — estimated that “six nuclear power plants worth of energy” would be required to pump the required volume of water across the Rockies.

Sounds like science fiction, except that it was — and remains — a genuine threat to Canadian water security.

Canada has an abundance of freshwater supply, and the United States has long been eyeing it.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Giordano Ciampini

Canadians not interested

Canada was simply in the way decades ago. Benefits from an American perspective were clear: improving water security and agricultural dominance of the American Midwest, and massive energy (hydropower) generation potential.

However, within the project’s blueprint is some of the most ecologically sensitive and protected wilderness in North America.

NAWAPA would have profound consequences for Indigenous communities and the environment. If enacted, it would alter the Rocky Mountain landscape and open the door to cross-border water trading. When first proposed, Canadians had little appetite for the plan.

The need for water in the U.S. has and always will be greater than Canada’s due to its population and industrial dominance; therefore Canadian justification to hold back water is regarded as weak from an American perspective.

Read more:
Canada has 20 per cent of the world’s freshwater reserves — this is how to protect it

NAWAPA has always walked a fine line politically, with water being exempt from free-trade agreements and opinions on water export historically divisive in Canada. Decades ago, the Canadian government was resistant to bilateral talks on water, and NAWAPA was considered impractical. That was until there was a “change of heart and attitude” in Canada. But in 2025, Canadian officials appear back to being firmly opposed.

While NAWAPA has not been seriously considered since the 1970s, there is growing speculation about whether it’s truly dead or just buried in bureaucracy, which is why it’s been coined a zombie project.

Trump’s water moves

Talk of NAWAPA recently resurfaced amid construction of BC Hydro’s Site C that would reportedly enable water transfers east of the Rockies and south to Texas.

A few key moments of the first Trump administrations have also resembled the early days of NAWAPA. In 2018, a memorandum of understanding gave the Secretary of the Department of the Interior a mandate to secure more water for the arid Midwest.

Soon after, the Columbia River Treaty between the U.S. and Canada was opened for renegotiation with the intent of optimizing energy generation in the U.S. through water storage on the Canadian side, despite an increased potential flood risk for Canada.

Significant concerns were also raised at the time over highly sensitive fish populations, the need to ensure adequate habitats for sensitive species and spawning, as well as Indigenous water rights and allocations.

The Columbia River flows through Oregon.
(AP Photo/Don Ryan)

This was followed by a 2020 executive order by Trump to modernize America’s water resource management and water infrastructure. The order was aimed at improving co-ordination among U.S. agencies managing water or infrastructure issues and streamlining resources to improve the efficiency of water management.

Through this order, a mandate was issued to “increase water storage, water supply reliability and drought resiliency” through internal co-ordination, but also to seek new external opportunities.

In late 2024 — at the end of President Joe Biden’s term — an agreement in principle between Canada and the U.S. was reached on the Columbia River that appeared to strike a compromise over many of the aforementioned concerns by adjusting the timing of when water could be stored, how much could be stored and when it would be released.

Trump’s recent “Putting People Over Fish” executive order, however, makes clear his stance on some of the Columbia River issues, calling into question whether the new treaty terms negotiated under the Biden administration will ever be ratified by Congress, especially now that final negotiations have been officially paused.

Boundary Waters Treaty disregarded?

Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order highlights the over-reach of his administration as it deliberately defies the National Ecological Preservation Act to ensure water and energy supply is allocated to people first, disregarding environmental and ecological concerns.

For Canada, this has important implications for the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, which oversees sharing of international waters along the Canada-U.S. border. In some cases, the treaty allows Canada to hold back or divert water from the U.S., provisions that would be in direct violation of the Unleashing American Energy executive order even though Canada isn’t mentioned explicitly.

An aerial view of Georgian Bay, Ont.
(Shutterstock)

The Boundary Waters Treaty has long since been the envy of other nations struggling to come to agreeable terms over transboundary water-sharing and rights. Historically, it has been framed as a sign of a mutually beneficial, co-operative relationship between Canada and the U.S., a state of affairs that seemingly no longer exists under the Trump administration.

One thing is clear — despite uncertain times, Canadians must hold firm when it comes to water. Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed perhaps said it best when he warned against sharing Canada’s water, reminding Canadians that “we should communicate to the United States very quickly how firm we are.” Läs mer…

When the first cases of COVID began to spread around the world in early 2020, people in Iquitos, a remote city in the Peruvian Amazon, weren’t unduly worried. They assumed their isolation would protect them. It didn’t. Peru, and Iquitos, were hit fast and hard.

