Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Professor Sangeeta Khorana made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences
Professor Sangeeta Khorana, professor of international trade policy at Aston University, has been made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences Fellows are elected for their contributions to social science, including in economic development, human rights and welfare reform The 2025 cohort of 63 Fellows will join a 1,700-strong Fellowship with members from academia, the public, private and third sectors. Professor Sangeeta Khorana, professor of international trade policy at Aston University, has been made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences as part of the Autumn 2025 cohort. The 63 new Fellows have been elected from 39 UK organisations, comprising 29 higher education institutions, as well as think tanks, non-profits, business, and from countries beyond the UK including Australia and China. The Academy of Social Science’s Fellowship comprises 1,700 leading social scientists from academia, the public, private and third sectors. Selection is through an independent peer review which recognises their excellence and impact. Professor Khorana has more than 25 years of academic, government and management consulting experience in international trade. She has worked for the Indian government as a civil servant and on secondment to the UK Department for Business and Trade. Her expertise includes free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations and World Trade Organization (WTO) issues. As well as sitting on various expert committees, Professor Khorana is an advisor on gender and trade to the Commonwealth Businesswomen’s Network in London and serves on Foreign Investment Committee of the PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industry, India. The Autumn 2025 cohort of Fellows have expertise in a range of areas including educational inequalities, place-based economic development, human rights protection, the regulation of new technologies, and welfare reform, highlighting the importance, breadth and relevance of the social sciences to tackling the varied challenges facing society today. As well as excellence in research and professional applications of social science, the new Fellows have also made significant contributions beyond the academy, including to industry, policy and higher education. Professor Khorana said: “I am deeply honoured to be elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. This recognition underscores not only the importance of international trade policy as a driver of inclusive and sustainable growth, but also the role of social sciences in shaping fairer and more resilient societies. At Aston University, my research seeks to bridge academia, government and industry to inform evidence-based trade policy for global cooperation. I am proud to contribute to the Academy’s mission of demonstrating how social science knowledge and practice can address some of the most pressing challenges of our time.” President of the Academy, Will Hutton FAcSS, said: “It’s a pleasure to welcome these 63 leading social scientists to the Academy’s Fellowship. Their research and practical applications have made substantial contributions to social science and wider society in a range of areas from international trade policy and inclusive planning systems through to innovative entrepreneurship and governing digital technologies. We look forward to working with them to promote further the vital role the social sciences play in all areas of our lives.”
This strategic move aligns with LSU’s Scholarship First Agenda, where energy is one of five core focus areas for research critical to the future of Louisiana and the nation. It also builds on the successes of LSU’s Institute for Energy Innovation, Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana Geological Survey, and the LSU-led FUEL team while assuming a leadership role in how the university engages with its partners—industry, communities, donors, and state and federal agencies—through collaboration and service. “As Louisiana’s flagship research university, LSU is committed to organizing our efforts in ways that maximize impact and reflect institutional priorities,” said Robert Twilley, LSU vice president of research and economic development. “The LSU Energy Institute will provide a platform for faculty across multiple colleges and disciplines to collaborate on solutions to Louisiana’s most pressing energy and environmental challenges.” The LSU Energy Institute will unify and expand several longstanding programs, chiefly the Center for Energy Studies, the Louisiana Geological Survey, and a range of externally funded initiatives, including cutting-edge energy research catalyzed by the LSU Institute for Energy Innovation through a dedicated $25 million investment from Shell. This results-focused realignment reflects a broader effort across LSU to improve coordination between strategic research projects and teams with increased support from research centers, institutes, and core facilities. As LSU’s flagship unit in the energy domain, the Energy Institute will enhance the university’s ability to align interdisciplinary research and policy with Louisiana’s energy economy and environmental stewardship goals. “The reorganization of LSU energy efforts into this institute reflects both a long-standing legacy of service and a renewed vision for the future of energy research in Louisiana. It’s about building on 40 years of trusted work while expanding our capacity to innovate, support decisionmakers, and serve the people of our state, said Greg Upton, interim director of the LSU Energy Institute and executive director of the LSU Center for Energy Studies. The LSU Energy Institute will serve as a central hub for faculty, students, industry, and public agencies working at the intersection of energy technology, resource economics, environmental protection, and policy. The integration of the Louisiana Geological Survey will further reinforce the university’s role in providing critical data and analysis to support state planning and hazard assessment. The institute will also continue to seed competitive, high-quality research focused on energy systems resilience, carbon management, and economic opportunity. These investments reflect LSU’s broader vision to translate research into impact and fuel new jobs and technologies to power Louisiana’s future. Original article posted here.
