Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Venezuela: Why Regime Change Is Harder Than Removing A Leader

With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power. Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order. Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America. In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks. “The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.” Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold. Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders. “When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said. For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address: • Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular • What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy • Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law • How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty • The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO • How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks. • Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time • How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.) Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.

Georgia Southern professor re-elected to board of world’s largest scientific society

Professor of chemistry and chair of the Department of Biochemistry, Chemistry and Physics Will Lynch, Ph.D., has been re-elected to the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) board of directors. This marks his second three-year term on the board. With ACS serving as the largest science organization in the world, Lynch says the society’s work impacts lives every day. “We support the scientific enterprise by advocating for everything from research funding to laboratory safety,” said Lynch. “That work strengthens scientific integrity that ACS champions and ultimately shows up in the things that people rely on daily. Bottled water, medicines, cellphones and computer screens all come from chemistry. Many people do not realize how deeply science shapes their world.” With a budget of nearly $900 million and a global community of over 200,000, planning is essential to the success of ACS. Lynch is proud to have chaired the committee that created the society’s next five-year strategic plan. He hopes that his work will continue to put the society’s vast resources to use helping advocate for scientists around the world. “My focus now is implementing ACS’ strategic plan, which envisions a world built on science and setting up the indicators to measure our success,” said Lynch. “We want to make sure we support chemists whether they are in academia, industry, government labs or retired.” Serving in a leadership role for a world-renowned scientific organization is part of Lynch’s calling to help others. He began his service with ACS over 40 years ago when he volunteered at a regional meeting while pursuing his bachelor’s degree. He started making connections immediately and grew his professional network from the local to the national level. Forming friendships in the scientific community and witnessing the ways their work changed lives inspired Lynch to continue to grow his own knowledge so he could do more for others. “Getting to do research as an undergraduate pulled me in, and I knew that chemistry was where I could make a difference. I realized I had a path to help society through science and I never looked back.” Looking to know more about Georgia Southern University or connect with Will Lynch? Simply contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.

Is Maduro Ouster In Line with Trump’s “America First” Mantra?

In an article about the U.S.-led ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Dr. Meena Bose told Newsday that President Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions have undergone an “evolution” between his first and second terms. “When he first ran for president and started campaigning in 2015, he was very much opposed to U.S. intervention abroad,” said Dr. Bose. “His America First policy was very much against the Iraq War. He called for … economic U.S. primacy in the world, but to also kind of step back from direct engagement. And yet, we’ve seen multiple efforts from the first term and the second where the administration has been engaged in airstrikes and military action abroad.”

Always On, Never Present: How Work Takes Over Your Life

In many workplaces, being “good at your job” has quietly become synonymous with being constantly reachable. Slack on the laptop, email on the phone, DMs on every platform and a creeping expectation that you’ll answer “just one more thing” at night, on weekends, and even on vacation. Psychotherapist Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW and Offline.now founder Eli Singer say this culture is pushing knowledge workers into a state of continuous partial attention: always connected, never fully present. “Most of my high-performing clients don’t have a time-management problem,” says Sritharan. “They have a boundary problem — and their phones are the device enforcing it. Every ping is a tiny dose of dopamine and a tiny spike of stress, and their nervous system never really shuts off.” Research on digital and media multitasking backs up what she sees clinically. Studies have linked frequent task-switching between apps and notifications to: Reduced sustained attention and working memory Slower task performance and more errors Greater mental fatigue and perceived stress Neuroscience and cognition papers also describe how multitasking conditions the brain to seek novelty and micro-rewards, making it harder to tolerate the “boredom” of deep work — exactly the kind of focus most knowledge jobs actually require. Singer argues that the issue isn’t just individual burnout; it’s organizational self-sabotage. Offline.now’s behavioral data show that people now spend about 10 of their 16 waking hours on screens — roughly 63% of the day — and that 8 in 10 want a healthier relationship with tech but feel too overwhelmed to know where to start. “We’ve built workplaces that confuse constant availability with value,” Singer says. “But when you look at the cognitive science, an always-on culture is actually an anti-productivity policy. ‘Do Not Disturb’ isn’t a luxury — it’s the competitive advantage most teams are missing.” The term “continuous partial attention” coined to describe the state of being perpetually attuned to the possibility of new information has been linked in emerging research and commentary to chronic stress, shallow thinking, and emotional exhaustion in modern knowledge work. “The moment you stop treating rest and focus as perks and start treating them as infrastructure, everything changes,” Singer says. “Teams ship better work, people make fewer mistakes, and employees don’t feel like they have to burn their nervous system to keep their job.” For journalists covering work culture, productivity, burnout, or the future of work, this story connects the dots between work apps, multitasking science and mental health and offers a concrete alternative to the “always on” norm. Featured Experts Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW – Psychotherapist specializing in ADHD, anxiety, burnout and digital dependency. She helps high-achieving professionals understand how constant notifications, late-night work and screen habits disrupt dopamine, sleep, and emotional regulation — and what sustainable boundaries actually look like. Eli Singer – Founder of Offline.now and author of Offline.now: A Practical Guide to Healthy Digital Balance. He brings proprietary behavioral data on digital overwhelm, the Offline.now Matrix framework, and case examples of organizations reframing “Do Not Disturb” as a strategic asset, not a sign of disengagement. Expert interviews can be arranged through the Offline.now media team.

