Moh El-Naggar, Dean’s Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, has been named director of Carnegie Science’s Biosphere Sciences and Engineering division.

El-Naggar, who holds appointments in physics and astronomy, chemistry, and molecular and cellular biosciences, will join Carnegie Science in October while retaining a faculty affiliation at USC Dornsife. His laboratory will continue its active research on microbial electron transfer and living electronics, and he will continue advising USC graduate students and postdoctoral researchers.

“Moh is an extraordinary scientist whose work has always crossed traditional boundaries, bringing together physics, chemistry and biology to tackle fundamental questions,” said James Bullock, dean of USC Dornsife. “By remaining an important part of the USC Dornsife scientific community as he takes on this ambitious new role with Carnegie Science, he will help bring our already closely connected research communities even closer together.”

El-Naggar’s appointment builds on a longstanding relationship between USC Dornsife and Carnegie Science. In astronomy, the institutions have developed a close research partnership that includes the Carnegie-USC Graduate Fellowship, through which USC doctoral students conduct thesis research alongside Carnegie astronomers in Pasadena, Calif. The fellowship currently includes 12 USC students and could eventually expand to include students in the biological sciences.

In his new role at Carnegie, El-Naggar will lead an interdisciplinary research enterprise spanning areas including developmental biology, ecology and plant science. Researchers in the division investigate fundamental questions about life on Earth, from genomes and ecosystems to the ways living communities interact with planetary systems.

“Carnegie has long empowered scientists to take intellectual risks that drive historic breakthroughs,” El-Naggar said. “I am thrilled to join this storied institution and forge cross-institutional alliances in an era where advancing fundamental biology is essential to tackling our most pressing challenges: the health of our planet and its inhabitants.”

El-Naggar’s research exemplifies the interdisciplinary science he will oversee. One major focus of his lab is “electric bacteria,” microbes that move electrons outside their cells as part of their metabolism, allowing them to effectively “breathe” rocks and minerals in place of oxygen. The work explores how these organisms transfer electrons and how their capabilities might be harnessed by connecting them to metals and semiconductors.

That research helped reveal how the bacteria use microscopic structures known as nanowires to move electrons into their surroundings. The findings could contribute to sustainable technologies such as microbial fuel cells, which capture electrons from bacteria to generate electricity.

More recently, El-Naggar’s group has explored “living electronics,” including the possibility of developing programmable cells that can be integrated with traditional electronics. Such systems could eventually combine the capabilities of living organisms with conventional electronic materials, with potential applications ranging from sustainable energy to environmental sensing.

At USC, El-Naggar has spent two decades building both a research and leadership record. He arrived as a postdoctoral researcher in 2006 and joined the faculty in 2009. He later served as divisional dean for math and physical sciences and as interim dean of USC Dornsife.

His honors include the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, the U.S. government’s highest honor for scientists and engineers in the early stages of their independent research careers, and recognition by Popular Science as one of its “Brilliant 10” young scientists for his pioneering work on bacterial nanowires.

Stories of Yayoi Kusama’s life often begin after she moved to New York City from Japan in 1958 and found near-overnight success with her abstract infinity net paintings. These evolved into the infinity rooms and polka-dotted pumpkins that became social media phenomena decades later and the focus of her legacy after her death on Aug. 14.

Yet, this timeline misses a crucial first step in how she became one of the art world’s most famous international superstars: A year earlier in 1957, before her move, she journeyed over the Pacific Ocean to show her work in the United States for the first time in a hopeful first step toward her dreams.

As an art historian who specializes in the exchanges between Asian and American modern art, I believe it is important to consider not only her life after she hit it big in the New York art scene, but also how she got there from Japan.

Crossing the ocean

Viewers familiar with Kusama’s flashy polka dots may be surprised to see her bright color schemes in a painting she named “The Pacific Ocean,” which looks more like fire than water. This 1958 painting shares a glimpse into her state of mind looking out an airplane window as she flew from Japan to her first American exhibition the year before.

At the time, she didn’t know that she would finally achieve her goal of making a permanent move the next year. Reflecting back on this uncertain era from her new home in New York City, she painted many works named after the Pacific, the transition space between Japan and the U.S.

The pulsing red patterns are ambiguous. Is it sunrise? Sunset? Or a purely imaginary view? The paint glows with potential energy like a forge where Kusama could remake herself. Before leaving for America, she burned most of her old art, wanting to leave her old self behind.

Crossing the ocean became another transformative step toward an uncertain future. Like the water’s surface, the painting’s swirling waves and currents draw the viewer in without revealing what is underneath its shadowy depths.

Painting infinity

Kusama’s lifelong struggle with her mental health is the most well-known explanation for her quest to paint “infinity,” which she famously called “self-obliteration.” She embraced the stories that fascinated people, including anecdotes about her childhood nightmares and hallucinations that compelled her to paint patterns into the real world so she could exorcise them from her mind.

However, early paintings such as “Pacific Ocean” reveal other sources of inspiration that have been overshadowed by her larger-than-life persona and psychiatric struggles.

An artist’s origin story can turn her into a myth, but “Pacific Ocean” is a window onto a quieter, human moment, before Kusama became a global icon. It reveals how her relationship to the concept of infinity was also shaped by feelings of anxiety and awe in face of the enormous Pacific Ocean and her unclear future.

By repeating patterns that stretch and dance across the painting, Kusama suggests that this rhythm and pattern can go on indefinitely beyond the edges of the canvas. Even though neither the human eye nor a single artwork can contain the vastness of the ocean, the painting can capture a snapshot for a moment.

In this case, creating multiple paintings of the Pacific Ocean helped Kusama reflect on experiences larger than any single painting can encapsulate.

Reflecting on a life

Research on Kusama’s early life illuminates her as a complex figure who was constantly searching for ways to make a name for herself.

In 1957, before leaving Japan, she was motivated by hopes and dreams, but also plagued with fears: How would she get a visa? How could she get a job to support herself? Her first trip was disappointing because it ended without either.

In these early years, before she achieved the global success and popular recognition she hoped for, she was just a young girl looking out the window on her first international flight, uncertain of where her future would take her.

Audrey Storm, PhD Candidate in Art History, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As the 2026 midterm elections enter the final stretch, it’s important to know your rights in case your vote is challenged.

The best way to ensure that your vote is counted is to advocate for yourself. I’m a an attorney and lecturer for the University of Southern California’s undergraduate civil rights advocacy initiative, Agents of Change. Here are several straightforward ways to ensure your vote is counted and two practical remedies for you to consider if your vote remains challenged.

A major part of ensuring that you are able to vote is doing the necessary preparation before you even get to the polling place. Read on to find out how and where to register, where and when you can cast your ballot, and what numbers to call for any information you can’t find online.

Are you registered to vote? Check it out

Before you vote, you need to ensure that you’re registered to vote. You can verify your registration status using this tool. If you can’t use an online tool, then call your local election office or a voter help line like the ones listed in the hotline section below.

If you find you’re not registered, you can use this tool from the National Conference of State Legislatures to find your state’s online registration application. If you need to do this in person, then call your local election office for instructions.

At this point, you may have missed your state’s deadline for voter registration. But it may not be too late to register.

Many states allow same-day registration at the polling site. You can find your state’s same-day voter laws detailed here. Ask the poll worker, at the correct polling location, for a same-day registration form; complete the form and then ask for a “conditional ballot.” A conditional ballot allows election officials to count your vote after verifying your voter eligibility. If you can’t research online, you can call your local election office to find out if you can register on Election Day.

Gather documents to verify your identity

If you live in a state that requires identity verification to vote in person, gather the required documents — which may range from a driver’s license to bank statements with identifying information — before traveling to the correct polling place. You can find your county election office’s contact information here. This webpage includes a table listing each state’s acceptable ID documents and possible exceptions for some people. You may also call your local election office to find out what’s required.

Absentee voters: Locate your state’s identity verification rules here.

