Experts Matter. Find Yours.

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

Emil Bove’s appeals court nomination echoes earlier controversies, but with a key difference

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy. On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general. When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.” And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.” A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.” On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote. As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time. Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way. Robert Bork Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb. “Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster. This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court. Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.” Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination. Ronnie White In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court. However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime. Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.” White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. Miguel Estrada Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001. Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court. However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin. Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired. Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology. According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.” When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.” Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge. Bove stands out As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns. This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue. But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch. This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

Vitamin D in pregnancy may boost kids’ brainpower

You don't need a scientist to tell you that milk is good for babies. But a new study led by the University of Delaware's Melissa Melough sheds light on the power of prenatal nutrition — specifically vitamin D— as a key contributor to children’s brain development. The research found that children whose mothers had higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy scored better on tests of memory, attention and problem-solving skills at ages 7 to 12 compared with those whose mothers had lower levels. Melough wrote about the study in a piece for The Conversation. Vitamin D deficiency affects 42% of U.S. adults and about a third of pregnant women, but the average American woman consumes just 168 international units of vitamin D daily (the recommended amount is 600 ID). Many prenatal vitamins contain only 400 IU. One promising finding could result in the solution of a racial disparity in nutrition. The study found a link between prenatal vitamin D levels and childhood cognition was strongest among Black families, who also face higher rates of vitamin D deficiency. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation could be a low-cost strategy to support brain development while reducing racial disparities. Melough is available for interviews about the study, and can also speak to the following topics: • Nutritional and environmental factors influencing human health. • Populations at risk for nutritional inadequacies or harmful environmental exposures. • The roles of endocrine disruptors in the development of obesity. • The influences of maternal nutrition on childhood outcomes • Novel dietary approaches to reduce chemical exposures or their associated health consequences. To arrange an interview with Melough, visit her profile page and click on the "contact" button, or send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Election Watch 2025: Farnsworth Breaks Down Virginia’s Political Landscape

With early voting setting new records and national politics reshaping local elections, Professor Stephen Farnsworth is helping journalists and voters make sense of the noise. As director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at the University of Mary Washington, Farnsworth continues to be a go-to expert across major outlets. In just the past few weeks, he’s been featured in: • NBC Washington • WAMU • Yahoo News • Richmond Times-Dispatch • DC News Now • Virginia Mercury Farnsworth has weighed in on everything from Kamala Harris’ rising prospects to the effects of Trump’s policies on rural Virginia. Whether he’s speaking to the League of Women Voters or breaking down the numbers for DC news outlets, Farnsworth brings clarity to the chaos. For journalists covering Virginia politics and U.S. elections, Farnsworth is a key source of insight. Click on the icon below to connect with: Stephen Farnsworth, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs; Director, Center for Leadership and Media Studies Expertise: Virginia politics, media and messaging, U.S. elections, disinformation.

What’s Your Brand, Boomer?