Sun-Sentinel: What happens when parents go beyond sharenting?

So many parents routinely share photos and news about their kids on social media that the behavior has a name: sharenting. Usually harmless and well-meaning, it can also take a dangerous turn, exposing children to online predators, allowing companies to collect personal information and creating pathways for children to become victimized by identity theft. The risks are most pervasive when parents overshare to profit from their social media accounts. Whenever parents share, they are the gatekeepers, tasked with protecting their children’s information, but they are also the ones unlatching the gates. When parents profit from opening the gates, it is especially challenging to balance protecting their kids’ privacy against sharing their stories. Federal and state laws typically give wide deference to parents to raise their children as they see fit. But the state can and does intervene when parents abuse their children. Those laws protect children in the physical world. However, few laws shield children when parents risk harming them online. Let’s consider this hypothetical situation based on a composite of real-life events. Mia (fictional name) is a 7-year-old girl growing up in Orlando. Her mother is a stay-at-home parent who has a public Instagram account and considers herself an influencer. Many lingerie brands pay Mia’s mom to model their clothing. When a lingerie company from overseas offers Mia’s mom some money to have Mia also pose in their clothing, Mia’s mom says yes. Over the next few weeks, Mia and her mom model the clothing together in pictures and videos, sometimes wearing the outfits while reading together in bed, having pillow fights or being playful around the house — always in clearly intimate but arguably appropriate settings. Mia’s mom’s social media page explodes with new followers, many of whom appear to be grown men. The images on the page receive hundreds of likes and multiple comments. Mia’s mom deletes the most inappropriate comments but leaves others, hoping to increase engagement. As Mia’s mom’s social media following grows, so does the amount of money she earns. Mia tells her teacher about the social media page. Her teacher reaches out to Mia’s parents, to no avail. Mia’s mom keeps sharing. The teacher sees this as a potential form of abuse and neglect and, according to her obligation as a mandatory reporter of abuse, she calls in a report to the state’s central abuse registry. The teacher isn’t trying to get Mia’s mom in criminal trouble, but she thinks the family could use some education surrounding safe social media use and possibly access to financial support if they need this type of online exposure to pay the bills. The intake counselor declines to accept the hotline call. The counselor explains that the posting of pictures is not grounds for an abuse, abandonment or neglect investigation. The parent is sharenting, the counselor says, and that is within a parent’s right. Of course, child sexual abuse material is illegal, but the photos posted by Mia’s mom fall into a gray area — not illegal material, but likely harmful to Mia. Should there be a law to stop this? I believe there should be. Just as our views regarding child abuse have evolved, so must our views on sharenting. Merely 150 years ago, it was legal for parents to beat their children. It wasn’t until 1874, when a little girl named Mary Ellen was beaten severely by her caregiver, that courts began to step in. Drawing from existing laws prohibiting animal cruelty, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals argued that Mary Ellen had the right to be free from abuse. At the time, there were laws protecting animals from harm by their caregivers but no laws protecting children from such harm! Back to the present: Mia’s disclosure to her teacher could have changed her life and led to her family getting online safety help, if only the child welfare laws were suitably tailored to protect her in the online world as they attempt to do offline. Child protection laws should be expanded to include harms that can be caused by online sharing. The law can both protect parental autonomy and honor children’s privacy through a comprehensive and multidisciplinary new approach toward protecting children online — one that allows for thoughtful investigation, education, remediation and prosecution of parents who use social media in ways that are significantly harmful to their children. This conduct, which falls beyond sharenting, is ripe for legal interventions that reset the balance between a parent’s right to share and a child’s right to online privacy and safety. Stacey Steinberg grew up in West Palm Beach and now lives in Gainesville, where she is a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law; the supervising attorney for the Gator TeamChild Juvenile Law Clinic; the director of the Center on Children and Families; and the author of “Beyond Sharenting,” forthcoming in the Southern California Law Review. This piece was also published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Power, Politics, and Petroleum: The Story of Venezuela