In many wealthier parts of the world, states stepped in to help people whose livelihoods had disappeared. Not in Iquitos. The pandemic led to an extreme case of societal breakdown. In a surreal situation, people were left to fend for themselves, fighting to get hold of oxygen on the black market for their loved ones and forced to put themselves in danger to survive.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to a researcher who spent a year living in Iquitos, trying to understand what happened there during the pandemic. It serves as a warning that even after facing multiple crises, five years later, few places are ready for the radical reckoning needed to avoid the same thing happening again.

When Japhy Wilson began asking people in Iquitos of their memories about the first wave of COVID in March 2020, many mentioned the story of one man: Juan Pablo Vaquero, known locally as Uncle Covid.

 This man who had been taken to the main hospital in the city at the height of the first wave, was pronounced dead. His sister wasn’t allowed to see his body. She had to return home and three days later he appeared at her front door, supposedly stinking of death. She asked what had happened to him, and he told her that he’d awoken in a pile of black garbage bags out in the jungle and had found his way home from there.

In 2022, Wilson, a lecturer in human-environment interactions at Bangor University in Wales, went to live in Iquitos for a year. He recently published research based on interviews he did with people in the city about their memories of the early stages of the pandemic.

 I knew there’d been this huge disaster, but everyday life was just carrying on as normal. It was being kind of deliberately forgotten, and as soon as I started talking to people about it all kinds of extraordinary stories emerged. Almost everybody had lost at least one close family member during this first wave. I’ve done research in a lot of difficult, conflict situations in the past. But never had I encountered so many people breaking down in tears as they did in this case.

Listen to the conversation with Wilson on The Conversation Weekly podcast and read an article about his research.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from Al Jazeera English, AP Archive, NBC News, The Guardian and CityNews. Thanks to Japhy Wilson for sharing audio clips from life in Iquitos, and from one of his interviews in the city.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. Läs mer…

It was not a given that petrol-powered cars would come to dominate the world. In fact, back in 1900, just 22% of cars produced in the US were powered by gasoline (also known as petrol, benzine or various other names). The rest split between electric and steam cars.

There is no consensus on what explains the success of the petrol car and the historical demise of the electric. Some zoom in on the technical inferiority of electric cars, even though they had an average range of about 90 miles (135 kilometres) in the 1910s and eventually became cheaper to drive.

Others, including my colleague Hana Nielsen and I, argue that technological limitations could have been counteracted if electricity grids and charging station infrastructure had been rolled out in the early years of the 20th century.

But this does not rule out explanations based on social or cultural factors. Specifically, do gender roles decide what technologies we end up with? In the 1990s, US historian Virginia Scharff broke new ground when she suggested that electric cars had been labelled “women’s cars”, and that this image “took hold early and tenaciously”. Similar claims have been made for the UK.

A 1916 ad for Baker Electric.
GRANGER – Historical Picture Archive / Alamy

In a new study I used American electric car advertisements from motorist journals and comprehensive vehicle statistics between 1900 and 1919 to examine these claims. I found it is undeniable that electrics were, in fact, considered to be women’s cars.

They were not marketed that way at first, however. I found that only 22% of electrics between 1900 and 1904 were marketed towards women.

In these very earliest days, electric car ads were rather addressed to businessmen and family men, countering the “adventure machine” vision of cars that was popular at the time. Electric car manufacturers imagined electrics as clean and reliable cars for the business commute in the cities the grid kept them restricted to. This was a valid argument since gasoline cars were prone to break down and had to be manually restarted with a crank.

‘EVs for women’ was a response to petrol’s success

But petrol-powered cars were taking over, accelerated by the iconic, cheap and mass-produced Ford Model T. It was only then that electric vehicle makers began marketing them as “women’s cars” to keep market share.

This advert, published during the first world war, urged women to ‘be patriotic’ and buy an electric car as petrol was needed for the war effort.
Early Advertising of the West Collection / wiki

During the 1910s, 77% of electric vehicles directly appealed to female consumers. This reflected traditional gender roles and the Victorian idea of “separate spheres”, promoting the idea that women had limited mobility needs and needed safe, easily operated vehicles.