Picture this: a group of women in their 50s and 60s who've collectively decided to stop caring about chin hairs, laundry schedules, and everyone else's opinions. Sound liberating? It should. The New York Times recently profiled Melani Sanders, founder of the "We Do Not Care Club"—a crew of perimenopausal and menopausal women living by one fabulous rule: NO RULES! Their motto might as well be "Chin Hair, Laundry, Your Opinion: We Don't Care." While targeted at a younger demographic, the spirit of this movement resonates loudly among retirees, especially those dancing into their 70s and 80s, with less concern for public opinion and a greater commitment to living life to the fullest. But here's the thing—this "liberation" isn't just about attitude. There's actual neuroscience behind why we become more authentic versions of ourselves (and sometimes more blunt) as we age. Brain Aging & Inhibitory Control Let’s start with the science before we move into sass. Frontal lobe shrinkage: Researchers, including Stephanie Wong, a Research Fellow and Clinical Neuropsychologist, are studying how changes in the brain impact inhibitory control and social cognition as we age. Research shows that as we age, the prefrontal cortex—the brain’s internal social bouncer—begins to shrink. That means less inhibition, more "Oops, did I say that out loud?" moments. Inhibition deficits: Research published in the APA Journal of Neuropsychology shows that older adults find it more challenging to ignore distractions or hold back their impulses. Tasks like "stop-signal" tests reveal a clear decline in impulse control. Disinhibition causes behaviour shifts. Sometimes charming, sometimes awkward. If it's just being unusually honest, that’s one thing. If it's full-on undressing in the produce aisle, it might be time to see a doctor. Particularly with frontotemporal dementia, disinhibition can be a serious warning sign. Emotional Wisdom: Who Cares? Here’s the upgrade part of aging: • Less shame, more self-acceptance. Turns out, as you get older, you care less if Karen from yoga thinks you talk too much. • Socioemotional selectivity theory. As we become aware that time is limited, we stop pretending. Why waste valuable hours pretending to enjoy kale chips or dull book clubs? When to Be Concerned • Normal aging: Some verbal slips, occasional public flatulence, and quirky jokes. • Red flags: Rude outbursts, memory lapses, risky behaviour, and dramatic personality shifts. That might signal more than "aging into your truth." • Impulsivity warning: High impulsivity in older adults can sometimes be associated with early-stage cognitive decline. When uncertain, discuss it—preferably with a professional. TL;DR • Physical: Brain shrinkage leads to fewer filters. • Emotional: Less time means less pretending. • Caution: Disinhibition and cognitive issues suggest it's time for a check-up. Crafting Your Identity After 60 (Before Someone Else Does It for You) Let’s be honest: You already have a brand. Even if you never wrote a tagline or hired a designer, your brand is what people whisper (or shout) about you when you leave the room. It’s how you show up, how you age, and whether you become known as: "The Cranky Codger Complaining About the Price of Lettuce" or "The Glamorous Grandma with a TikTok Following." If you don’t brand yourself, trust me—someone else will. And they might not be as flattering. The Branding Trap of Aging Aging often loosens the filter and tightens the waistband. That’s just biology. But if we’re going to become more blunt, forgetful, and comfortable saying whatever pops into our head, shouldn’t we decide who we want to be first? Instead of becoming The Know-It-All, The Debbie Downer, or The Hovering Grandparent, why not become: • The Mentor • The Lifelong Learner • The Sexy Sensei with Killer Dance Moves And let’s not forget: most of us swore we’d never become our parents. Spoiler alert: unless you act intentionally, you’re heading in that direction, with even worse tech skills. Timing Is Everything (And Also Totally Forgiving) The best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. The second best? Right after you finish this blog, brush Dorito dust off your fingers, and take action. It’s never too early or too late to develop your personal brand. Think of it as building compound interest, but for your character. Start now before you need a doctor’s note for skinny jeans. Build a Brand That Outlasts Your Wi-Fi Password The goal? Shape a brand that becomes your legacy. Something grandkids remember, communities admire, and mirrors reflect with pride. I’m aiming for Hip, Fit & Financially Free. That means: • Eating like I care • Moving daily • Sleeping like it’s my side hustle • Managing money like I want it to stick around • And fiercely guarding my energy from sugar crashes and toxic people Avoid These Unintentional "Elder Brands" • The Cranky Codger: Complains constantly, hates oat milk, gives paper cuts with sarcasm. • The Sweet Old Lady: Harmless and charming—and almost invisible. So sweet, she could give you cavities. Stands for nothing, falls for everything. • The Know-It-All: Believes Google exists solely to confirm their opinions. • The Nona/Nono: Helicopter grandparenting, over-involved, uses spit to clean your face in public. Attract These Brands Instead: 1. Glammy or Glampa 2. Wise Old Owl 3. Sexy Sensei 4. Unstoppable Opa Tips for Maintaining Youth in Mind, Body & Spirit 1. Hang out with younger people—use their slang, apps, and playlists. 2. Volunteer—Gratitude is more effective than Botox. 3. Mentor—your wisdom is not meant for hoarding. 4. Move every day—your joints might protest now, but they'll thank you later. 5. Protect your energy—eat healthy, sleep well, say no to nonsense. 6. Be mindful of your screen time—doomscrolling drains your spirit. 7. Keep learning—new languages, new tech, and new ways to be awesome. Legacy is the Long Game You don’t need to run marathons at 85 (though if you do, I’ll cheer wildly). But you should ask: "How do I want to be remembered?" Learn Italian at age 70. Take a gap year at 65. Get an MBA at 69 (worked for me!). Write your eulogy and then live it. Age isn’t a liability. It’s your proof of resilience. Now’s your opportunity to demonstrate that to the world. So, what’s your brand, Boomer? Because like it or not, you’ve got one. It’s showing up in every family dinner, work Zoom, golf game, and passive-aggressive Facebook post. The only question is — did you choose it… or did you just inherit the ‘We Do Not Care Club’ starter pack?   Maybe we don't care about chin hair, laundry, or your opinion — but we do care about how we’re remembered. That’s your real brand, Boomer. So, you can either define it — or let your grandkids do it for you… and trust me, they’ve already got the group chat ready! So go ahead. Print those business cards that say something fabulous. Brand Strategy at Any Age: Intend it. Live it. Leave it behind.  Stay hip. Stay fit. Stay financially free. And stay tuned. There’s more coming next week.  Spoiler: There will be laugh lines and a squat rack. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue

AU research team awarded $4.4 million American Heart Association grant

A research team at Augusta University, led by Jennifer C. Sullivan, PhD, has secured a $4.4 million grant from the American Heart Association to study the risk factors for cardiovascular and kidney diseases and how they impact women. Sullivan’s research center, “Disruptions in cardiorenal free fatty acid metabolism in Cardiovascular Kidney Metabolic Syndrome,” is part of a larger $15 million project titled “Strategically Focused Research Network on Cardiovascular Kidney Metabolic Syndrome: Heterogeneity in Women.” The overarching AHA project is aimed at learning why women may be more likely to develop cardiovascular and kidney diseases due to certain unique risk factors and life stages. Research teams from Massachusetts General Hospital and The Ohio State University were also chosen. “I think this is a huge step for Augusta University as we continue to distinguish ourselves and the research that we have here focused on the health of women,” said Sullivan, dean of The Graduate School. “This grant is particularly impactful as we look to advance and improve the health of women, not just in Georgia, but for the entire country.” According to the Healthy Georgia Report, produced by AU’s School of Public Health, Georgia has the 23rd highest rate of obesity in the United States. Among the women living in the state, 38.3% of them, as well as 37.5% of people living in rural areas, suffer from obesity. “It’s great that we are able to represent the state of Georgia because our state has such a high prevalence for obesity rates,” said Sullivan, who is the director of AU’s SCORE project “Improving awareness of women with hypertension: ROAR (Rural, Obese, At Risk).” “It’s important for us to understand that different populations have distinct needs. You can’t talk about a one-size-fits-all approach to health. This is really about trying to understand how different groups are impacted.” Each center is comprised of three teams, as well as a training component and an area partner. Together, they will explore obesity’s lifetime impact on CKM syndrome through three projects. CKM syndrome is a clinical term that describes the combined health effects of heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes and obesity, which puts people at high risk for heart attack, stroke and heart failure. According to the American Heart Association’s 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics, about 1 in 3 U.S. adults has at least three components of CKM syndrome, which include high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol, high blood glucose (sugar), impaired kidney function and excess body weight. The first project is led by Daria Ilatovskaya, PhD, and Justine Abais-Battad, PhD, and will look at aging and Western diet-induced CKMS mechanisms in obesity. Ilatovskaya is an associate professor and the graduate program director for the Doctor of Philosophy in Physiology program, and Abais-Battad is an assistant professor in the Department of Physiology with the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. The second component, led by Jessica Faulkner, PhD, an assistant professor in MCG’s Physiology department, will study obesity-associated mechanisms of CKMS in pregnancy. The third project, led by Stephen Coughlin, PhD, with Marlo Vernon, PhD, is looking at CKMS epidemiology, associations with obesity, CVD/CKD. Coughlin is the program director for the Master of Science in Epidemiology and professor of epidemiology in the School of Public Health’s Department of Biostatistics, Data Science, and Epidemiology, while Vernon is an associate professor with MCG’s Georgia Prevention Institute and SPH’s Department of Community and Behavioral Health Sciences. Additionally, the team will talk to women and health care providers from a variety of backgrounds and experiences to assess current knowledge and interest levels in heart health and use that information to develop programs that may help treat and prevent disease. There is also a training director, Alison Kriegel, PhD, a professor in the Department of Physiology, and a core director, Guido Verbeck, PhD, chair and professor of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry in the College of Science and Mathematics. “We have a strong blend of clinical epidemiology and basic science, as well as a training component, which we will fill with post-doctoral fellows,” Sullivan said. “Dr. Ilatovskaya, Dr. Faulkner, Dr. Abais-Battad and Dr. Vernon are all a part of our ROAR grant, and, while this isn’t directly related to that program, it allowed us to demonstrate how we are already well positioned to work together to amplify our ability and increase awareness about the importance of the health of women.” The team has over 50 collaborative papers and has secured more than $13 million in collaborative funding to advance the health of women. They also all have experience training fellows and students to continue to expand their reach. “We already have a lot of the infrastructure in place for this kind of cross-disciplinary project, so we leaned very heavily into our connections and the expertise we have here at Augusta University. It’s set up very similar to our ROAR program, so this is something that was really organic in nature,” Sullivan said. The American Heart Association has invested almost $300 million to establish 18 Strategically Focused Research Networks, each aimed at addressing a key strategic issue identified by the association’s volunteer Board of Directors. Prior networks have been studying a wide variety of important topics including, but not limited to, prevention, hypertension, the health of women, heart failure, obesity, vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, arrhythmias/sudden cardiac death, cardiometabolic health/type 2 diabetes, health technology, cardio-oncology, the biological impact of chronic psychosocial stress and the role of inflammation in cardiovascular health. Each network centers around scientific knowledge and knowledge gaps, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the key research topic. Three to six research centers make up each network, bringing together investigators with expertise in basic, clinical and population/behavioral health science to find new ways to diagnose, treat and prevent heart disease and stroke. Funding scientific research and discovery through initiatives like these awards is a cornerstone of the century-old American Heart Association’s lifesaving mission. The association has now funded more than $5.9 billion in cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and brain health research since 1949, making it the single largest non-government supporter of heart and brain health research in the United States. New knowledge resulting from this funding continues to save lives and directly impact millions of people in every corner of the U.S. and around the world. Looking to know more about the amazing research happening at Augusta? To connect with Dr. Sullivan, simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.