Find the correct polling location

You can ensure that you’re headed to the right polling place with this tool. Or call your county election office to find your polling place and its hours of operation; you can look up your county’s election office contact information here.

Once you know your polling place and its hours, you can go there and check in. In most cases, you’ll be handed a ballot, shown where to vote and asked to put your ballot in a machine or a box, and then you can go merrily along your way.

But the moment of check-in is where things might go wrong.

Problems at your polling place

Here are potential vote challenges and ways to overcome them.

Possibility No. 1: Out-of-order polling machines.

If you’re asked to leave because of malfunctioning machines, don’t. Instead, ask for a paper ballot.

Possibility No. 2: You’re in line and officials announce the polls have closed.

If you’re in line at the polling location before it closes, don’t let them turn you away at closing time if you haven’t voted. You have the legal right to vote under those circumstances, so stay in line and wait to cast your ballot.

Possibility No. 3: You’re not on the registered voters list.

If you’re told you can’t vote because your name is not on the voter roster, ask the poll site worker to check again and to check what’s called the list of supplemental voters. If they still can’t find your name, ask the poll worker to verify that you’re at the right location.

Possibility No. 4: Someone claims you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

If your voting eligibility remains challenged after ensuring you’re at the right polling location, ask to cast a provisional ballot, which is available in every state except Idaho and Minnesota. You can find details about your particular state’s provisional ballot rules here.

Track your provisional ballot here.

Call a hotline

If you are not given a provisional ballot, call an election hotline for help. Here are four hotlines, run by members of the nonpartisan Election Protection coalition, that can help you:

English: 866-OUR-VOTE/866-687-8683, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

Spanish: 888-VE-Y-VOTA/888-839-8682, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund

Asian Languages: 888-API-VOTE/888-274-8683, Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote

Arabic: 844-YALLA-US/844-925-5287, Arab American Institute

Report voter intimidation

If someone tries to scare you into voting or not voting for a candidate, stand your ground and demand a ballot from the poll site, call one of the hotlines above to report the intimidation, and file a claim with the FBI later by phone at 800-CALL-FBI — 800-225-5324 — or online at tips.fbi.gov.

File a lawsuit

If you are still blocked from voting, consider legal action — but get advice on your exact situation from one of the hotlines, which have free lawyers on hand. It’s a good idea to write down the names of people who prevented you from voting and to ask people who witnessed the incident for their contact information.

This is an updated version of a story that was originally published on Oct. 28, 2024.

Karen Figueroa-Clewett, Lecturer, Agents of Change program, Department of Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Over lunch at the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center on Catalina Island, JD Black found himself talking about reptiles and amphibians with a conservation professional.

Black, who is pursuing a communication major at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism along with a minor in psychology from the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, was working as a summer education intern when a team from the Catalina Island Conservancy visited campus. As he spoke with them about the island’s wildlife and their careers, conservation began to look less like an abstract interest and more like a possible future.

“I have always thought conservation was cool, but this experience made me seriously consider it as a career path,” says Black. 

It was the kind of encounter the David H. Meid Visiting Mentor Program was created to foster.

Supported by The Macfarlane Foundation, the program brings leaders in environment and sustainability to the USC Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability’s Catalina Residential College to engage with students participating in the Urban Oceans Maymester.

“The hope is that by bringing creative, driven people together, a simple conversation may turn into an influential event in a student’s life and career,” says Duncan Macfarlane, trustee of the Macfarlane Foundation.

By giving mentors time to interact with students and faculty in informal settings — over a meal or on the dock overlooking the harbor — the program enables connections to develop naturally.

The Meid Visiting Mentor Program originated at Marymount College, where it honored the late David H. Meid, a former trustee and supporter of the college’s mission to transform lives through education.

When Marymount closed in 2022, Macfarlane — with his longstanding interest in the ocean — saw the Wrigley Marine Science Center as a natural new home for the endowment and its original purpose: giving students and faculty opportunities to spend meaningful time with people they might otherwise never meet.

Learning beyond the classroom

Each summer, the Urban Oceans Maymester transforms the Wrigley Marine Science Center into a learning community where students explore environmental challenges from multiple perspectives.

In 2026, more than three dozen students took courses spanning aquatic microbiology, marine biology and biological oceanography, coastal sustainability, and environmental history. 

Alongside their coursework, students participated in activities and conversations connecting what they learned with people putting those ideas into practice. Support from The Macfarlane Foundation allowed the Wrigley Institute to bring more visiting speakers to Catalina Island than ever before, including conservationists, scientists and civic leaders.

Scott Atkinson and Luisa Tam, both senior directors at Conservation International, discussed a conservation approach that works with surfing communities to protect biologically important coastal areas. Afterward, they spoke with students about internships and leadership opportunities through a collaboration between Conservation International and the Wrigley Institute.

For Annika Harusadangkul, who graduated this spring with a BS in environmental studies from USC Dornsife, the conversation offered a glimpse of how she might turn her interest in marine science into action.

“Hearing Scott and Luisa talk about their journeys in the field of conservation has motivated me to pursue marine conservation nonprofit work during my upcoming gap year,” she says.

Other mentors showed students how environmental challenges intersect with economics, policy and community engagement. Paul Armsworth, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee, explored how ecological and socioeconomic data can inform conservation decisions. USC Vice President of Civic Engagement and Economic Partnerships Effie Turnbull Sanders drew on her experience with the California Coastal Commission to engage students in questions about environmental justice and coastal decision-making.

The Catalina Island Conservancy team expanded the model further. With support from The Macfarlane Foundation, seven representatives came to campus, giving students opportunities to speak with professionals specializing in Channel Islands ecology, invasive plant management, ornithology and Catalina mammals, among other topics.

“At the core, this is an opportunity to encourage and support the exceptional USC students to explore more, learn more, and create more through their individual and collective efforts,” says Macfarlane. 

“It’s not really giving back,” he added. “It’s investing in the students.”

Every time a virus invades a person, it collides with thousands of years of human history.

A study led by researchers at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and Howard University suggests that some of the genes involved in the body’s immune response today bear the marks of ancient battles with infectious diseases.

The research also identified rare genetic variants that may help explain why some people developed more severe COVID-19 than others. The findings connect two fields that are rarely studied together: human evolution and infectious disease. By bringing them together, the scientists uncovered clues that may have been missed by studying either field alone.

The study traced the evolutionary history of four immune system genes, which were previously linked to respiratory or inflammatory diseases, across populations around the world. The research team then examined whether changes in those genes were linked to severe COVID-19 in nearly 4,000 people in Italy, using data from the Italian GEN-COVID study.

For Michael Campbell, associate professor of biological sciences at USC Dornsife and the study’s senior author, understanding how evolution shaped the immune system over thousands of years offers a new way to think about why people respond differently to disease today.

“SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, may be new, but the immune system it encountered isn’t,” Campbell said. “Our immune genes have been shaped by thousands of generations of encounters with pathogens. Understanding the evolutionary history of immune genes can provide insights into why people respond differently to infectious diseases today.”

How have ancient diseases shaped the human immune system?

To explore that history, the scientists at USC Dornsife and Howard collaborated with colleagues at Yale and Columbia universities to analyze four genes that help regulate the body’s immune response — IL-4, TLR2, CCL2 and SLC11A1. Using genetic data from more than 2,000 people representing populations from Africa, Europe and Asia, they searched for signs that evolution had favored particular versions of these genes over time, leaving lasting marks in the human genome.

The team found evidence that all four genes had been shaped by natural selection, but not in the same way everywhere. Different versions of the genes were more common in different populations, suggesting infectious diseases and other environmental pressures may have shaped human evolution differently around the world.

Some of those gene variants were also found in the DNA of Neanderthals or Denisovans, extinct human relatives that lived tens of thousands of years ago. In some cases, the similarities likely reflect inherited DNA from a shared ancestor. In others, they point to ancient interbreeding between early modern humans and these extinct relatives.