In the short term, this was a successful strategy: car manufacturers that advertised to female consumers survived much longer. One of the most well-known examples, the Detroit Electric, produced more than 13,000 cars during its lifetime and was the only major electric car producer to survive into the 1920s.

A 1910 Detroit Electric ad states the ‘well-bred woman’ could ‘preserve her toilet immaculate, her coiffure intact’ and ‘drive… with all desired privacy, yet safely’.
Country Life in America, 1910

A significant shift occurred when prolific inventor Charles Kettering introduced electric starting ignition in the 1912 (petrol-powered) Cadillac. These electric starters were initially conceived as “effeminate”. But practicality won and they were introduced as a standard in the immensely popular 1919 T-Ford.

When petrol cars emulated “feminine” qualities such as windscreens and electric starters and made them appeal to both men and women, the electric was in a tough spot. It had become heavily invested in traditional gender roles that were becoming increasingly obsolete.

So, did gendered marketing doom the electric car? Not at first. Arguably, the lack of infrastructure was the biggest problem, initially, and differences in range and speed became increasingly problematic with the rise of countryside touring. Gendering came as a response to these developments.

However, gender did matter once we ask why the electric car did not exist longer. In particular, the link of electric cars to a conservative gender order helps explain why they did not bounce back despite being cheaper to operate due to falling electricity prices. Reducing technology choice to a question of gender meant that the electric lost the battle in the public imagination of what cars and mobility could become.

The most useful ‘feminine’ features were adopted

As the historian Virginia Scharff pointed out, US petrol car makers simultaneously saw that windscreens, the starting ignition, and other “feminine” additions to the car were not just good for women, but universal.

Windscreen wipers were invented by a woman in 1903 and eventually became standard, as shown in this 1955 General Motors ad.
adsR / Alamy

Things are now quite different: women buy half of all new cars in the US. Meanwhile, there is a widening gender gap in political attitudes towards sustainability and renewable technology, as evidenced in several studies, where sustainability is often viewed as feminine.

In this context, it is a curious irony of history that the CEO of one of the world’s leading electric car producers has been so vocal in favour of bringing back masculinity and traditional gender roles, amid a rise of what some have termed “technofascism”.

The history of electric vehicles rather illustrates that social constructions of feminine and masculine can be barriers to progress and innovation. It also poignantly shows that we do not always end up with socially optimal technology and that “tech leaders” are as unable to foresee the long-term consequences of technology choice as anyone else.

If history is any guide, innovation needs to be based on principles of universal access and inclusion. Democratic influence can help ensure that technological transitions benefit a large majority of people regardless of their gender, class or ethnicity.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far. Läs mer…

Many analysts have interpreted Trump’s protectionist stance, and the United States’ imposition of tariffs, as economically irrational. If the liberal motto was once that “under free trade everybody wins”, it is now logical to think that, under protectionism, everyone will lose. It would also mean the end of globalisation, which would come at a great economic cost for the US.

In just the last few days, the US-Canada tariff crisis has escalated significantly. The Ontario government responded to Trump’s threats with a 25% tariff on electricity serving the states of Minnesota, New York and Michigan, prompting Trump to announce that he would raise tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium to 50%. Shortly after, Ontario authorities suspended the electricity rate hike, and Trump has now also walked back his retaliatory tariff hike.

Similar events are taking place on the other side of the Atlantic as well, as the European Commission has responded to US tariff threats on steel exports with its own package of measures targeting a range of American goods.

Read more:
How the EU is preparing to play hardball in the face of Donald Trump’s tariff threats

Trump’s narrative pivot has caused turmoil, and seems to run contrary to US business interests. However, a critical look at the benefits of free trade – and the US’ unique position in relation to it – can help us understand the resurgence of protectionist discourse, and the US’ trade war with China.

Free trade serves US interests

Economic history shows that, once the US’ technological development outstripped its competitors, it was able to turn free trade into an instrument that protected its own interests. At this point it, along with its allies, began to promote free trade as vital to the development of less advanced economies.

This resulted in globalisation, which was what made it possible to manufacture goods in China at lower costs, thus keeping US wages and inflation in check and increasing the profits of US companies. As long as this remained the case, free trade with China served the interests of US companies, and was therefore justifiable.

