Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Trump-Putin Talks in Alaska: Randall Stone Available for Expert Commentary
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are scheduled to meet today in Alaska to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2022. But Ukraine, whose president wasn’t invited to the talks, and its European allies, whose representatives were also kept out of the conversation, have expressed fears that a deal could be struck without Kyiv’s involvement. Randall Stone, a political scientist and director of the Skalny Center for Polish and Central European Studies at the University of Rochester, has been following the developments in the war closely and is available to lend insight to reporters covering the high-stakes summit. “The war has shifted Russian strategy and economic ties away from the West and toward China, Iran, and India,” Stone told Newsweek last year. “If he succeeds in Ukraine, he will probably seeks to challenge U.S. NATO allies Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, whose membership in NATO he has always seen as a threat to Russia.” Trump has downplayed his expectations for a possible breakthrough, voicing frustration with what he has described as Putin’s “meaningless” gestures toward resolving the conflict, and referring to the talks as a chance for him to see what Putin has in mind. The two leaders are expected to hold a joint news conference at the conclusion of their talk. Contact Stone for fresh perspective on the high-stakes summit.
4 out of 5 US Troops Surveyed Understand the Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines. Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests. When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal? The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.” Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold. We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so. Compelled to disobey U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions. Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense. Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.” When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.” Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.” Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey. The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.” One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.” Soldiers, not lawyers But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance. Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law. Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S. “Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.” Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.” Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general. This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law. Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel. This finding was also borne out in our survey. When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points. Drawing the line As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes. The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders. When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order. But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%. While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable. Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one. Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city. The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.” Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same. Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly. The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders. Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line. Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.
MSU team develops scalable climate solutions for agricultural carbon markets
Why this matters: Builds trust in carbon markets. This science-based baseline system dramatically improves accuracy, helping ensure carbon credits are credible and truly reflect climate benefits. Enables real climate impact by accounting for both soil carbon and nitrous oxide emissions, the approach delivers a full, net climate assessment. Scales across millions of acres. Tested on 46 million hectares in 12 Midwest states, this approach is ready for large-scale adoption, helping farmers transition to regenerative practices with confidence and clarity. New research from Michigan State University, led by agricultural systems scientist Bruno Basso, addresses a major problem in agricultural carbon markets: how to set an accurate starting point, or “baseline,” for measuring climate benefits. Most current systems use fixed baselines that don’t account for the soil carbon changes and emissions that would occur if business-as-usual practices were maintained on fields. Such inaccuracies can distort carbon credit calculations and undermine market trust. “The choice of baseline can dramatically influence carbon credit generation; if the model is inaccurate, too many or too few credits may be issued, calling market legitimacy into question,” said Basso, a John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences and the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station at MSU. “Our dynamic baseline approach provides flexible scenarios that capture the comparative climate impacts of soil organic carbon, or SOC, sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions from business-as-usual practices and the new regenerative system.” The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, covers 46 million hectares of cropland across the U.S. Midwest, provides carbon market stakeholders with a scalable, scientifically robust crediting framework. It offers both the investment-grade credibility and operational simplicity needed to expand regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture and carbon markets Regenerative agriculture includes practices like cover cropping, reduced or no tillage, diversified rotations, adaptive grazing and agroforestry. These methods restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, increase system resilience and help mitigate climate change by building SOC and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon markets offer a promising financial mechanism to accelerate regenerative transitions. By compensating farmers for verified climate benefits, they can act as either offset markets (for external buyers) or inset markets (within agricultural supply chains). However, the integrity of these markets hinges on reliable, science-based measurement, reporting and verification systems that integrate modeling, field data and remote sensing. A breakthrough multi-model ensemble approach To overcome limitations in traditional modeling, the MSU scientists and colleagues from different institutions in the U.S. and Europe deployed a multi-model ensemble, or MME, framework, using eight validated crop and biogeochemical models across 40,000 locations in 934 counties spanning 12 Midwestern states. The MME avoids model selection bias, lowering uncertainty in soil carbon predictions from 99% (with single models) to just 36% (with the MME). “This is a game changer for carbon markets,” said Basso. “It delivers a level of accuracy and scalability — from individual fields to entire regions — that current systems lack.” The MME platform also enables the creation of precalculated, practice-based dynamic baselines, reducing the burden of data collection and easing participation for producers. Improved mitigation assessments Unlike many approaches that consider only SOC, the MSU lead team’s study evaluates both SOC sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions to determine net climate impact. “This comprehensive assessment ensures that carbon credits represent true climate mitigation,” said Tommaso Tadiello, postdoctoral fellow in MSU’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and co-author of the study. “A practice that increases soil carbon may improve soil health,” added Basso, “but it may not deliver actual climate benefits if it simultaneously increases nitrous oxide emissions. Our method provides a full accounting of the net climate effect.” The research team found that the combination of no-till and cover cropping delivered an average net mitigation of 1.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare annually, potentially abating 16.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide-equivalent across the study area. This research was supported by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, U.S. Department of Energy’s Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research, Builders Initiative, The Soil Inventory Project, Generation IM Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Morgan Stanley Sustainable Solutions Collaborative and MSU AgBioResearch.