President Turns Up the Heat on Corporate America
NPR interviewed Dr. Meena Bose for its report: “Trump is tightening the screws on corporate America — and CEOs are staying mum.” President Trump recently demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, which Dr. Bose called “one of the most aggressive public statements the president has made.” She added, “So much of President Trump’s second term is really charting an independent path, with very little attention to precedent — or in some ways, almost a rejection of precedent.” Dr. Bose is Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
President Puts the Heat on U.S. CEOs
The Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about President Donald Trump upping public pressure on CEOs and telling them how to conduct their business. Recently he called for Intel’s chief executive to resign and told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices. Dr. Bose explained that this level of interference is highly unusual. “This is certainly not an approach the United States has seen in modern American politics,” she said. “It’s government bending economic interests.” Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Planned Changes to EPA Policy Likely to Impact Public Health and Safety
Dr. Jase Bernhardt, associate professor in Hofstra’s Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, was interviewed by Newsday about the planned revocation of 2009’s endangerment finding, and how it may impact health and safety on Long Island. The endangerment finding was a scientific declaration that determined carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health. Dr. Bernhardt said the consequences from rescinding the endangerment finding will be damaging but suggests they are likely to be incremental and slower for the public to discern. “It’s going to be more gradual,” he said. “There’s not going to be that singular event where you can say ‘this definitely had an immediate effect right here.’ It’s a long term change.”
Dr. Sameer Hinduja is one of the world’s foremost experts on cyberbullying, adolescent mental health, and digital safety. A Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, he has advised the White House, testified before federal agencies, and worked with schools and tech companies worldwide to protect young people online. View Full Profile→ Amid the U.S. youth mental health crisis, his latest peer-reviewed study, published through FAU Newsdesk, reveals that hope not only boosts well-being and academic achievement but also acts as a powerful shield against bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents. Results, published in the journal Frontiers in Sociology, show that students with less hope were 56% more likely to cyberbully others than their peers over their lifetime, and 57% more likely over the last 30 days. Those with more hope were 36% less likely to cyberbully others over their lifetime and over the last 30 days when compared to their peers with lower levels of hope. The key takeaway? Hope matters. It buffers against the urge to aggress against others online and off. “Hope acts as a powerful protective factor against both school bullying and cyberbullying among youth,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., lead author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “When young people believe in their ability to set meaningful goals and stay motivated to reach them, they are far less likely to lash out or harm others. Hope gives them a sense of direction – and that can make all the difference.” Hinduja's previous research has been featured in The Washington Post, where he emphasized that cyberbullying is not just emotionally distressing—it can cause trauma responses in teens that mirror clinical Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “As our research clearly shows, cyberbullying in any form — whether it’s exclusion from a group chat or direct threats — can lead to significant trauma in youth,” Sameer Hinduja, a professor in Florida Atlantic University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the paper’s lead author, said in a news release. “We were surprised to find that no single type of cyberbullying caused more harm than others; all carried a similar risk of traumatic outcomes. This means we can’t afford to dismiss or trivialize certain behaviors as ‘less serious’ — being left out or targeted by rumors can be just as detrimental as more overt attacks.” Why This Matters Now As students return to school this fall, Hinduja’s research offers a clear reminder: digital harm is real harm. Emotional safety in online environments deserves the same urgency as physical safety in school buildings. His work calls for: • Preventive education over punitive responses • Trauma-informed approaches in schools • Support systems that validate and protect victims • Tech accountability and policy reform ⸻ Dr. Hinduja is available for media interviews on topics such as: Adolescent Mental Health • Cyberbullying • PTSD • Digital Safety • School Culture Click on the icon below to connect.