Importantly, Campbell said, these evolutionary changes almost certainly happened long before the coronavirus emerged. “The signals we found weren’t created by COVID-19,” he said. “They reflect much older evolutionary pressures, probably from infectious diseases our ancestors faced over thousands of years.”

Rare gene variants linked to severe COVID-19

The researchers then turned to a different question: Could some of these immune genes also help explain severe COVID-19?

Using genetic and clinical information from nearly 4,000 people in Italy who tested positive for COVID-19, the researchers identified two rare changes in the TLR2 gene. One was found more often in COVID-19 patients who had previously received an organ transplant than in other COVID-19 patients. The second was associated with more severe forms of COVID-19, suggesting it may contribute to differences in how seriously ill some people become.

Unlike the common gene variants shaped by evolution over thousands of years, these TLR2 variants were rare and appear to be much more recent genetic mutations.

Because organ transplant recipients are already known to face a higher risk of severe COVID-19, the finding suggests a TLR2 variant could be one factor influencing that increased risk. The researchers say, however, that more research is needed to determine if that’s the case.

The researchers also caution that the COVID-19 findings overall should be interpreted carefully. The genetic associations will need to be confirmed in larger, independent populations and validated through laboratory studies. They also note the need to include more genetically diverse populations in future studies to better understand disease risk worldwide.

Why evolution still matters today

By identifying immune genes shaped by ancient infectious diseases, such as TLR2, scientists may gain new clues about the biological basis of infectious disease susceptibility.

“The pathogens our ancestors encountered thousands of years ago helped shape the immune system we carry today,” Campbell said. “By tracing that evolutionary history, we can better understand why people respond differently to infectious diseases today and identify biological pathways that may inform new strategies for disease prevention and treatment.”

About the study

In addition to Campbell, study authors include Alessandro Lisi and Marisol Fermin Flores of USC Dornsife; Thomas Heinbockel and Kareem Washington of Howard University; Christopher N. Cross of Howard University and Yale University; and Faith C. Simmonds of Columbia University.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (P30AI117970), the National Science Foundation (IOS-1355034, BCS-2221924, and BCS-2221920), and the National Geographic Society (HJ-116ER-17), as well as fellowships from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Chancellor’s Doctoral Incentive Program.

Grammy-nominated singer-songwriter Aloe Blacc has built a career that spans music, philanthropy and entrepreneurship. The lessons that shaped his work began long before international hits like “The Man” and “I Need a Dollar.”

Blacc, who graduated with interdisciplinary degrees in linguistics and psychology from the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences in 2001, says the ideas he encountered as a student still influence his creative process. Studying language and consciousness gave him a deeper understanding of how people communicate, and these insights still find their way into his songwriting decades later.

Research opportunities he found at USC also left a lasting impression. Working alongside a neuroscience researcher introduced Blacc to the scientific process, sparking an appreciation for evidence-based thinking that extends beyond music into his work as an investor and biotech entrepreneur.

Today, Blacc also uses his platform to champion social good, an effort he says was partly inspired by the civic engagement he saw modeled by USC professors and programs.

His latest album, Stand Together, pairs each of its 12 songs with a nonprofit organization and has taken him to national television, including performances on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Good Morning America. The project reflects his longstanding belief that music can serve to tell the stories of people working to help their communities.

What makes the cells of the muscles contract? — Samarth, age 13, India

Muscles are amazing. They’re what let you strum a guitar, kick a soccer ball and high-five your friends. When you decide to move, your brain tells your muscles what to do, and they spring into action. But what is actually happening inside your muscles to make that happen?

To answer that question, you first need to understand how your muscles are put together.

What muscles are made of

Every muscle in your body is an organ, and just like every other organ, muscles are made of cells. Muscle cells, called muscle fibers, are shaped a little differently than most other cells. Muscle fibers are long and ropelike. They can stretch and shorten, kind of like a bungee cord.

Each muscle contains a bunch of these fibers all lined up together, side by side, like a bag of dry spaghetti noodles. Some muscles are made of hundreds of thousands of fibers.

The muscles that you use to move your body are called skeletal muscles because they move your bones. Each muscle is attached to bones by tendons. When a muscle shortens, it tugs on the tendon, which pulls on the bone, allowing you to move.

Microscopic rope pulls

Your cells are filled with molecular machines made out of proteins. They help your cells do their jobs.

Actin and myosin are two proteins that are super important for muscle fibers. Actin is like a microscopic rope, and myosin is like a microscopic hand. When millions of tiny myosin hands grab onto actin ropes and pull at the same time, the muscle fiber gets shorter. Scientists say the muscle is contracting.

Notice that the tiny hands can only pull on the ropes. They never push. That is why muscles can only pull.

See for yourself. Go ahead and bend your elbow. That muscle on the inside of your upper arm is called your biceps. When it gets shorter, it pulls to bend your arm. Now straighten your arm out. That muscle on the back of your arm is called your triceps, and it is pulling to straighten your arm. No pushing necessary.

Sending the message to move

That’s how muscles create movement, but those tiny myosin hands aren’t pulling all the time. What tells them when to pull? The answer is your brain.

Your brain and muscles communicate using electricity. When you decide to move, your brain generates an electrical signal it sends to your muscles. To reach your muscles, the signal travels down your spinal cord, then along nerves that connect to your muscle fibers.

These signals travel at speeds of over 200 miles per hour. They reach the muscles so quickly that movement feels almost immediate. Luckily, for common movements like walking or writing, the brain sends these signals automatically so you don’t need to think about them.

When an electrical signal reaches the muscle fibers, it tells tiny sacs full of calcium to open. When calcium is stuck in these sacs, the myosin hands cannot get ahold of the actin ropes. But when the calcium is released, it acts like a key and unblocks the actin ropes so the myosin hands can grab on.

Scientists call this calcium storage system the sarcoplasmic reticulum.

Once calcium lets the myosin hands grab the actin ropes, they still need energy to pull. That energy comes from a special cellular fuel called ATP. ATP is the main source of energy for all of the cells in your body. Your body uses the food you eat to make ATP, and ATP helps power your proteins so that cells can do their jobs.

Putting it all together

So, what makes muscles contract? It takes an entire team of electricity, calcium, ATP and proteins all working together.

First, your brain sends an electrical signal to your muscle fibers. This causes calcium to be released in those fibers. Calcium lets myosin proteins grab onto actin proteins. ATP provides the energy for myosin to pull. When millions of tiny pulls happen at the same time, your muscle shortens and creates movement.

Next time you wave to a friend or scroll to another Curious Kids article, you’ll know that thousands of muscle fibers and millions of microscopic proteins are working together to make it happen.

Kiki Crawford, Lecturer of Biological Sciences, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When French writer Marcel Proust famously recalled his childhood from the taste of a Madeline cookie, his stomach may have done some of the work.  

We generally associate our memories almost exclusively with the brain, which we imagine both forms and stores them. New research led by Scott Kanoski, professor of biological sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, has found that our gut may also play an important role in helping us to remember experiences, especially those revolving around food.  

The study, published in Nature Communications, focused on the vagus nerve, a major communication highway that connects the digestive system to the brain. Scientists have long known that the vagus nerve helps regulate digestion, hunger and feelings of fullness. Now, researchers have uncovered evidence that signals traveling from the gut through the vagus nerve can also help to form memories.

Memorable munchies

The researchers found that when rats consumed nutritious foods, neurons communicating to  the hippocampus, a part of the brain critical for learning and memory, released higher levels of a chemical called acetylcholine. This neurotransmitter supports memory formation and helps the brain encode new experiences.  

The response depends on signals traveling from the gut via the vagus nerve. When the researchers interrupted vagus nerve communication, the increase in acetylcholine disappeared. These rats also performed worse on memory tests that required them to remember where they had recently found food.

The scientists also discovered that the brain’s memory system seems to respond primarily to a food’s nutrients, not just its pleasing taste. Rats who ate sugar or fat showed strong memory-related brain activity. Those given sweet-tasting but low-calorie or non-caloric liquids did not show the same response. This suggests that the brain reacts to the actual nutritional value of food, rather than just its flavor.