Augusta University named NIH Specialized Center of Research Excellence on Sex Differences

Jennifer C. Sullivan, PhD, dean of The Graduate School at Augusta University, has dedicated her research to better understand why blood pressure increases in hypertension and raising awareness to the dangers of not paying attention to heart health, particularly among women. Throughout her career, Sullivan has been continuously funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Heart Association since becoming a tenure-track faculty member in 2008, and now she has a chance to take her research further after securing a five-year, $7.5 million grant to have Augusta University designated as a Specialized Center of Research Excellence on Sex Differences (SCORE) by the NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. It’s a distinction that places AU among 10 other leaders in research for the field, including Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Emory University, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, the Mayo Clinic, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Colorado and Yale University. The University of California, Los Angeles has two SCORE programs. “I’m so proud and excited for this opportunity because this has been what I have focused my research program on for my entire career, and to be able to advance it with a program like this, where we can actually build a unique program focused on an area that can make a difference, is just so much fun,” Sullivan said. “Just the fact that Augusta will be included on this list, attached to an organization of the caliber of NIH, will provide opportunities that we’ve never had before, especially for our students and younger researchers.” Sullivan’s SCORE project, “Improving awareness of women with hypertension: ROAR (Rural, Obese, At Risk),” focuses primarily on the fact that, while young women are considered “protected” from hypertension and the associated cardiovascular risk relative to age-matched men, the elimination of hypertension is projected to have a larger impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in women. “The group of people with the highest risk of death from hypertension is in the rural South of the U.S., specifically Black women are particularly vulnerable to developing hypertension and CVD,” Sullivan said. According to Sullivan’s research and information available from the American Heart Association (AHA), approximately 19 million deaths were attributed to CVD globally in 2020, an increase of about 20% from 2010. Both Sullivan and the AHA state that cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, and that hypertension is a major modifiable risk factor for CVD. Sullivan said, “It has been suggested that eliminating hypertension would reduce CVD mortality by over 30% in men and 38% in women, but a critical barrier to limiting premature death from CVD is lack of awareness surrounding the risks of CVD. Our overall goal in this new funded project is to transform academic and community understanding of sex as a biological variable in the consideration of hypertension.” The three research projects include Sullivan’s lead project on high fat diets, a project on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disproportionately affects young women led by Erin Taylor, PhD, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, and another project looking at the role of inflammation and how immune cells are activated in SLE led by Michael Ryan, PhD, at the University of South Carlina’s School of Medicine. But there is more to SCORE than just conducting research. Each SCORE team is also responsible for a career enhancement core and a leadership administrative core. “What really sets these grants apart are the emphasis on the career enhancement and leadership administrative cores. The Career Enhancement Core is designed to be a bit open ended for each SCORE, but in talking to the NIH, what they were most excited about in our project is the community outreach piece we designed. “Our grant includes people across the entire campus, including Augusta University’s Medical College of Georgia, the College of Allied Health Sciences, the College of Education and Human Development and multiple campus partners including some of our sororities on campus and the Center for Writing Excellence,” Sullivan said. “More specifically, the COEHD is able to extend our outreach efforts to our local schools to begin educating children on the importance of screening, and our sororities are obviously connected with other chapters across the southeast which helps us spread our message, as well.” Sullivan notes that, through this portion of the project alone, there will be numerous opportunities to include students from Augusta University’s CAHS, College of Nursing, Department of Kinesiology, the Biomedical Sciences PhD program and the proposed School of Public Health. Marlo Vernon, PhD, associate professor at MCG and researcher for the Georgia Cancer Center, and Amanda Behr, chair of the Medical Illustration Program in CAHS, are also involved in various stages of the project. “The other thing the Career Enhancement Core will do is provide pilot grants to three research projects each year for early-stage investigators. We’ll also be able to fund sabbaticals for graduate students or postdocs to go someplace else and learn cutting edge techniques from other experts, so there is a lot built in that will help us support up-and-coming researchers,” Sullivan said. “We’re now part of this consortium, and they have a once-a-year, in-person meeting at the NIH offices, so we’ll go to that for the first time this year, and what’s neat about it is they’re really promoting young investigators. Each grant can bring up to eight people, the our hope is that we will have the investigators funded by the pilot projects attend next year, giving those folks the opportunity to present and talk to program officers with the NIH and develop a pipeline of investigators committed to studying women’s health and sex as a biological variable.” Sullivan is also looking to designate some of her summer graduate and undergraduate research positions to the project beginning next summer. “The Graduate School already has a summer program to support undergraduates that we will be able to piggyback off of. We have set aside five slots in that program for this that will go to students studying the sex as a biological variable, and the applications for that program, STAR, is already open,” Sullivan said. “We’re also planning a symposium in collaboration with the Physiology Department in April 2024. This is an annual event sponsored by the department, and this year they selected sex differences as the topic, so we are hoping to help increase exposure and attendance.” Looking to know more about the amazing research happening at  Augusta? To connect with Jennifer Sullivan, simply click on her icon ow to arrange an interview today.