New National UMass Amherst Poll Finds President Trump’s Job Approval Gap Slides 6 Points Since April
Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll Public approval of Donald Trump’s presidency has dropped by 6 percentage points since April and his approval rating is now 20 points underwater, 38-58, according to a new national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents conducted July 25-30. “Six months into his second term as president, Donald Trump looks to be on the ropes with the American public,” says Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. “Trump’s approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office. While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump’s time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump’s performance. With over three years left in the Trump administration, there is still time for him to right the ship and fulfil the promises that catapulted him to the presidency, but the president is not off to the start he or his supporters envisioned.” In the previous UMass Poll, conducted as Trump approached the three-month anniversary of his return to the White House, Trump held a 44-51 approval rating, buoyed by a positive overall approval on his handling of immigration. The new poll, however, has found a significant shift in views on this issue. “Immigration has been central Trump’s political campaigns and his strongest issue in his first few months in office, but the percentage of people who say he is handling it well has dropped substantially from 50% four months ago to just 41% today, a 9-point drop,” explains Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Trump came into the presidency promising change, and he’s made significant alterations in many areas of federal policy,” says Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “He came into office believing that he had limited time to make the changes he promised his most ardent supporters, and moved with unparalleled speed to enact these changes, including sometimes by legally questionable means. Now, it seems, he’s reaping the consequences as a large majority of Americans don’t like these changes. Clear majorities say that Trump has handled his key issues – immigration (54%), inflation (63%), jobs (55%) and tariffs (63%) – not very well or not well at all. With so many Americans grading his handling of public policy poorly, it’s no wonder they disapprove of his presidency.” Rhodes also notes that the president is seeing an erosion in support from one of his most reliable groups of supporters: men. “Trump has cultivated a ‘masculine’ reputation and sought to build support among American men but, strikingly, we find that support for Trump has deteriorated most substantially among members of this group,” says Rhodes. “In April, Trump enjoyed approval from 48% of men, compared with 39% of women. Now, only 39% of men express approval of Trump, compared with 35% of women. “In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,” Rhodes adds. “While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%. This is really bad news for Trump, and for Republicans who depend on support from independents in close elections.” “Polarization has changed the interpretation of presidential approval ratings,” says Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Partisans just aren’t willing to evaluate presidents from the other side positively and are reluctant to say negative things about presidents from their own party. So, approval numbers fluctuate within a narrower range. Gone are the days when George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush both achieved approval numbers over 90%. This is certainly true for Trump, who is likely the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. Even in this polarized environment, though, Trump’s approval ratings are low by any standard – he is very close to the practical floor. Especially noteworthy is that nearly half of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump and the percentage of Americans who say they strongly approve of Trump has decreased substantially. Even among Republican respondents, only half strongly approve of the president. The GOP should be concerned about these numbers heading into the odd-year elections in 2025 and, especially, the midterm elections in 2026. It is very difficult for a party to win when its leader is this unpopular.” Americans’ views on Epstein and Trump Of all issues surveyed in the latest University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll, one appears to be the greatest drag on Trump’s presidency: Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s handling of the evidence gathered in the federal investigation of the accused sex-trafficker and his long-time friend. “The Epstein scandal remains a serious vulnerability – indeed, quite possibly, the most serious vulnerability – for Trump right now,” Rhodes says. “Fully 70% of Americans believe he has handled this issue ‘not too well’ or ‘not well at all,’ and nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. The Epstein scandal is also likely undermining public confidence in Trump more broadly. Indeed, we find that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Trump