“We think the mechanism likely evolved to help animals remember vital information about food sources,” says study first author Logan Lauer, a PhD student in Kanoski’s lab. Recalling where certain plants sprout first in the spring can help hungry animals find important nutrients. Signals from the gut tell the brain, “This meal provided valuable nutrients, so remember where and how you got it.”

Brain-boosting research

Although high-fat and high-sugar foods sparked strong memory responses, the study also found that chronic exposure to these items worsened memory formation over time. 

Rats that consumed this type of diet early in life showed weaker communication between the gut and the hippocampus later on. Even after returning to a healthier diet, these animals had reduced memory-related brain responses and poorer performance on food-location memory tasks. 

The findings could have important implications for human health. Scientists already know that obesity, poor diet and metabolic disorders such as diabetes are associated with cognitive decline. This new research suggests one reason why: Constant exposure to junk foods may disrupt or disturb the connection between our gut and our brain.  

Their work could also shed new light on neurodegenerative diseases. 

“The disruption of acetylcholine signaling in the hippocampus is one of the earliest neurochemical changes in Alzheimer’s disease,” says Kanoski. “By revealing that this system is boosted by gut signaling from the vagus nerve, novel therapeutic targets could leverage this information to explore vagus nerve-based approaches, such as vagus nerve stimulation.”

The discovery also raises the possibility of new treatments to strengthen communication between the gut and the brain. Therapies that stimulate the vagus nerve or improve gut health could potentially help protect memory and cognitive function. 

While much more research is needed to determine whether the same mechanisms operate in humans, the findings add to a growing body of evidence that the gut and brain are deeply connected.

About the study

In addition to Kanoski and Lauer, study authors include Anna Hayes, Andrea Suarez, Alexander Bashaw, Molly Klug, Alicia Kao, Robert Cheng, Jessica Rea, Keshav Subramanian, Anna Nourbash, Kristen Donohue, and Lindsey Schier of USC Dornsife; Kevin Myers of Bucknell University; and Léa Décarie-Spain of Université de Montréal.

This work was supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants DK104897, DK123423, F31AG092136; Postdoctoral Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Institute on Aging grant F32AG077932; Quebec Research Funds postdoctoral fellowship  315201; and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to Promote Diversity.

Mexico is one of the United States’ most important partners and one of its most misunderstood.

The two countries share more than a border. They are bound together by trade, migration, supply chains, family ties, security concerns and a complicated political history. Now, that relationship is being tested by rising tensions over tariffs, the future of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), fentanyl, cartel violence, migration and Mexican sovereignty.

Pamela Starr, professor of the practice of political science and international relations at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, has spent decades studying Mexican politics, Mexican foreign policy and U.S.-Mexico relations. Her new book, The Making of Mexico: Revolution, Reform, and Transformation, examines the historical experiences and “unwritten rules of behavior” that continue to shape how Mexico responds to today’s challenges.

In this Q&A, Starr explains what Americans often misunderstand about Mexico, how President Claudia Sheinbaum is navigating pressure from Washington, and why the future of U.S.-Mexico relations matters for American workers, consumers and national security.

When Americans think about Mexico today, problems at the border are likely top of mind. What do you wish more people understood about how deeply connected our two countries are?

Most Americans know about the headline issues of drugs and migration. Some know the U.S. runs a trade deficit with Mexico, and many imagine that this means the U.S. is exporting jobs to Mexico. But that is an incomplete view of a relationship that is very complicated and, on balance, highly beneficial to the United States.

For example, Mexico is our number one trading partner. It exports fruits and vegetables and minerals to the U.S., but it also exports autos and autoparts, medical devices, and computers. It imports more U.S. corn than any other country in the world, but also imports large quantities of pork, natural gas, gasoline and autoparts.

But we don’t merely trade with Mexico. We produce things together, trading inputs as we jointly produce stuff. For example, 74% of Mexican manufactured exports contain U.S. content. Further, it’s estimated that an “American” car crosses the U.S.-Mexico border eight times during its manufacture.

These deeply integrated supply chains reinforce our global competitiveness by keeping the cost of production lower than it would otherwise be. This helps the U.S. compete with China, generate investment, growth and job creation, and keep consumer prices down. And that’s just the economic relationship.

The Trump administration is pushing changes to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the trade deal that replaced NAFTA. Why should Americans who don’t follow trade policy care about what happens next?

Americans should care because changes to USMCA could affect their jobs, wages and the prices they pay for everyday goods. The agreement makes possible the cross-border production process that helps keep the U.S. economy internationally competitive and consumer prices low. Its rules governing trade and investment give companies the confidence to invest across borders while maintaining quality and controlling costs.

The U.S. does not appear to want to leave the agreement but rather to establish new rules designed to dramatically increase U.S. content in cars and other products and reduce Chinese inputs in North American supply chains. Companies may struggle to adapt, especially if the changes are substantial and must be implemented quickly. In the best case, they adapt. In the worst case, production is disrupted and costs rise, making U.S. companies less competitive with China and leading to job cuts, lower wages and higher consumer prices.

The decision to continue negotiating rather than renew USMCA under its current term has added to the uncertainty. Although the agreement remains in force, companies cannot be sure what future trade rules will look like. As a result, many are delaying investment in Mexico. And rather than shifting that investment to the U.S., as the Trump administration hopes, some may look to countries that may ultimately not be as reliable a partner.

Sheinbaum has had to respond to U.S. pressure on tariffs, migration and security while also defending Mexican sovereignty. How would you describe her strategy so far?

President Sheinbaum refers to her strategy for dealing with President Trump during the first year and a half of her presidency as “cool headedness.” She largely avoided responding in kind to Trump’s rhetorical provocations, built a working relationship through a series of phone calls that helped defuse potential conflicts, and responded to key U.S. demands for deeper cooperation on migration and security policy.

That strategy shifted, however, after the U.S. indicted several Mexican officials, including the sitting governor of Sinaloa, and demanded their arrest and extradition. For Sheinbaum, this crossed a line. She responded by invoking a long-standing Mexican strategy for dealing with excessive U.S. pressure: appealing to Mexican nationalism.

She argued that far-right forces in the U.S. were attempting to influence Mexican politics and use criminal indictments to shape who governs the country — the latest in a long history of foreign violations of Mexican sovereignty. Even so, she stopped short of accusing Trump directly, suggesting that she has modified, rather than abandoned, her strategy of “cool headedness.”

You have described U.S.-Mexico relations as shaped by an informal “autonomy within limits” accord, in which Mexico has had room to chart its own path as long as it did not cross certain U.S. red lines. Is that longstanding bargain beginning to break down?

The U.S.-Mexico relationship is in uncharted territory. For roughly a century, U.S. presidents largely followed two informal rules in dealing with Mexico: Disagreements were handled privately, and Mexico was given broad policy autonomy as long as it aligned with the United States when U.S. national security was at stake.

Historically, U.S. national security threats were understood as coming from foreign adversaries, such as the Axis powers during World War II or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the late 20th century, Washington increasingly pressed Mexico to cooperate on migration and drug trafficking, but those issues were not treated as national security threats that sharply constrained Mexican policy autonomy. Trump changed that.

The Trump administration expanded the range of U.S. red lines to include migration and drug trafficking, arguing that both threaten national security and require Mexico to meet U.S. demands. It has also raised the possibility of unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico and publicly pushed for joint military or police operations against cartels — both deeply sensitive issues for Mexico.

Mexico has rarely had to draw such explicit red lines with the U.S., and it cannot be sure how Washington will respond. For Mexico, the most important aspect of autonomy is limiting foreign influence in its domestic politics. That is why cooperation on issues such as containing the screwworm may be acceptable, while demands to arrest and extradite elected officials may not be.

Mexico has also approved a constitutional change allowing election results to be annulled if foreign interference is proven. Supporters say it protects Mexican sovereignty; critics warn it could be used to overturn unfavorable results. What could it mean for Mexican democracy and U.S.-Mexico relations?