However, in recent years China has shifted its economic strategy towards producing and exporting high-tech, value-added products (as South Korea and Taiwan have also done). Chinese-produced mobile phones, electric cars and artificial intelligence have subsequently conquered the US market.

The longer this shift goes on, the more useful and legitimate tariffs and protectionism become as a way to shield the economic interests of US businesses.

Read more:
US-China tensions are an opportunity – the EU could become the world’s third great power

How far will the US go?

Protectionist rhetoric and trade wars were already trumpeted by the first Trump administration. However, the KOF globalisation index – which measures the global connectivity, integration and interdependence of countries – showed the same value in 2021 as it did in 2017.

While the growth experienced since 1970 ground to a halt, the index’s indicators disprove any claim that globalisation receded during Trump’s first term in office.

This second term may well be different because, according to some experts, the president has learned to bypass political counterweights, to surround himself with like-minded people, and to free himself from partisan ties in order to implement his own agenda.

Others, however, question the very existence of his own agenda beyond the interests of big business, because it is precisely this alignment of interests that allows him to:

Impose tariffs on developed countries, and on products competing for the same markets.
Make political use of tariffs to threaten other countries and secure access to vital resources for the technology race (mainly due to the US’ position of being the world’s largest buyer and military power).
Launch a new arms race that will boost the profits of US industry.
Use a nationalist and anti-globalisation narrative to justify the growing precariousness of the US working class. He aims to unite US citizens behind the flag, dilute their class consciousness, and offer up new scapegoats in the form of immigrants.

In reality, Trump’s agenda is unlikely to be compatible with any meaningful de-globalisation process. Reversing globalisation would be contrary to the interests of US capital, which needs to expand – into both new territories and sectors – to ensure its own survival.

In light of all this, why would US multinationals want to stop making huge profits in other countries? What could lead them to give up producing in territories with lower production costs, cheaper labour, and a guaranteed supply of raw materials?

The dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’

According to IMF data, in the third quarter of 2024 the US dollar still accounted for more than 57% of total international reserves, and more than 80% of international trade financing.

When a country’s domestic currency acts as a reserve asset or is the currency in which most international payments are made, the financing of persistent current account deficits does not carry major risks of either devaluation or currency crisis. Every year since 1982, with the sole exception of 1991, the US current account balance has been negative.

These conditions for financing its debt – which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Charles de Gaulle’s Minister of Economy, defined in 1964 as an “exorbitant privilege” – improve even in times of crisis. The dollar’s status as a safe haven asset (much like gold) means that international demand for it actually increases in times of uncertainty.

So why would the US be in favour of shifting its trade balance, thereby renouncing the privilege of issuing the international reserve currency?

Globalisation, democracy, sovereignty: the great trilemma

In his 2012 book The Globalisation Paradox, Turkish economist Dani Rodrik puts forward his theory of the “trilemma”. This theory states that democracy and national sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with globalisation.

Only those who accept the existence of this trilemma, and understand the tensions that arise from it, can then begin to pick apart one of its components. This is where Trump seems to have the upper hand. He is playing a game of illusions, one where he publicly pretends to dynamite globalisation while, behind the scenes, he stealthily dismantles the pillars of democracy. Läs mer…

Many analysts have interpreted Trump’s protectionist stance, and the United States’ imposition of tariffs, as economically irrational. If the liberal motto was once that “under free trade everybody wins”, it is now logical to think that, under protectionism, everyone will lose. It would also mean the end of globalisation, which would come at a great economic cost for the US.

In just the last few days, the US-Canada tariff crisis has escalated significantly. The Ontario government responded to Trump’s threats with a 25% tariff on electricity serving the states of Minnesota, New York and Michigan, prompting Trump to announce that he would raise tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium to 50%. Shortly after, Ontario authorities suspended the electricity rate hike, and Trump has now also walked back his retaliatory tariff hike.

Similar events are taking place on the other side of the Atlantic as well, as the European Commission has responded to US tariff threats on steel exports with its own package of measures targeting a range of American goods.

Read more:
How the EU is preparing to play hardball in the face of Donald Trump’s tariff threats

Trump’s narrative pivot has caused turmoil, and seems to run contrary to US business interests. However, a critical look at the benefits of free trade – and the US’ unique position in relation to it – can help us understand the resurgence of protectionist discourse, and the US’ trade war with China.