is corrupt and nearly 70% believe he is dishonest. Critically, these numbers mean that many Republicans and conservatives are disappointed with Trump’s handling of the Epstein situation. Republican frustration with Trump’s handling of the Epstein case could erode enthusiasm for his presidency and for Republicans in 2026.” “If Trump and those around him have been wishing the Jeffrey Epstein story would disappear, their wishes have not been granted,” Theodoridis says. “Most Americans (77%) tell us they have heard a lot or some about the Epstein case. In addition to believing that the Trump administration is hiding important Epstein case information, the vast majority of respondents say that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Trump DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case (59%), that Donald Trump was good friends with Epstein (67%), and that a list of Epstein’s clients exists (70%). Even substantial numbers of Trump voters believe these things. And, when it comes to an Epstein ‘cover-up,’ it seems the buck stops with Trump himself. While a lot of Americans blame Attorney General Pam Bondi (59%), FBI Director Kash Patel (49%), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (47%) for hiding information about the Epstein case, a whopping 81% blame President Trump.” “The controversy over the handling of the Epstein files by the Trump administration has – interestingly – brought Americans together,” Nteta adds. “While on most issues, we see clear and persistent generational, class and racial divisions; on Epstein, Americans across these divides speak with one voice. This controversy has even resulted in agreement across partisan lines as majorities of Democrats and Republicans support a special prosecutor and believe a list of clients exists, and disapproval of Trump’s handling of the whole matter is surprisingly seen among members of Trump’s base, as 43% of Republicans and conservatives indicate that Trump has not handled this issue well.” “Where Trump faces his poorest rating in our poll is on perceived corruption and dishonesty,” adds La Raja. “A clear plurality (49%) sees Trump as ‘very dishonest,’ with an additional 20% saying that he is ‘somewhat dishonest.’ And 45% see him as ‘very corrupt,’ with an additional 20% as ‘somewhat corrupt.’ Only about one-third reject those labels entirely. Trump also gets low ratings on transparency – a majority (52%) say Trump is not at all transparent, his weakest score after dishonesty. Only 23% believe that he’s very transparent. For a candidate who brands himself as a truth-teller and disruptor, this appears to be a credibility gap.” “Strength is Trump’s strongest attribute,” La Raja explains. “Fifty-eight percent see him as very or somewhat strong, indicating appeal among his base and possibly swing voters who value ‘toughness.’ However, views on his competence are split evenly, with 52% saying he’s competent to some degree, while 48% say not at all.” Voter Regret? “Since President Trump took office, a number of reports of regretful Trump voters have been covered in the nation’s leading media outlets,” Nteta says. “From voters upset with Trump’s immigration policies to supporters who take issue with the president’s unwillingness to release the files associated with the Epstein case, there seemed to be a wellspring of regret among Trump’s once loyal base. Our results suggest that while there are, in fact, areas where the president is weak, most notably on his handling of the economy and the Epstein controversy. When asked directly, close to 9-in-10 (86%) would vote for Trump again if given the opportunity to revisit their 2024 presidential vote choice. These results indicate that the number of regretful voters covered in the mainstream press may be overblown, as the overwhelming majority of Trump voters remain in the president’s camp.” “Only 1% of Trump voters say they regret their vote and would choose differently, 2% say they ‘might’ choose differently and 3% say they wish they hadn’t voted at all,” Theodoridis says. “When we simply ask voters how they would vote if they could go back and recast their ballot, 6% of Trump voters tell us they would vote for Harris, while only 2% of Harris voters say they would switch to Trump. There is clearly more erosion in support among Trump voters than among Harris voters and, in what is likely small consolation to Harris and her campaign team, significantly more 2024 non-voters who say they wish they had voted indicate they would now cast a vote for the former vice president. In a relatively close election, shifts of these magnitudes might have been decisive, but there are no ‘take-backs’ in electoral politics, so these numbers are best used to inform choices going forward.” “Our results are not wholly positive for President Trump, and there exist areas of concern for his team moving forward,” Nteta warns. “Since April, the number of Trump voters expressing strong confidence in their vote for Trump has declined by 5 percentage points. Additionally, we find small increases in the number of Trump supporters who have mixed feelings about their vote and who indicate that they would ‘rather not have voted.’ Finally, 14% of Trump voters indicate that they would not vote for Trump if given the chance to revisit, while only 8% of Harris voters express a similar sentiment. Time will tell whether the growing number of disaffected Trump voters are the canaries in the coal mine, indicating a larger problem among the Trump coalition and the MAGA movement more generally.” “We do find a meaningful percentage – 31% – of Trump voters unwilling to say they feel very confident they made the right choice,” Theodoridis adds. “Nineteen percent of Trump voters tell us they are still confident but have concerns, and 6% tell us they have mixed feelings about their vote. Given what we know about the psychological predispositions against admitting to having been wrong, these numbers suggest some softening in support for Trump among the very voters who returned him to the White House last November. This should certainly be alarming for Republican politicians. However, for Democrats or journalists looking for a mass mea culpa from Trump voters, our numbers are, perhaps, sobering.” Methodology This University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents nationally was conducted by YouGov July 25-30. YouGov interviewed 1,057 total respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, region, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 and 2024 presidential vote choice as ranked on gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight. The demographic marginals and their interlockings were based on the sample frame. The marginal distribution of 2020 presidential vote choice and its demographic interlockings were based on a politically representative “modeled frame” of US adults, using the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote. The marginal distribution of 2024 vote choice was based on official ballot counts compiled by the University of Florida Election Labs and CNN. Demographic interlockings for 2024 vote choice were based on CNN’s 2024 Exit Polls. The margin of error of this poll is 3.5%. Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll
Tariffs fuel global sourcing shakeup for fashion in the U.S.
Be prepared to see more Made in Vietnam or Made in Bangladesh labels on clothing in the coming years. That’s because U.S. fashion companies are rethinking their global sourcing strategies and operations in response to the Trump administration’s trade policies and tariffs, according to new research by the University of Delaware's Sheng Lu. Lu, professor and graduate director in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, partners with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), on an annual survey of executives at the top 25 U.S. fashion brands, retailers, importers and wholesalers doing business globally. Members include well-known names like Levi’s, Macy’s, Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, among others. The report covers business challenges and outlook, sourcing practices and views on trade policy. “We wear more than just clothes; we wear the global economy, the supply chain and the public policies that jointly make fashion and affordable clothing available to American families,” Lu said. “We want to know where these companies source their products and what factors matter to them the most. It’s a classic question and it evolves each year.” This year’s report, released on July 31, shows tariffs and protectionist policies are the top business challenge for companies, with nearly half reporting declining sales and more than 20% saying they have had to lay off employees. This was followed closely by uncertainty around inflation and the economy, increasing sourcing and production costs, and changes in trade policies from other countries. In response, more than 80% of companies said they will diversify the countries from which they source their products, focusing on vendors in Asian countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia. Despite the push for “Made in USA” garments, only 17% of respondents plan to increase sourcing from the U.S. Lu shared his findings in the following Q&A: What surprised you about the survey results? Two things surprised me. First, contrary to common perception, the results do not indicate that the tariff policy so far has effectively supported or encouraged more textile and apparel production in the U.S. This actually makes sense. U.S. mills are as uncertain about the tariff rates as our trading partners are. A U.S. company may manufacture the clothes here, but use yarns, fabrics and zippers from other countries. When tariffs drive up the cost of these raw materials, it reduces the price competitiveness of apparel “Made in the USA.” Many domestic factories are in a “wait and see” mode, holding back on making critical investments to expand production due to the lack of a clear policy signal. Second, I was struck by the wide-ranging impact of the tariffs, which has gone far beyond what I originally imagined. Tariffs have not only increased U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing costs but have also affected their product development, shipping and overall supply chain management. Nearly 70% of the survey respondents said they have delayed or canceled some