This constitutional change is intended to curb support from internationally connected far-right groups for Mexico’s conservative opposition, which the Sheinbaum administration sees as a potential threat to its political survival and its ability to advance a leftist agenda. Citing alleged outside influence in recent right-wing electoral victories across Latin America, the administration argues that foreign — particularly U.S. — involvement in Mexican politics violates national sovereignty and that election results should be subject to challenge when such interference is proven.

Sheinbaum’s opponents, however, are concerned that the legislation is written so vaguely that it could be abused. Because it allows an election to be annulled if foreign interference is demonstrated, they fear government forces could invoke the provision broadly to overturn unfavorable results and preserve the governing party’s hold on power. The resulting uncertainty about whether future elections will be free and fair is significant.

Your new book explores the “unwritten rules of behavior” that shape Mexico’s politics, economy and foreign policy. Which of these rules are most important for Americans to understand?

“Autonomy within limits” is the most important unwritten rule shaping Mexican foreign policy. But Mexico’s domestic development has also been shaped by a historically rooted tolerance for corruption, the bending of laws and government favoritism in the economy. These patterns have hindered its fight against organized crime and its efforts to build a more dynamic national economy. Because the U.S. has had a different historical experience, some Americans have limited sympathy for the resulting policy challenges and see Mexico primarily as a source of problems rather than opportunity.

These unwritten rules are certainly not unique to Mexico; every country’s behavior is shaped by its history. Government in the U.S. was once deeply corrupt, for example, but the country largely succeeded in changing that accepted pattern of behavior, despite some recent backsliding. In Mexico, the powerful influence of the Catholic Church in politics and the economy was accepted as normal for centuries before being sharply curtailed in the early 20th century.

History is not destiny, but unwritten rules can be formidable obstacles to change because they define what societies consider normal and can be especially difficult for outsiders to recognize or understand.

Research conducted at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences has been recognized with the 2026 Fields Medal, widely regarded as one of mathematics’ highest honors.

Yu Deng, who served on the USC Dornsife faculty from 2018 to 2024 and is now a professor at the University of Chicago, received the award for his contributions to partial differential equations, including the rigorous derivation of the Boltzmann equation, advances in wave kinetic equations and probabilistic approaches to nonlinear Schrödinger dynamics.

“Yu Deng pursued some of the deepest questions in mathematical physics during his time as an assistant professor at USC. His striking talents combined extraordinary creativity and remarkable mathematical rigor,” said Susan Friedlander, director of USC Dornsife’s Center for Applied Mathematical Sciences. “I’m delighted he was awarded one of the 2026 Fields Medals, which is the highest international honor for a mathematician under 40.”

Awarded every four years by the International Mathematical Union, the Fields Medal recognizes exceptional mathematical achievement.

Yu Deng’s research addressed a fundamental question that had challenged mathematicians for more than a century: How does the seemingly random motion of countless microscopic particles give rise to the orderly behavior of gases and fluids observed in everyday life?

His work helped explain how macroscopic behavior emerges from microscopic dynamics, providing rigorous mathematical foundations for phenomena that had challenged mathematicians and physicists for decades.

According to the International Mathematical Union, Yu Deng’s work “has substantially expanded the scope of rigorous analysis in nonlinear dynamics and has had a deep impact on the study of dispersive equations and mathematical physics.”

In early July 2026, the Trump administration quietly tapped Matthew Wielicki to lead the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The move places a podcaster known for downplaying the threats of climate change — and importantly, someone who has not been meaningfully involved in research on climate change or its impacts – at the top of one of the country’s most important scientific enterprises, one mandated by federal law.

Under the law, the Global Change Research Program — USGCRP for short — is required to prepare and submit a National Climate Assessment to the president and Congress at least every four years. Its purpose is to help the country’s businesses, communities and governments at all levels make better decisions about how to respond to the growing risks posed by climate change.

The National Climate Assessments have done two things exceedingly well since the first report was released in 2000: They have told hard truths about the risks that climate change poses to the United States, and they have made clear that, if left unchecked, those risks are going to get much worse.

But despite the best intentions and science, the assessments have largely failed to fulfill a critical aspect of their mandate: They haven’t provided decision-makers with a clear accounting of the range of national and local options for adapting to or mitigating climate risks. They have also remained largely silent on which adaptation or mitigation strategies are most appropriate in different places and under different climate scenarios. And they have said next to nothing about how to make decisions in the face of the risks — and inevitable uncertainties — posed by climate change.

This is why I have argued that the National Climate Assessment, and other climate reports like it, are broken and in urgent need of repair. I come to this conclusion from my experience as an interdisciplinary climate and decision scientist, as a member of the team that reviewed the Fourth National Climate Assessment beginning in 2017 and as chair of a National Academies working group charged with figuring out how climate reports like the National Climate Assessment could better support decision-makers in business and government.

Fixing a broken National Climate Assessment is the job of the person in charge of the USGCRP. But the fix it needs isn’t pretending that climate change isn’t happening — the evidence is everywhere in extreme downpours, deadly heat waves and severe droughts. The real fix is to expand the focus of the National Climate Assessment from just reporting the causes and consequences of climate risks to providing better advice about how to manage them.

Why sharing solutions also matters

To be fair, scientists who develop assessments like this focus on the evidence; they tend to avoid recommending particular courses of action because doing so would require making explicit value judgments that extend beyond the scientific evidence. This is a level of restraint that many people have come to expect from the scientific community.

But as the risks posed by climate change have become more acute, this omission has limited the National Climate Assessment’s usefulness for leaders in business and government who might want — or need — to use it.

Imagine learning from your doctor that you have been diagnosed with a serious illness, only to be ushered out of the office before hearing about either your treatment options or what other patients have done, and how they have fared, under similar circumstances. That’s largely the story of the National Climate Assessment. It does a terrific job of enumerating risks, but a poor job of helping people decide how — and, in some cases, even if — they should manage them.

The National Climate Assessment under Trump

Appointing Wielicki, a former geochemistry instructor and climate science critic, to lead the USGCRP and oversee the National Climate Assessment won’t address the report’s shortcomings. In fact, I expect it will make them worse.

Given the administration’s history, it’s not a stretch to imagine a USGCRP under Wielicki’s leadership soft-pedaling climate risks or, worse, amplifying the debunked “climate change is a hoax” narrative advanced by the Trump White House. Why? Because it’s already happening.

The administration dismantled the USGCRP in 2025. Then it commissioned a group of climate skeptics to write their own government report dismissing the risks of climate change, part of an effort to buttress the administration’s moves to rescind a decades-old federal finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare. A court later determined that the report was illegally produced.

At the same time, the world’s 10 hottest years on record have all happened since 2015, and Americans across the country are experiencing climate change in worsening storms, riskier floods and fires, extreme heat and drought. Leaders are looking for ways to alleviate those risks. Indeed, the long-term success of their businesses demands that they do so.

What decision-makers in business and government across the country really need isn’t deflection or denial. They need information about the costs, benefits and uncertainties associated with different climate risk-management options that they can act on.

They also need a clearer picture of the trade-offs associated with acting now, delaying action or, in some cases, choosing to do nothing.

Over time, an improved National Climate Assessment would build a searchable library of practical and relatable case studies of climate risk-management decisions. They would describe, among thousands of examples, why and how New York City used scenario planning to prepare for sea-level rise and more intense storms; why Flagstaff, Arizona, turned to a ballot initiative to address flood and wildfire risks; how places from Burlington, Vermont, to Georgetown, Texas, fared after transitioning their electricity grids exclusively to renewables; and why governments in South Florida have continued to avoid policies that would limit development or pursue managed retreat from vulnerable areas despite swelling political and scientific consensus about the long-term risks.

Cases like these are what would form the backbone of a more effective National Climate Assessment.

Providing candid, useful examples to follow

One key to making these case studies useful is to be candid about the strengths and weaknesses of competing options for managing risk, including maintaining the status quo.