Free trade serves US interests

Economic history shows that, once the US’ technological development outstripped its competitors, it was able to turn free trade into an instrument that protected its own interests. At this point it, along with its allies, began to promote free trade as vital to the development of less advanced economies.

This resulted in globalisation, which was what made it possible to manufacture goods in China at lower costs, thus keeping US wages and inflation in check and increasing the profits of US companies. As long as this remained the case, free trade with China served the interests of US companies, and was therefore justifiable.

However, in recent years China has shifted its economic strategy towards producing and exporting high-tech, value-added products (as South Korea and Taiwan have also done). Chinese-produced mobile phones, electric cars and artificial intelligence have subsequently conquered the US market.

The longer this shift goes on, the more useful and legitimate tariffs and protectionism become as a way to shield the economic interests of US businesses.

Read more:
US-China tensions are an opportunity – the EU could become the world’s third great power

How far will the US go?

Protectionist rhetoric and trade wars were already trumpeted by the first Trump administration. However, the KOF globalisation index – which measures the global connectivity, integration and interdependence of countries – showed the same value in 2021 as it did in 2017.

While the growth experienced since 1970 ground to a halt, the index’s indicators disprove any claim that globalisation receded during Trump’s first term in office.

This second term may well be different because, according to some experts, the president has learned to bypass political counterweights, to surround himself with like-minded people, and to free himself from partisan ties in order to implement his own agenda.

Others, however, question the very existence of his own agenda beyond the interests of big business, because it is precisely this alignment of interests that allows him to:

Impose tariffs on developed countries, and on products competing for the same markets.
Make political use of tariffs to threaten other countries and secure access to vital resources for the technology race (mainly due to the US’ position of being the world’s largest buyer and military power).
Launch a new arms race that will boost the profits of US industry.
Use a nationalist and anti-globalisation narrative to justify the growing precariousness of the US working class. He aims to unite US citizens behind the flag, dilute their class consciousness, and offer up new scapegoats in the form of immigrants.

In reality, Trump’s agenda is unlikely to be compatible with any meaningful de-globalisation process. Reversing globalisation would be contrary to the interests of US capital, which needs to expand – into both new territories and sectors – to ensure its own survival.

In light of all this, why would US multinationals want to stop making huge profits in other countries? What could lead them to give up producing in territories with lower production costs, cheaper labour, and a guaranteed supply of raw materials? Why would the United States be in favour of rebalancing its trade deficit, and thus give up the privilege of issuing the benchmark currency for international reserves?

The dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’

According to IMF data, in the third quarter of 2024 the US dollar still accounted for more than 57% of total international reserves, and more than 80% of international trade financing.

When a country’s domestic currency acts as a reserve asset or is the currency in which most international payments are made, the financing of persistent current account deficits does not carry major risks of either devaluation or currency crisis. Every year since 1982, with the sole exception of 1991, the US current account balance has been negative.

These conditions for financing its debt – which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Charles de Gaulle’s Minister of Economy, defined in 1964 as an “exorbitant privilege” – improve even in times of crisis. The dollar’s status as a safe haven asset (much like gold) means that international demand for it actually increases in times of uncertainty.

So why would the US be in favour of shifting its trade balance, thereby renouncing the privilege of issuing the international reserve currency?

Globalisation, democracy, sovereignty: the great trilemma

In his 2012 book The Globalisation Paradox, Turkish economist Dani Rodrik puts forward his theory of the “trilemma”. This theory states that democracy and national sovereignty are fundamentally incompatible with globalisation.

Only those who accept the existence of this trilemma, and understand the tensions that arise from it, can then begin to pick apart one of its components. This is where Trump seems to have the upper hand. He is playing a game of illusions, one where he publicly pretends to dynamite globalisation while, behind the scenes, he stealthily dismantles the pillars of democracy. Läs mer…

Australian politicians on both sides of the house say protectionist policies are bad, right? That Australia, as a country, believes in and benefits from trade being as free as possible.

But what about some voluntary protectionism in the wake of the government’s failure to win an exemption from Donald Trump’s tariffs? Not counter tariffs of course – the government has ruled out that brand of retaliation. But it is looking to find ways to encourage consumers to buy locally-produced products rather than defaulting to (often cheaper) imports.

Anthony Albanese flags this will be a feature of the March 25 budget. All in the name of supporting “Team Australia”.

“I would urge Australians, if they’re in a local shop, to look to buy Australian,” the prime minister said on Thursday. “That’s one way that consumers can assist to create jobs here and to support our local industries.”