After gaining independence from Spain in the early 19th century under the leadership of Simón Bolívar, the country spent much of the next century marked by political instability and military rule. Everything changed in the early 20th century with the discovery of vast oil reserves, which rapidly transformed Venezuela into one of the world’s leading petroleum exporters and shifted power toward a centralized state funded almost entirely by oil revenue. By the mid-20th century, oil had become both Venezuela’s greatest asset and its greatest vulnerability. Democratic governments that emerged after 1958 used oil income to expand social programs and infrastructure, but also built an economy dangerously dependent on a single commodity. When oil prices fell in the 1980s and 1990s, economic inequality and public frustration surged, creating the conditions that brought Hugo Chávez to power in 1999. Chávez reoriented the political system around a state-controlled oil sector, using petroleum revenues to fund social initiatives while consolidating political authority and weakening independent institutions. Under Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro, oil remained the backbone of the state—but declining production, corruption, and mismanagement hollowed out the industry itself. As oil revenues collapsed, so did public services, democratic norms, and economic stability. Venezuela’s history illustrates a central paradox: immense natural wealth paired with fragile governance. Control of oil has repeatedly shaped political power, domestic policy, and Venezuela’s relationship with the world—making energy inseparable from the country’s political story. Journalists covering Venezuela, Latin American politics, energy markets, or resource-driven economies are encouraged to connect with experts who can provide historical context, explain the role of oil in shaping political outcomes, and assess how Venezuela’s past continues to influence its uncertain future. Our experts can help! Connect with more experts here: www.expertfile.com

Listen: Donald Trump Loathes the Courts. He’s Following the Autocrat Playbook to Sideline Them

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here. In democratic systems, the courts are a vital check on a leader’s power. They have the ability to overturn laws and, in Donald Trump’s case, the executive orders he has relied on to achieve his goals. Since taking office, Trump has targeted the judiciary with a vengeance. He has attacked what he has called “radical left judges” and is accused of ignoring or evading court orders. The Supreme Court has already handed the Trump administration some key wins in his second term. But several cases now before the court will be pivotal in determining how much power Trump is able to accrue – and what he’ll be able to do with it. As Paul Collins, a Supreme Court expert from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in episode 4 of The Making of an Autocrat: It’s all about presidential power. And that’s really significant because it’s going to enable the president to basically inject a level of politics into the federal bureaucracy that we frankly haven’t really seen before in the US. Listen to the interview with Collins at The Making of an Autocrat podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Analyzing the Media’s Decision to Air Partisan Address

The Associated Press interviewed Mark Lukasiewicz, dean of The Lawrence Herbert School of Communication, for the article: “Trump gave an unusually partisan White House address. Should networks have given him the TV time?" Dean Lukasiewicz said, “It’s not that the Oval Office and the White House haven’t been used for political speeches before… But, as with a great deal of what Donald Trump does as president, this was outside the norm.”