Another is to provide guidance on how the lessons from each case can be adapted to different places and different kinds of risks.

An important third key is to keep these cases updated over time so users of the National Climate Assessment can learn from the outcomes of others’ decisions.

All three are well within the grasp of the USGCRP if it is operating under knowledgeable and experienced leadership.

And this brings us back to the analogy of the doctor and the patient. Some patients will opt for treatment, while others will choose to ignore their diagnosis. It’s the same story for how organizations and governments respond, or not, to climate change.

Only by developing a better understanding of how and why specific decisions to act on climate were made, and then what happened next, can those charged with managing future climate risks be better prepared to confront decisions about climate action when it’s their turn to make them.

Joe Árvai, Dana and David Dornsife Chair, Wrigley Institute Director and Professor of Psychology, Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A slang term for cash money is “dead presidents.” But now the very much alive President Donald Trump could appear on U.S. coins and banknotes, too.

Ever since Trump returned to power in 2025, his administration has put the president’s face and name on all sorts of things, from federal buildings to national park passes. Putting him on the almighty dollar would be the crowning achievement of these efforts. After all, the value of physical U.S. currency in circulation today stands at over US$2.46 trillion, an all-time high.

If a sitting president’s portraits start appearing on U.S. currency, what would this change say about American political culture?

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said he doesn’t “think that there’s anything untoward” about the idea, while Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley has said, “President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.”

As a professor of international relations who has studied the global evolution of currency iconography for over 20 years, I take a worldwide perspective on this debate. The data that I have amassed shows that such a choice by the U.S. would be out of step with nearly every other currency in the world.

All about the Benjamins — or the Donalds?

The Trump administration has been incredibly active on the currency front.

In January 2026, Trump’s handpicked commissioners of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, a federal agency that advises on design and aesthetics, recommended designs for a circulating $1 coin featuring Trump’s head. The commission later also recommended a different portrayal of Trump for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin that it suggested making “as large as possible.” These coins were supposed to be ready for July 4, but production delays at the U.S. Mint have pushed the release date back.

The administration is also preparing Trump-branded banknotes. In March 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced a historic first: From now on, the president’s signature will be on newly printed paper dollars.

In April, the Treasury Department abruptly reassigned the director of its Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Patricia Solimene, after she had refused to advance a $250 bill with Trump’s face on it, according to The Washington Post.

“The buck stopped here,” Solimene wrote in a goodbye email to colleagues. But after her reassignment, the buck started again. In May, Bessent publicly displayed a $250 bill design featuring Trump – even while acknowledging that the new bills cannot be printed until Congress changes the 160-year-old law against depicting living persons on U.S. paper currency.

The Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act, a measure to amend the law, is awaiting further congressional action in the House Committee on Financial Services. Treasury claims it already has the legal authority to mint its Trump coins.

Examining the world’s coins

Putting the sitting president’s face on coins would be a dramatic departure from U.S. tradition. The only previous such instance in the country’s history was a 1926 commemorative half-dollar showing then-President Calvin Coolidge alongside George Washington.

But what about other countries in the contemporary world? How normal is it for their sitting leaders to appear on their coins?

Using the most recent edition of Coin & Mint News’ Directory of Circulating Coins — a standard reference for coin professionals working at national mints and central banks — I counted the images of sitting state leaders on the circulating coins of the world as of 2024. (Note: This data has not yet gone through rigorous peer review.)

Analyzing nearly 1,000 coins from 165 independent countries, I counted only 22 countries — about 13% of the total — whose circulating coins feature their sitting head of state. This number includes coins depicting heads of state who were in office when the coin was originally issued, whether or not they were still there in 2024.

Almost all the sitting heads of state who appear on the circulating coins that I analyzed are hereditary monarchs.

If a country is a hereditary monarchy — whether its political system is democratic, like the United Kingdom, or authoritarian, like Brunei — there is a high chance that its reigning king or queen is on its circulating coins. This is the case for about 62% of the monarchies in my database, or 21 out of 34.

On the other hand, if a country is not a hereditary monarchy, its sitting head of state is almost certainly not on its circulating coins. This is the case for 99% of the nonmonarchy countries in my database, or 130 out of 131.

The lone exception is Samoa, a parliamentary democracy whose circulating coins all feature the country’s head of state as of 2011, the coins’ original year of issuance. However, even Samoa is hardly an exception, as its political culture has many of the trappings of a monarchy: Its head of state is called “His Highness,” and he is traditionally chosen from among the country’s four paramount chieftains.

Examining the world’s banknotes

A similar story emerges from my data on banknotes.

Using Bank Note Museum – a free online catalog crowdsourced from a network of banknote collectors – and supplementing that data with information from Greysheet publications’ paywalled catalog The Banknote Book, I created a database of all the circulating banknotes in the world that were newly designed and issued between 2019 and 2024.

According to my data, 84 independent countries issued 340 new regular circulating banknotes during the chosen time frame. Yet only 13 of those countries — about 15% — issued new banknotes depicting their sitting head of state. All but one of the 13 countries that did so are hereditary monarchies.

The lone exception to the rule is Botswana, a democratic republic that has traditionally featured the sitting president’s portrait on its 10 pula banknote denomination. However, Duma Boko, Botswana’s president since late 2024, is still waiting for his 10 pula note.

US currency: Fit for a king?

Today, almost every country that isn’t a hereditary monarchy is declining to issue currency that features its sitting head of state. Since the U.S. isn’t a hereditary monarchy, putting Trump’s face on U.S. currency while he is still in office would be highly abnormal.

The nationwide “No Kings” protest movement has mobilized millions of Americans to march the streets in opposition to what they perceive as Trump’s monarchical ambitions. The global patterns of currency iconography suggest that they might have a point.

University of Southern California undergraduate student Anyi Tan contributed to this research.

Jacques Hymans, Adjunct Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences; University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The end of World War II is often remembered as the beginning of a more peaceful and tolerant era in the United States. But Steve Ross, a historian at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, documents a darker reality: Antisemitism and racism increased after the war, and the number of organized hate groups more than doubled between 1940 and 1946.

In his latest book, The Secret War Against Hate: American Resistance to Antisemitism and White Supremacy, Ross tells the story of the ordinary Americans who decided to fight back. Working through clandestine networks, these civilian operatives infiltrated Nazi and white supremacist organizations, gathered intelligence and helped thwart plots to bomb churches and synagogues.

Among them was Emmanuel Trujillo, who rose to become a leading figure in the postwar American Nazi movement while secretly communicating with antifascist organizations and tracking extremist leaders in the U.S. and abroad.

Ross, Distinguished Professor and Dean’s Professor of History and Myron and Marian Casden Director of the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life at USC Dornsife, was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for his previous book, Hitler in Los Angeles: How Jews Foiled Nazi Plots Against Hollywood and America. Researching his latest book, he says, gave him the opportunity to write his own spy story — “only unlike the fiction I read, this stuff is true.”

In this video interview with USC Dornsife News, Ross discusses the operatives who put themselves in danger, the attacks they prevented and what their courage can teach us today about resisting hate and defending democracy.

The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences earned five prestigious awards for marketing and communications work that spans digital campaigns, videos, magazine publication and journalism.

The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) awarded USC Dornsife two golds and one silver in its 2026 Circle of Excellence Awards, an international competition recognizing outstanding work in educational advancement. This year’s competition drew nearly 4,200 entries from more than 600 institutions in 33 countries.

Separately, the Los Angeles Press Club awarded first place to USC Dornsife Magazine: The Life Issue and to a USC Dornsife News profile by Darrin Joy, senior director of strategic and scientific communication, at its 68th Southern California Journalism Awards.

“What makes these honors especially meaningful is the range of work they recognize: strategic marketing, inventive video and first-rate journalism,” said Jim Key, senior associate dean for communication and marketing. “Each award reflects the talent and collaboration of people who thrive on finding creative, compelling ways to connect audiences with USC Dornsife.”