How ChristianaCare Built a Blueprint for Better Caregiver Health and Lower Costs

By Donna Antenucci, MHA, BSN, RN, and Emily Sahm, EA We know rising health care costs can feel overwhelming for both employers and employees. As Delaware’s largest private employer — with nearly 23,000 employees, spouses and dependents enrolled in our self-funded health plan — ChristianaCare faces these challenges every day. That’s why we’re committed to finding smart, innovative solutions that improve employee health while keeping costs in check. We don’t stop there — ChristianaCare partners with businesses that have an interest in providing high-quality health care for their employees while keeping costs manageable. Prioritizing preventive care The key to a healthier, more resilient workforce is tackling health issues early in order to prevent the need for costly emergency or “rescue” care. By prioritizing prevention and early intervention, we’ve made progress in improving employee health while controlling costs. In 2023, inpatient facility costs for our employees — which include hospital admissions for surgeries, medical treatments and other care requiring overnight stays — dropped by 9%. Wellness incentives and chronic disease management that shifted care to more cost-effective outpatient settings are driving these results. One of ChristianaCare’s differentiators is CareVio®, our care coordination and chronic disease management platform. CareVio provides personalized support to help employees and their families manage conditions and stay on track with preventive care. CareVio’s diabetes program, for example, has delivered remarkable results. Nearly all participants improved their blood sugar levels in 2023, with average A1c reductions of 1.7 points. Enhancing primary care and wellness programs We’ve also focused on encouraging primary care visits through collaboration between our Population Health and Total Rewards teams. Together, we designed a voluntary wellness incentive program that rewards employees and their families for healthy choices, including support for tobacco-cessation programs to help employees quit smoking and lead healthier lives. In 2023, we expanded our wellness incentive program to include primary care visits for employees and their spouses. Over the next eighteen months, primary care utilization increased over 10%, rising from 66% to 77% as of January 2025. Employees who stay connected to primary care catch health problems early and build stronger relationships with their doctors. We’ve launched programs targeting specific health needs. Our breast cancer screening initiative, focused on women ages 52 to 74, increased participation rates from 63% to 72% in 2023, exceeding our target. Additionally, the CareVio metabolic health program is helping a growing number of participants manage complex conditions with tailored support. Flexibility is essential. That’s why we created the Center for Virtual Health, which provides virtual-first primary care to more than 1,200 employees. This program makes high-quality, preventive care more accessible. Employees can fit care into their schedules while maintaining consistent support for their health. We encourage employees to stay up to date on immunizations by offering frequent vaccination events and tying participation to eligibility for the Caregiver Rewards Program payout. By making it easy and rewarding to stay protected, we’re fostering a safer, healthier workplace for everyone. Collaborative networks and cost management In January 2023, we announced the ChristianaCare Clinical Alliance, a new clinically integrated network in partnership with Highmark. Implemented in our employee health plan in July 2024, the network connects ChristianaCare-employed and community clinicians to provide evidence-based, coordinated care. Focused on improving wellness and managing chronic conditions, the Clinical Alliance is helping caregivers and their families stay healthier while reducing costly emergency visits and hospital stays. Employees who choose Clinical Alliance providers also enjoy lower deductibles for their care. Through all these initiatives, we are making a meaningful difference for our caregivers and our costs. In 2023, thanks to our focus on prevention and smarter care delivery, we kept our overall health care cost growth below the national average. Healthier employees lead to lower expenses and a more engaged, productive workforce. By showing that we value employee health, we’re creating a stronger, more resilient workplace. To learn how ChristianaCare can help you provide better care and control costs for your workforce, contact Donna Antenucci at donna.antenucci@christianacare.org. Donna Antenucci is vice president of population health operations for ChristianaCare. Emily Sahm is vice president of Total Rewards for ChristianaCare.