Aston University researcher investigates safety risks of secondhand cosmetics sold online
As second-hand beauty products grow in popularity, so do questions about their safety. At Aston University, Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical science, is leading an academic investigation into the microbiological risks associated with pre-owned cosmetics being sold through online platforms like Vinted and Facebook Marketplace. The project, which has received ethical approval from the University’s Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, will assess the types of bacteria and potential contaminants found in used cosmetics – such as makeup and skincare – when they are resold and reused by new owners. “Second-hand beauty is trending for sustainability and affordability,” said Dr Bashir. “But very little research has explored what’s actually living in those products — and what kind of risk that might pose to everyday users.” Why this matters Pre-owned beauty items are often marketed as sustainable and cost-effective, but without careful handling they can harbour microorganisms – from bacteria to mould – that may cause infections, allergic reactions, or worse. Without knowing when a product was first opened or its expiry date, buyers could be unknowingly using unsafe cosmetics. Dr Bashir’s study will be among the first in the UK to analyse not just contamination, but also expiry timelines, and how low consumer awareness of these dates adds to the risk. The study will explore: • Types of microbiological contamination found in used products • Risks posed by product type (e.g., mascaras vs. powders) • Storage conditions and packaging integrity • Expiry dates and consumer awareness, for example: - Cosmetics have expiry timelines printed as either a date or a small jar symbol with a number (e.g., 6M, 12M, 24M, 36M), indicating months after opening. - Products can be contaminated long before the expiry date if not stored properly. - Dr Bashir’s previous research found that many makeup users didn’t know where to find the expiry date on the packaging and often kept products for years past their safe-use period. Potential to shape consumer safety and regulation With second-hand beauty sales on the rise, the findings could help shape public health messaging, consumer awareness campaigns, and online marketplace guidelines. Results could also support industry discussions on product labelling, returns, and hygiene standards. The project bridges the gap between digital consumer behaviour and health science, with implications for how individuals make purchasing decisions and how regulations adapt to a fast-changing beauty market. ⸻ Want to learn more or collaborate? Updates will be shared through academic publications and public-facing channels once data collection and sample testing are complete. Click on the icon below to connect with: Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical sciences Areas of expertise: Clinical microbiology, antimicrobial resistance, bacteria found in food, makeup products, food and water microbiology
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.
Dr. Brian LaPointe, Research Professor at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, is one of the nation’s most recognized experts on marine ecosystems. His work spans algal physiology, biochemistry, biodiversity, and coastal conservation — with more than a decade of dedicated research focused on the rise and impact of sargassum blooms across the Atlantic. LaPointe confirmed that sargassum levels in the North Atlantic have hit a new biomass record — and much of it is now washing ashore across South Florida’s coastlines. The scale of this bloom, he says, could have lasting consequences for marine ecosystems, tourism, and public health. LaPointe recently spoke to CNN about why this record bloom is raising alarm bells: “Sargassum goes from being a very beneficial resource of the North Atlantic to becoming what we refer to as… a harmful algal bloom when it comes ashore in excessive biomass.” Ammonia is another problem emitted by the decaying seaweed, LaPointe noted. The chemical compound “strips the oxygen out of the waters along our coastal ecosystems like mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds,” he said. The scale of the bloom is staggering. According to University of South Florida estimates cited by LaPointe, over 31 million tons of sargassum have been detected this year — a 40% increase over the previous record. Dr. Brian LaPointe is available to speak with the media on this topic. For interviews, click below to view his full profile and click the connect button.