Summer enrollment campaign earns CASE gold

The Just One GE campaign earned gold in the CASE category for marketing initiatives at institutions with more than 25 staff members.

Created through a partnership between USC Dornsife’s Office of Communication and Office of Creative Content, the campaign employed digital ads, emails, video and social media to encourage undergraduates to take one general education course during the summer. It paired a student-friendly message — “One class. Less stress. Summer vibes.” — with a website that made it easier to explore courses by GE requirement and format.

Summer enrollment increased 36.5% year over year, exceeding the campaign’s 25% goal, while course cancellations fell 29%.

CASE judges called it “a smart, highly targeted enrollment initiative” that paired a simple concept with strong execution. They also praised its efficient use of resources, focused messaging and thoughtful audience segmentation.

Professors reacting to student reviews takes video gold

CASE also awarded gold to “Professors Surprised with Students’ Reviews,” produced by Multimedia News Director Katie Kim Scott, videographer Mike Glier, and Christelle Snow, audience engagement editor.

Inspired by the format of celebrities reading mean tweets, the short featured USC Dornsife professors’ candid reactions to anonymous student evaluations. Their unscripted responses highlighted the impact of excellent teaching while giving students and alumni a personal look at faculty members across disciplines.

Screened during USC Dornsife’s 2025 commencement ceremony, the video reached more than 25,000 graduates, family members, friends, faculty and guests. It also generated more than 70,000 Instagram views and reached 40,000 accounts. CASE judges called the concept compelling and impactful for current and prospective students.

Online magazine receives CASE silver

The online editions of USC Dornsife Magazine’s “Life” and “Family” issues received silver in the CASE online magazine category.

Led by editor in chief Susan Bell, creative director Letty Avila and associate editor Margaret Crable, with visual design by graphic designer Rhiannon Montelius, the magazine’s online editions go beyond reproducing print articles by adapting stories for digital reading and extending them through multimedia and public programming.

Magazine website visits increased 71% from 2024 to 2025. CASE judges praised the publication’s engaging long-form journalism and animation.

Magazine and alumni profile win first place for journalism

At the Southern California Journalism Awards, the Los Angeles Press Club named the “Life” issue of USC Dornsife Magazine as the top in-house or corporate publication.

Judges called it “a beautifully ambitious and thought-provoking collection” that explores the complexity and wonder of life through rich storytelling and interdisciplinary insight.

Joy received first place for personality profile writing in the film and television category for “Actor earns philosophy PhD on his way to major movie and television roles.” The compelling story profiles USC Dornsife alumnus Luka Jones, who completed a doctorate in philosophy while building a successful film and television career.

Judges praised the piece as “great writing” that was “well thought out, and expertly written,” noting the strength of its connection between Jones’ university experience and acting career.

“Turn off that TV, it’ll rot your brain!” has been a household refrain for decades. While “rot” might be too strong a term, researchers are finding that the overall sentiment could have some merit.

A study published recently in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association revealed that those who reported watching TV “very often” in midlife later exhibited reduced volume in areas of the brain associated with memory, smaller frontal and occipital lobes, and areas of damage in the brain’s white matter that are associated with aging, stroke risk, cognitive decline and dementia. 

“For years we’ve focused on how much people sit. Our findings suggest we should also pay attention to what they’re doing while they’re sitting,” says David Raichlen, professor of biological sciences and anthropology at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and a senior author of the study.

Raichlen’s group has long studied the association between dementia risk and physical activity, including comparing leisure and work activities. 

The findings weren’t just due to TV viewing’s sedentary nature. The study found that other types of sedentary activities did not have the same associations, indicating that what one does while sitting may matter much more than previously thought.

Watching changes

The researchers analyzed data from about 1,700 adults, average age 53, who enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study between 1987 and 1989. ARIC is a long-running study of the U.S. population designed to investigate cardiovascular and brain health. 

Participants were asked how frequently, on a scale ranging from “never/seldom” to “very often,” they watched television during their leisure time and how much of their workday they spent sitting.

More than two decades later, participants underwent brain MRI. Compared with people who reported “never” or “seldom” watching TV, those who watched TV “very often” showed widespread structural differences across the brain.

The researchers found smaller volumes in areas associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease and more white matter hyperintensity volumes, an indicator of cerebral small blood vessel disease associated with cognitive decline and dementia. These participants also had smaller occipital and frontal lobes, regions associated with visual processing and executive functioning.

Differences persisted even when the researchers controlled for factors such as physical activity, diabetes, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol use.

Of note, the researchers relied on self-reported data for TV consumption, which can be less precise than timed tracking. Study participants also did not undergo a baseline MRI. Future research could begin with a baseline MRI to more concretely demonstrate changes over time.

Not all sitting is made the same

Strikingly, the sedentary element of TV watching didn’t appear to be the main driver for these changes.

Those who reported high amounts of sitting at work actually had larger frontal and occipital lobes, as well as reduced white matter hyperintensity volumes, indicating better brain health than among those who sit to watch TV. This could be due to the intellectually stimulating nature of many sit-down jobs, say the study authors. 

Men appeared to be particularly vulnerable to these changes. When the MRI scans were separated by sex, researchers found that most of the changes to the brain, both from TV watching and occupational sitting, were seen in men.

Such findings indicate there is still more research to be done on this complex topic. However, a different approach to health guidance around sedentary activities may emerge. Rather than just directing their patients to move more, for example, physicians might recommend they reduce television time and add cognitively engaging activities for when they do sit.  

“We frequently encourage the public not to spend too much time sitting down, but experts may want to expand that recommendation to encompass the activities done while sitting, since those seems to have distinct impacts on brain health,” says study corresponding author Natan Feter, postdoctoral scholar in the Human and Evolutionary Biology program at USC Dornsife. 

About this study

In addition to Raichlen and Feter, study authors include Anamika Nanda, Mark Lai, Rand Wilcox and Sarah Hourihan of USC Dornsife; Daniel Aslan of Harvard University; Jayne Feter of Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; M. Katherine Sayre of University of California Santa Barbara; Pradyumna Bharadwaj, Madeline Ally, Hyun Son, Yann Klimentidis, Amit Arora and Gene Alexander of the University of Arizona; Silvio Maltagliati of USC Dornsife and Université Bretagne Sud.

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants P30AG072980, P30AG019610, R56AG067200, R01AG064587, and R01AG072445 and funding from the state of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. 

There are few greater feelings than the sense of heartfelt gratitude to another human being who has done you a solid. Sincere thanks and reciprocation are part of the glue that binds us in human relationships.

But sometimes you’re just not feeling it. You know that you have benefited from what someone has done for you, but you don’t really feel grateful to them for doing it. Most teenagers go through this period with their parents. Maybe you take your partner or colleague for granted.

For me, 14 years ago, it was my mother-in-law. She had upended her life to move from South Dakota to California to live with my wife and me to assist with childcare after our daughter was born; no other source of childcare fit with our demanding work schedules and my commute. She made a huge sacrifice that transformed our lives, but there were moments when I really struggled to feel grateful.

Since that time, I’ve come to devote much of my research as a philosopher to studying how the way that we interpret each other as people shapes our relationships. That work has helped me to understand why I struggled to be grateful — and taught me a little bit about how to do better.

Personal gratitude

I’ve found that the hardest part of feeling grateful to someone is the “to” part. It is one thing to be impersonally grateful that something happened and another thing to be personally grateful to someone for doing it. These are not the same.

Both forms of gratitude require seeing something as a benefit. And they both require a humble recognition of how easily things could have been otherwise. When the rain ends a drought, an atheist can feel grateful that the tomatoes will survive. But the atheist isn’t grateful “to” anyone for the rain.

Personal gratitude requires more than impersonal gratitude. It is an example of what the philosopher Peter Strawson calls a “participant” attitude: an attitude that we have toward people, but not toward things. And a large theme in my work is that participant attitudes such as gratitude involve giving someone credit for what the attitude responds to.