“Females are not autistic enough”: Aston University academic hosts talk on new book exploring female autism

Professor Gina Rippon signs a copy of The Lost Girls of Autism for talk attendee Dr Georgie Agar Professor Gina Rippon’s new book, The Lost Girls of Autism, investigates why autism was thought to be a male condition for so long She gave a public talk at Aston University on 6 May 2025 exploring the central themes of the book Women and girls with autism have long been overlooked as they are better at masking and camouflaging so ‘fail’ standard tests. Autism in women and girls has been overlooked for decades, and Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN), has given a talk about her new book on the topic at Aston University. The book, The Lost Girls of Autism, was released on 3 April 2025, coinciding with Autism Acceptance Month, with the subtitle ‘How Science Failed Autistic Women and the New Research that’s Changing the Story’. Autism is characterised by a number of now well-known traits, including social awkwardness, extreme obsessions, and unusual movements and coping mechanisms known as ‘stimming’. It was (allegedly) first described in the 1940s separately by Austrian psychiatrists Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger. Originally identified as a rare developmental condition, since the 1980s, there has been an 800% increase in diagnoses, leading to concerns about an ‘autism epidemic’. There is a strong and enduring belief that it is a condition much more prevalent in males. Professor Rippon described her research as “looking at how brains get to be different and what that means for the owners of those brains”. This includes looking at the functions of different areas of the brain using scanners. During research into a number of brain conditions and diseases with obvious differences between the sexes, including how the disease progresses, such as Alzheimer’s in women, or prevalence in one particular sex, such as Parkinson’s in men, Professor Rippon also became interested in autism, also assumed to be largely a condition in males. However, during a research review, she found that many autism studies made no reference to sex differences. Amalgamated data from autism studies found that 80% of participants were male, and 25% of testing centres only tested males with autism. By only looking at males, Professor Rippon explained, the notion that autism is a male disorder became self-fulfilling. This does not just refer to scientific research. Even now, boys are ten times more likely to be referred for assessment for autism and twice as likely to be diagnosed than girls, even when they have exactly the same traits. 80% of autistic females have received multiple wrong diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder, social anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But why? The reason is the unchallenged belief that ‘autism is a “boy” thing’ causing a male spotlight problem in all aspects of the autism story. It could also be that females with autism express the condition differently. Professor Rippon said: “This took me back to [my previous book] The Gendered Brain when I was looking at the very clear view of what males should be like and what females should be like. If you look at the autistic population you have this clear idea that males are like this, but females, er, not so much? Females have poor social skills, but not as poor, or obsessive interests, but not as obsessive, so the trouble with females, is that they are not autistic enough.” The gold standard tests for autism are the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI) tests. Professor Rippon believes these are heavily biased towards how the condition manifests itself in males, such as social awkwardness or extreme obsessions. For example, parents may well be asked if their son has an unusual interest in weather patterns or train timetables, but they are not asked if their daughter has an unusual interest in Barbie dolls, because dolls are seen as socially acceptable. Research has shown that females with autism are more likely to ‘camouflage’ their symptoms, watching how ‘normal people’ behave, even practising social interactions, so they appear more normal. They are also more likely to ‘mask’ symptoms behind a persona, such as the ‘class clown’ or ‘star athlete’, in an effort to fit in. Autistic females describe this behaviour as a ‘survival strategy’ to avoid being spotted as different. It is also the case that girls are more likely to have sensory processing problems, such as aversion to strong smells, which can be enough to affect their day-to-day lives. This has only recently been added to the diagnostic criteria for autism. If the camouflaging or masking collapses, rates of other conditions such as disordered eating or anorexia, self-harm and gender dysphoria are disproportionately high, and it is these which will become identified as the underlying difficulty, rather than autism itself. Professor Rippon said: “The next stage should be asking why this group of individuals persists in hiding their autism, especially when autism has been defined as a lack of interest in social connection. There’s what I call the ‘born to be mild’ effect, where little girls are trained to socialise more, to behave, not to make a fuss, if you feel uncomfortable, don’t tell anyone else about it. There’s a lovely comment from one late-diagnosed female who rues the fact that she was so well behaved and wishes that she had just burned more cars so that someone would have spotted her carefully camouflaged distress!” The final slide in the presentation covered what Professor Rippon called “an ironic footnote”. While Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger are described as the fathers of autism, writing in the 1940s, it was in fact a Soviet female psychiatrist, Grunya Sukhareva, writing in the 1920s, who first described autism, even clearly examining the differences in the condition between boys and girls. Why her research was ignored for so long is unclear, but the male spotlight problem may well have been avoided. For more information about The Lost Girls of Autism, visit https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/gina-rippon/the-lost-girls-of-autism/9781035011629.