Unexpected A-Level results? Here’s advice from a psychologist
On 14 August young people across England, Northern Ireland and Wales will receive their A Level results. Many will receive the grades they hoped for however those who receive results that aren’t as expected, either worse or better, there is the option of entering Clearing, the period when universities advertise remaining places on undergraduate courses Aston University is offering guidance to help secure a place on a degree course and those who already have their results can enter Clearing from 5 August. There is more information about the process on the Aston University website at https://www.aston.ac.uk/clearing/guide Going through the process of waiting for and receiving A Level results can be overwhelming Dr Natalia Stanulewicz-Buckley is a social health psychologist and is a lecturer in the School of Psychology and Aston Medical School at Aston University. She has the following advice for anyone who doesn’t get the grades for which they hoped: “What if your A-level results are not what you hoped for? Breathe. Feel. Regroup. The path ahead still holds endless possibilities. “As people get older and gain more life experience, they often realise that what once seemed like a humongous failure or disappointment, with time, bears a lighter load. So, what advice would I share with young people facing A-level results that may not have aligned with their expectations and hopes, and who might be facing Clearing or having to consider other options? “First of all, take a few long inhales and even longer exhales (for 3-4 minutes). This kind of breathing exercise can help you feel calmer when facing a stressful situation. “Next, acknowledge your feelings. It’s okay to feel disappointed, disheartened, or even angry when life doesn’t go according to plan. These emotions show that this outcome matters deeply to you. But they don’t mean that all is lost. “Take time to sit with your emotions and try to share your concerns with people who might be going through a similar experience, or with those you trust to support you - friends, siblings, family members, or teachers. There is truth in the saying, ‘A problem shared is a problem halved.’ “Once you've made space for your emotions and worked through them - remember, emotions are like waves; they arise, reach a peak, and then subside - you might feel more ready to consider your options. Believe me, there will be many, Clearing, taking a year out to travel or volunteer, doing an internship, and more. “Ask yourself, 'What path is most aligned with my plans and ambitions for the future?' Follow that answer. And who knows - perhaps in time, you’ll look back on this stressful moment and the decisions you made in response to it and realise that having to re-adjust your university plans was the best thing that could have happened. “As the saying goes, ‘When one door closes, another one opens.’ But most importantly, please be kind to yourself. Treat yourself as you would a close friend—with understanding, support, and compassion. It may be reassuring to remember that you did the best you could in the situation you were in, with the resources you had. That is all anyone could ever ask of you.” To interview Dr Stanulewicz-Buckley or for other media enquiries contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk To find out more about Dr Stanulewicz-Buckley’s work visit https://research.aston.ac.uk/en/persons/natalia-stanulewicz-buckley Courses available through clearing at Aston University can be viewed at https://www.aston.ac.uk/clearing/vacancies and anyone who is waiting for their results can register for Priority Clearing at https://www.aston.ac.uk/clearing#register to receive vacancy alerts, advice and tips. From 8am Thursday 14 August there will be three easy ways to apply for courses at Aston University through Clearing, either call 0800 917 5923 to speak with an adviser, submit a Clearing application form at https://www.aston.ac.uk/clearing/guide or use the online live chat service. Finally, students can message on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/AstonUniversity/
New research reveals how religious tattoos reflect a cultural – and generational – shift in how faith is expressed through permanent body art. Dr. Kevin D. Dougherty, professor of sociology at Baylor University, brings a unique lens to this evolving phenomenon. An award-winning educator and active researcher, Dougherty teaches both undergraduates and graduate students in areas of sociology, including courses on religion, teaching and organizational life. His research explores religious affiliation, participation, racial diversity in congregations and the ways faith intersects with politics, work and community. In a recent study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dougherty and his co-authors – Texas Tech sociology professors Jerome R. Koch, Ph.D. and Paticia Maloney, Ph.D. – examine how tattoos—once seen as rebellious—are now being embraced as spiritual markers, particularly among younger generations. The study used national data from the 2021 Baylor Religion Survey, administered by Gallup to a random sample of 1,248 U.S. adults. The findings reveal that nearly 10% of American adults have tattoos with religious or spiritual significance – suggesting a major cultural shift in how lived religion is publicly and permanently expressed. “What we’re seeing is that tattoos are becoming modern-day sacred objects,” said Koch. “They’re permanent, deeply personal and often worn as both a proclamation of faith and a private reminder of belief.” The research challenges longstanding stereotypes that religious individuals avoid tattoos. While highly religious adults remain slightly less likely overall to be tattooed, younger people with strong religious commitment were the most likely to mark their faith visibly and permanently on their bodies. The study also points to a broader evolution in faith practices. Tattoos are now joining other forms of spiritual expression like jewelry and clothing—but with one major distinction: permanence. “A religious tattoo doesn’t come off. It travels with you,” said Dougherty. “It encourages continuity, a lasting connection to what you believe.” Dougherty’s interest in the topic was sparked during a classroom assignment, where students were asked to document tattoos on campus. He was struck by how many were linked to religious themes. “Tattoos that once marked the fringes of respectable society are now being redeemed as testimonies of belief,” he said. “They’re a reminder that faith—like culture—is always adapting, always finding new ways to speak.” For media inquiries and to connect with Kevin, click the icon below.
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
How AI will transform the economy: Predicting the next breakthroughs
AI is already revolutionizing the world around us. University of Delaware experts are at the forefront of this innovation, researching and inventing new ways to use AI in everyday life. Below are a number of UD experts who can discuss these topics and the breakthroughs being made. AI meets the edge – Weisong Shi, Alumni Distinguished Professor and Chair of Computer and Information Sciences, explains how AI and edge computing will transform everything from self-driving cars to real-time healthcare. AI’s energy appetite – Steven Hegedus, Professor, dives into the massive energy demands of AI, with expertise in photonics and chip-level signal processing. Building AI from the hardware – Sunita Chandrasekaran, Associate Professor and leader of the First State AI Institute, focuses on AI hardware innovations shaping the future of computing. Email mediarelations@udel.edu to speak to any of these experts.