Despite the unfortunate circumstances in which it comes, this exhortation actually fits with the government’s pre-Trump policy of “Future Made in Australia”, with its incentives for projects especially in the clean energy area. Critics thought the policy was too interventionist, indeed protectionist. The government argued it was securing Australia’s place “in a changing global environment”.

Just as he seems to be wreaking havoc around the world, Donald Trump is now embedded in Australia’s domestic politics in the run-up to the election. Both sides are struggling to deal with the consequences of that.

Albanese is trying to contain the damage of the exemption failure, while pinning the “Trumpist” label on Dutton, accusing him of being “a cheer squad” for the Trumpites. “He had a choice yesterday of backing in the Trump administration in this decision or backing Australia. He chose to not back Australia”

Dutton is attempting to exploit the government’s inability to sway Trump but duck the accusation of not being on the national team.

The opposition says the tariff affair shows Albanese is weak, using this latest problem to feed into a general theme it is running about the PM. Dutton (though without evidence) claims he could get the Americans across the line. Kos Samaras from the political consultancy Redbridge, which does extensive research, says voters do think Dutton would be the better leader to deal with Trump.

Dutton’s challenge on the tariff issue is to criticise the government while not appearing to exult in Australia’s misfortune. It’s just one of the fine lines the Opposition leader is needing to walk at the moment.

Dutton is tantalisingly close to power, but the last steps will be the hardest.

A Newspoll finding published the week must give him cause for worry. More than half (55%) doubted the Coalition was ready for government. The poll found while this feeling was strongest among young voters, 61 % of those aged 35 to 49 doubted its readiness.

No wonder some Coalition MPs are worrying Dutton has left it too late to release and flesh out much of his policy,

He contests claims of a policy vacuum, pointing to the nuclear policy, housing measures and some other initiatives.

Nevertheless, because Dutton has run a basically small target strategy (nuclear apart) there will be a feeling among some voters that in government he could be a surprise packet. We know more of what he is against than what he is for, what he would do.

Many voters would recall Tony Abbott going out of his way to reassure people in the 2013 election campaign, and then unleashing the shock 2014 budget. A logical (and reasonable) question is, what would Dutton’s first budget be like?

If Dutton wouldn’t act like Abbott, would he follow the example of John Howard, whom he highlights as a role model?

Howard promised before the 1996 election that there’d “never ever” be a GST under him, then unveiled one (which he took to the following election).

In such uncertain times, it will be particularly important for Dutton to be able to reassure voters that they will get what they vote for, not something completely unexpected.

For an opposition, especially one with the smell of possible victory in its nostrils, there is always a tension between spelling out what it would do in office, and leaving itself flexibility.

For example it’s clear that Dutton has strong views on education policy. He told the Conversation’s podcast he thought this was “one of the most important areas”, and pointed to declining school completion rates and the need for a more back-to-basics approach.

But what would this mean in detail? How much would he seek to impinge on the states, which have prime responsibility for government schooling?

The more general point is that it is not clear whether Dutton would be an incrementalist or have his eyes on radical reform in government. Yet voters want more signals. Samaras says Dutton in recent weeks has been looking “flat-footed”, that he is not going to be able to get away with the small target strategy. “He needs to build a case for change.”

In some areas, the Coalition is leaning to potential heavy intervention. It has said it would break up supermarkets if they exploited their market power.

More recently Dutton has ventured further, saying (and re-confirming on the podcast) that insurance companies could also face divestiture.

But on the insurance issue there has been open division and confusion.

Some Liberals were unhappy with the supermarket divestiture policy, which was substantially driven by the Nationals.

On insurance companies, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and deputy leader Sussan Ley both asserted divestiture was not opposition policy, before Dutton brought the team into line.

That raises another problem Dutton has. His team remains weak. Taylor still can’t stack up effectively against treasurer Jim Chalmers. This is a potential vulnerability in the election campaign.

Politicians facing elections often liken their situation to climbing Everest. For Dutton the last stage will be treacherous. Läs mer…

Many children in Queensland and northern New South Wales have had their lives disrupted by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred.

Schools were closed (about 14 were still shut as of Thursday afternoon), families hunkered down and then the clean-up and repair efforts began.

For students in Lismore, the past week will have likely brought back memories of the catastrophic floods in the area in 2022.