Retirement: For Better, For Worse, and for Much More Time Together

Retirement is supposed to be your golden reward—freedom from alarm clocks, endless Zoom meetings, and performance reviews. But no one warned you about the relationship performance review that arises when you and your partner suddenly find yourselves spending over 100 hours a week together. For some, it’s bliss; for others, it feels like a full-time job without an HR department. While grey divorce (divorce after age 50) is on the rise in Canada, separation isn’t inevitable. However, marital harmony is also not guaranteed. The truth lies somewhere in between—and that’s where things become interesting.  Retirement isn't merely a lifestyle change—it’s a complete identity shake-up, which can create stress even in the strongest relationships. Grey Divorce: An Increasing Trend Though Canada’s overall divorce rate reached a 50-year low in 2020, divorce among people over 50 is increasing—this trend is dubbed grey divorce. According to Statistics Canada, this demographic is increasingly re-evaluating their relationships as they retire (CBC News, 2024). The same pattern is unfolding south of the border, with the AARP reporting a steady rise in senior divorces in the U.S. Grey divorce isn’t just emotionally taxing—it can be financially devastating. Women, in particular, bear the brunt. A study by the National Center for Family & Marriage Research found that divorced women over 50 have 45% less wealth than their married peers. In Canada, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries has warned that divorce later in life can significantly erode retirement savings and delay or derail financial plans. Role Confusion One retired executive shared that after decades of being chauffeured to work, he assumed retirement meant his wife would now be his driver. “I thought she’d just take over that role, as he climbed into the back seat,” he said, genuinely confused. She had other plans that did not involve sitting behind a wheel, taking coffee orders, or navigating roundabouts. He had not yet made the emotional or physical shift from being served to becoming equal. That transition is more complicated than it sounds—and more common than you'd think. When one partner’s identity is career-driven and the other manages the home, retirement necessitates a complete recalibration. Power dynamics shift, control issues surface, and resentment simmers if left unacknowledged. Housework ≠ Heartwork If you're home full-time now, guess what? You’re not a guest anymore. The dishes, the vacuuming, the grocery runs—these are now shared responsibilities. Nothing breeds resentment faster than an unequal workload. Retirement doesn’t mean “relax”; rather, it signifies redistributing the work of life. Unspoken truths will find their voice. Let’s face it—decades of unexpressed frustrations don’t remain buried. They begin to comment on how someone folds laundry, stacks the dishwasher, or leaves the cap off the toothpaste. Retirement magnifies everything: the quirks you used to laugh off? Mansplaining! What habits did you ignore because life was busy? Now they’re front and center. And what bad habits did you have before? They don’t improve with age—they get worse. Emotional and Mental Health Insights Relationship difficulties can trigger anxiety, depression, and loneliness, especially among men who may have smaller support networks outside their marriages. A 2020 study in the Journal of Gerontology found that post-divorce social isolation is closely linked to declining physical and mental health in later life. Not all couples want to—or need to—divorce to find peace. Increasingly, older Canadians are exploring “Living Apart Together” (LAT) arrangements, where partners maintain separate residences while remaining in a committed relationship. Research by the Vanier Institute and AARP suggests that LAT relationships allow for autonomy while maintaining emotional connection—a potential middle ground for couples who struggle with full-time togetherness in retirement. For many, retirement means the loss of structure, identity, and purpose, particularly for those who have closely tied their sense of self to their professional roles. This loss can create irritability, aimlessness, and tension in a partnership. As Harvard Business Review put it, retirement can be especially tough for men because “so many men are bad at retirement” (HBR, 2021). This emotional void often spills over into the relationship, testing its resilience. Retirement often brings a sudden reshuffling of roles at home. Many men who may have spent decades focused on their careers struggle to adjust to a more balanced domestic lifestyle. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives notes that retirement can expose long-standing gendered inequalities in household labour, leading to friction, resentment, and, at times, relationship breakdown. How to Thrive—Together or Apart The goal isn’t perfection; it’s peace, fulfillment, and ample personal space to breathe. Here’s how to get there: creatively, practically, and honestly. 1. Have the Real Conversations Ask the questions you avoided when life was too busy: • “Are we happy?” • “What do you want out of the next ten years?” • “Are there things we’ve never talked about that matter now?” Unspoken expectations are relationship landmines. Bring them to light—gently and often. 2. Separate Bedrooms, United Front Don’t frown; they are more common than you might think and less scandalous than it sounds. Separate sleep equals better rest, less irritation, and sometimes a more intentional intimate life. Please don’t consider it a breakup; position it as a better mattress strategy. 