sourcing orders due to tariff hikes. Should consumers be prepared for less variety in clothing or shortages? Later this year, we may see fewer clothing items from our favorite brands on store shelves — especially during the holiday shopping season — and many of those items may come with a higher price tag. That said, fashion companies are doing what they can to avoid passing on tariff costs across the board, as they recognize that consumers are price sensitive. Many surveyed U.S. fashion companies say they intend to strengthen relationships with key vendors as a strategic move, and there is a growing public call for U.S. companies to provide more support and resources to their suppliers in developing countries. Sustainability is a huge issue in the fashion industry, as millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills every year. Companies say they are spending less on sustainability efforts. What would you tell companies about their sustainability efforts? Our survey suggests that sustainability can open up new business opportunities for U.S. fashion companies. Respondents said that when sourcing clothing made from sustainable fibers — like recycled, organic, biodegradable and regenerative materials — they are more likely to rely on a U.S. sourcing base or suppliers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words, even if apparel “Made in the USA” or nearby cannot always compete on price with lower-cost Asian suppliers, there is a better chance to compete on sustainability. Based on what I’ve learned from our Gen Z students — who expect better quality and more sustainable products if they have to pay more, and are critical consumers for many brands and retailers — it is unwise to hold back on investments in sustainability. What do you see as the biggest takeaway from the survey? One key takeaway is that the $4 trillion fashion and apparel business today is truly “made anywhere in the world and sold anywhere in the world.” In such a highly global and interconnected industry, everyone is a stakeholder — meaning there are no real winners in a tariff war. The study is also a powerful reminder that fashion is far more than just creating stylish clothing. Today’s fashion industry is deeply intertwined with sustainability, international relations, trade policy and technology. I hope the findings will be timely, informative and useful to fashion companies, policymakers, suppliers and fellow researchers. I plan to incorporate the insights, as well as the valuable industry connections developed through my long term partnership with USFIA, in my classroom, giving UD students fresh, real-world perspectives on the often “unfashionable” but essential side of the industry. Reporters interested in speaking with Lu can contact him directly by visiting his profile and clicking on the contact button. UD's media relations team can be reached via email.
President’s Discussion of Conspiracy Theories Have “No Parallel in American Politics”
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about conspiracy theories that appear to be consuming the Trump administration. “The president’s repeated discussion of multiple conspiracy theories, most recently about the 2016 election, has no parallel in American politics,” said Dr. Bose. “Presidential allegations that have no factual basis undermine public confidence in the political system and present dangerous challenges to constitutional principles and the rule of law, particularly if they are not subject to checks by other institutions.” Dr. Bose is Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Record-breaking heatwaves are plaguing the U.S. this summer, making it difficult to stay cool. However, the scorching temperatures aren't just affecting us at the ground level — they're disrupting air travel, too, with increasing flight delays and aircraft weight restrictions. Visiting assistant professor of aeronautics Shem Malmquist, a recognized expert in aviation safety and operations, spoke with FOX 35 Orlando about how extreme temperatures can directly impact aircraft performance, particularly at high-traffic airports during the summer. "Temperatures are probably not something people think about," said Shem Malmquist, a graduate lecturer in aviation at Florida Tech. "But the delays just compound on each other. If you start getting delayed because people need more time to take breaks to stay cool, now that flight’s late, and that has a snowball effect." These limitations can affect passenger loads, cargo capacity and overall flight scheduling. As temperatures continue to climb, Malmquist warned that these disruptions could become the new normal — not just a seasonal inconvenience, but a growing challenge for the aviation industry in the face of climate change. A seasoned Boeing 777 captain and accident investigator, Malmquist has spent decades researching aircraft operations and emergency scenarios. He’s also contributed to global conversations on aviation safety policy and climate-related infrastructure resilience. If you’re covering this topic or looking to speak with an expert on the intersection of climate and air travel, Malmquist is available for interviews. Click the icon below to connect with him.