Our research on the Lismore floods (which is awaiting publication in two peer-reviewed journals) contains key lessons for how communities and schools can support young people after Cyclone Alfred and other disasters.

Read more:
How can parents talk to their kids about Cyclone Alfred?

Our research

Between late February and March 2022, the northern NSW town of Lismore and surrounding region faced two catastrophic flooding events. Almost 1,000 schools in the broader area were temporarily closed and in some cases, schools were relocated or permanently shut.

In the Floods + Me project, we worked with young people in Lismore to understand the impact of the floods on their lives and education.

Twenty-nine young people aged five to 17 documented their experiences through art, poetry and stories. The project also surveyed 107 students (aged 11–17) at a Lismore school in December 2024.

A Lismore child writes about their experiences after the 2022 floods.
The Floods + Me project, Author provided (no reuse)

Profound experiences

Young people told us how their worlds were upended by the floods. As Aisha said:

My mum told me to pack a bag, and we went to my aunty’s house for a couple of hours as we had nowhere to go. We then stayed at my grandma’s house in Alstonville for around three-four months.

Lovely told us how the flood made its way up to the second level of the home, and her Dad and dog had to escape through the roof.

Until evening, we kept going back to the last reachable place near our house on the hill to observe the flood level. I went to bed with a lot of stress and couldn’t sleep properly.

Wanting more emotional support

The young people in our study said there were many kinds of support after the flooding. This ranged from rebuilding and cleaning houses to donations of food and clothes. But almost a quarter of those in the survey said they didn’t observe any support.

Young people also said they wanted more emotional and mental support. Or, as one young person put it:

comfort, counselling, trauma management, therapy, hugs, kindness, love.

Others said they wanted specific training:

I don’t know how to be resilient – I need to be taught how to be. Don’t just tell me to be it.

There were differing experiences of “bouncing back”. While many reported being able to recover with little difficulty (36%), almost the same number reported the opposite (32%). About one fifth (21%) of respondents were unsure and 11% did not respond.

Wanting more school support

In the Lismore floods, some students reported 2022 as a “lost year” at school. As Erika told us:

There were a lot of things going on, lots of things not working, even as we tried to still get education.

Our participants said more financial and educational support such as tutoring and online schooling would have helped to fill the gaps in their learning.

ADF personnel help clean up South Lismore Primary School after the 2022 floods.
Jason O’Brien/AAP

Taking time to recover

Young people told us they didn’t necessarily want to rush back to “normal”.

They said they didn’t want to ignore what had happened. This suggests the return to learning should be well planned and structured. And include consultation with students about what they need.

Floods and their aftermath can be unsettling, frightening and sometimes traumatic. These experiences need to be processed in healthy and constructive ways.

Our participants wanted more information about disasters to be included in their formal education. About 80% of the survey respondents said teaching about flooding and disasters in schools was necessary.

The majority of students reported being worried about climate change, but this was more pronounced among girls. Half (50%) of female respondents said they were concerned, compared to 24% of boys and 3% of non-binary/gender-diverse students and those who do not disclose a gender.

Listen to young people

A key theme in our research is young people want to be listened to and want to be included in recovery and future planning efforts.

As one young person told us:

Give us hands-on jobs in the moment so we don’t feel helpless. A lot of my friends felt this, and I felt lucky that I got to help; it helped me recover.

They also raised caring for pets during floods as a key issue for communities to plan for.

As another participant explained:

there was an evacuation the night before, but we said ‘we’re not leaving unless we know our pets are going to be safe’.

What’s next?

Unfortunately, climate change means young people are increasingly likely to face disruptions to their education and their communities in the form of floods, heatwaves, bushfires and storms.

According to a 2025 UNICEF analysis, at least 242 million children and young people in 85 countries had their schooling disrupted by extreme climate events in 2024.

This means schools, teachers and communities need plans to empower children to face these crises and recover in healthy ways.

In the meantime, for those now rebuilding from ex-Cyclone Alfred, our participants advise it is important not to rush the recovery phase. As one told us:

We took a long time to come back to feeling normal.

The Floods + Me project team also includes Chantelle Bayes, Katie Hotko, Yaw Ofosu-Asare, Helen Widdop Quinton, David Rousell, Lauren Rickards, Lisa Kleyn and Blanche Verlie. Läs mer…