3. The Basement Suite or In-Law Apartment Plan This represents the sweet spot between staying together and going entirely separate. Living in the same house with clearly defined zones provides each partner with breathing room and independence, especially when you’ve grown apart but don’t want to disrupt finances or family. Ground rules are essential: • Who is responsible for what costs? • Shared meals or separate? • New partners—yay or nay? It’s not perfect, but it can be practical. 4. A Second Space: Cottage, Trailer, or Tiny Cabin A humble trailer or rustic cabin might save your marriage. It’s not about luxury—it’s about space, autonomy, and silence when needed. Whether alternating weekends or solo sabbaticals, having a backup place to go can restore harmony at home. 5. Travel Separately (Sometimes) One of you wants to hike Machu Picchu, while the other prefers to nap in Muskoka. You don’t have to compromise; you can take turns. Alternate between solo trips, friend getaways, or short solo retreats. You’ll both return refreshed—and more engaged. 6. Discover New Purpose (or Income) A restless, lost, or bored partner can quietly sabotage the household. Encourage: • Volunteering • Consulting or part-time work • Mentoring • Taking courses or teaching others • Rediscovering old passions If Divorce Is the Best Option At times, the most honest act is to end a marriage with kindness. If this is the only option, there are important factors to consider: Financial Reality Check • Assets will be divided, including the house, pensions, RRSPs, etc. • Expenses double: two homes, two insurance policies, and two fridges to stock. • Retirement income may not be sufficient for both lives. • Legal costs and timing matter more than ever now—because the time to recover financially is limited.  There are no pensions in tears. Therefore, if you choose this route, plan ahead. Family Impact • Adult children might feel shocked—or even angry. • Grandchildren can pose challenging questions. • Long-term friendships may weaken. • Shared traditions may require reinvention. This process can be amicable. A new term has emerged among women caring for their ill or aging ex-husbands: “Wasbands.” These women step up with empathy rather than obligation. Vows no longer bind them; instead, they are guided by compassion. Honestly, humanity wins in these situations. There is still love, respect, and history—even if it’s no longer romantic. That is not failure; it is growth. Rewrite the Rules Retirement is not a dead end; it’s a creative reawakening—if you approach it that way. Retirement is a significant life transition—not just financially, but relationally. Like any other chapter in life, it requires renegotiation, mutual respect, and a willingness to evolve. Some couples find deeper intimacy, while others redefine their relationships entirely. The good news? Whether it's under one roof or two, retirement can still be a time of connection, discovery, and, yes, romance. But it also requires some good, old-fashioned adulting. Yes, *adulting*—that modern word we usually reserve for paying bills, booking dental appointments, and reading the fine print. It turns out it’s equally essential in retirement. Emotional maturity, communication, boundary-setting, and a shared approach to evolving roles are all keys. Think of it like the Sonnet Insurance commercials that cheekily remind us adulting is hard but worth it. Retirement is also a factor, especially when approached with intention and a sense of humour. This is your last chapter. Make it a good one. Whether you stay together, sleep apart, live separately under one roof, or consciously uncouple, do it with clarity, kindness, and courage. The goal isn’t a perfect love story; it’s a fulfilling life for both of you. When in doubt, take a walk (alone if necessary). Share a joke. Communicate like adults. And for the love of long-term care insurance, remember: resentment compounds faster than interest. If you enjoyed this article or thought, “Oh wow, this is exactly what my friend/parent/relative needs to read,” please share it. You can also subscribe to the Retirement Literacy newsletter for more smart, candid, and occasionally cheeky insights on navigating life after full-time work. Let’s make retirement not just the end of work, but the start of something meaningful, fulfilling, and a little fabulous. Don’t Retire…Rewire! p.s. Know someone who’s about to retire?— Why not share this worksheet?  It’s the best pre-retirement checklist they never knew they needed. 6 Questions to Ask Before Retiring Together Retirement reshapes your schedule, your identity—and your relationship. Before you hand in your keycard, ask these candid questions with your partner.  Because the toughest part of retirement isn’t money—it’s time. And you’ll be spending a lot more of it together. 1. What Do You Want This Chapter of Life to Look Like? Dreams misaligned can lead to daily friction. Do you crave adventure while your partner seeks peace and quiet? Map it out—together. 2. How Much Time Do We Really Want to Spend Together? “Always together” sounds sweet—until it feels stifling. Define your ideal balance between shared time and personal space. 3. What Roles Are We Playing Now—And Do They Need to Change? Retirement often means rebalancing housework, caregiving, and emotional labor. What’s fair now that you’re both at home? 4. Are There Any Long-Standing Frustrations We’ve Avoided Talking About? Retirement shines a spotlight on old resentments. It's better to talk than to silently stew over how the dishwasher is loaded. 5. How Will We Handle Money Decisions as a Team? With changing income and more shared expenses, financial transparency and joint planning are more crucial than ever. 6. What Will Give Each of Us a Sense of Purpose—Individually? A restless or bored partner can bring tension into the home. Talk about passions, volunteer work, or part-time pursuits that bring meaning. Want more smart, candid insights?  Visit www.retirementliteracy.com to start rewriting your next chapter with clarity and confidence.