But which benefits we give people credit for is complicated. As philosophers such as Tony Manela have argued, actions motivated primarily by money, self-interest or insecurity don’t merit personal gratitude, even when they benefit you. Actions motivated by love, generosity or concern, on the other hand — or other “pro-social” motives — do.

Sometimes people fail to feel gratitude because they take someone for granted, not noticing how easily they could have done otherwise. This wasn’t my problem with my mother-in-law. It was obvious that she didn’t have to move across the country to live with us.

But it was hard to avoid noticing that she had always wanted to live in California. Sometimes it is hard to feel grateful because of how we interpret someone’s motives. They could have done otherwise, but we don’t think their action was really “about us.”

Bad motives are easy to find

Sometimes ungenerous motives can help people to be generous. Your child’s kindergarten teacher isn’t a volunteer. They may be a naturally generous person — but still, they probably wouldn’t be working with your child on spelling, arithmetic and handling adversity if they weren’t getting a paycheck.

It’s still appropriate to be grateful to them. Their financial incentive to show up for work enables their generosity, rather than competing with it.

Elementary school teachers are not alone. After all, people’s decisions are often driven by many factors: some that merit gratitude and others that don’t. So if you go looking for selfish motives, you are bound to find some.

Take your partner, for example. They do something that benefits you: buying you flowers, filling your tank with gas or finally taking their turn to wash the dishes. They are partly motivated by generosity, love or communal spirit. But, as in any close relationship, sometimes they may be hoping to get something out of it: reciprocation, maybe, or getting you off their back.

It matters which of these you interpret as their “true” motive: Seeing it one way opens you up to gratitude, while the other precludes it.

What are ‘true’ motives?

The distinction between someone’s “true” motive and the other motives that enable it looks like the distinction between causes and enabling conditions. For example, when you drop a wine glass, the fragility of the glass enables the drop to cause the break, but it isn’t itself a cause of the break — the drop is.

In the case of the falling glass, there’s a clear, objective answer to what caused the break and what merely enabled it. But I believe that relating to people is deeply different than understanding physical things.

The key question in whether to be grateful to someone isn’t about which motives count as “causes.” It is about which cause we need to bring into focus in order to see the other person more clearly for who they are.

See it their way

In other words, it’s at least partly a matter of perspective. If someone does you a favor, but you know they’re hoping for something in return, you can see that as their “true” motive. But you don’t have to see it that way. Instead, you could see that motive as the condition they need for their generosity to thrive.

Shifting perspectives isn’t easy. When you’re doubting someone’s motives, their lack of generosity can feel obvious. But it helps to remember that people tend to believe they’re acting generously. If you want to respond with gratitude, try seeing them as they see themselves.

What if that doesn’t work?

Well, the next best thing to being grateful to someone is being grateful for them. Starting there is a good way to remind yourself of why you value this relationship in the first place. And it can be enough to simply say “Thanks” and mean it.

Mark Schroeder, Professor of Philosophy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why is Venus the hottest planet, whereas Mercury is closer to the Sun? — Sejal M., age 7, Bangalore, India

When the solar system had just formed, 4.5 billion years ago, Venus was probably a tropical paradise. Oceans of water likely covered its surface, and puffy clouds dotted its skies. At that time, Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun, was undoubtedly the hottest planet in the solar system.

But then the Sun grew brighter, and a series of events known as a runaway greenhouse effect caused Venus’s surface temperature to soar well past Mercury’s. To be sure, as the closest planet to the Sun, parts of Mercury are still extremely hot. Its surface temperature on its sunlit side is around 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius), hot enough to melt lead.

I’m a space scientist with a passion for teaching physics and astronomy. I’ve seen Venus shine brightly in the western sky just after sunset, and, on rare occasions, seen Mercury briefly appear as an “evening star.”

What is the greenhouse effect?

Venus isn’t the only planet that has experienced a greenhouse effect. Today, the same phenomenon keeps Earth’s surface habitable.

Warm objects emit electromagnetic radiation, or light, because their atoms and molecules are constantly vibrating. Earth’s surface is warmed by the Sun and gives off infrared light, which is invisible to your eyes. Humans and animals also glow in infrared, and most of the energy released by a campfire is infrared radiation. The hotter an object is, the more infrared radiation it emits.

On a planet without an atmosphere, such as Mercury, this energy escapes directly into space. As a result, there is an enormous difference in temperature between Mercury’s blistering hot sunlit side and its night side, where temperatures can drop to minus 290 degrees F (minus 180 degrees C).

On Earth, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including molecules of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor, absorb and trap some of this infrared radiation, acting like a blanket around the planet and keeping the surface warm.

Earth’s average surface temperature is about 59 F (15 C). Without greenhouse gases, the temperature would be closer to 0 F (minus 18 C), and Earth would resemble a giant snowball. We definitely need a moderate greenhouse effect to make our planet habitable.

Diverging fates

But how could Venus, a planet that is nearly the same size as Earth and that was once made up of the same things, end up so different from our home world? There are several clues to why Venus is such a hot, unpleasant planet today.

Scientists agree that because of their similar sizes and proximity to the Sun, Earth and Venus likely started out with comparable amounts of water and carbon dioxide. On Earth, most of the carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans or locked away in rocks, such as limestone. Venus may once have stored carbon dioxide in a similar way.

Scientific models of stars indicate that the Sun has grown about 40% brighter since the early history of the solar system. Four billion years ago, it emitted only about 70% of the energy it does today.

Scientists disagree about whether Venus ever had long-lived oceans. But evidence suggests the planet possessed lots of water early in its history. As the Sun’s brightness increased, more and more water would have evaporated into the atmosphere. Without surface water to absorb and store carbon dioxide, nearly all of this greenhouse gas accumulated in the atmosphere.

This process, in turn, would have caused even more evaporation and even more warming, a feedback loop known as a runaway greenhouse effect. Today, carbon dioxide makes up about 96% of Venus’ atmosphere, and its surface temperature is a nearly constant 867 F (464 C) day or night. Venus is now stuck in this state, and its atmosphere and surface temperature will remain like this for a very long time.

Imagine how thick Earth’s atmosphere would be if all the oceans evaporated and all the carbon dioxide dissolved in them were released into the air. Something very much like this happened on Venus.

As a result, the atmospheric pressure at Venus’ surface is more than 90 times greater than Earth’s atmospheric pressure at sea level. To experience such a high pressure on Earth, you would have to dive to a depth of about 3,000 feet (940 meters). That much pressure is like having five elephants standing on your shoulders!

A runaway greenhouse effect on Earth?

You may have heard scientists warn that Earth could experience some of the same processes affecting Venus if human-caused climate change continues unchecked. Global temperatures are rising as people burn coal, oil and natural gas for industrial activities and transportation, releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time. As more and more accumulates there, it traps more heat, raising the temperature on the planet’s surface.

Another major greenhouse gas is methane. As Earth warms, an important source of methane is thawing permafrost, the permanently frozen ground found mostly in the Arctic. When the icy ground thaws, it exposes organic matter that had been frozen for thousands of years, including ancient plants, mosses, and even the remains of woolly mammoths and other large animals.

Bacteria can then decompose that matter, and as they do, they release methane into the atmosphere.

As Earth warms, more permafrost melts, releasing even more methane and creating a vicious cycle. Earth may never reach the extreme temperatures found on Venus today. However, our planet could become a much less comfortable place as temperatures rise.

However, Earth’s surface temperature will never reach anywhere near that of Venus in our lifetime, and Venus will remain the hottest planet in the solar system — despite being farther from the Sun than Mercury.

Vahe Peroomian, Professor (Teaching) of Physics and Astronomy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Most Americans understand that their avocado toast and Super Bowl guacamole depend on a green fruit imported from Mexico. But few realize that Mexico is the United States’ top trading partner, both as the largest source of U.S. imports and the largest market for its exports.

Mexico supplies everything from fruits and vegetables to computers, medical equipment and electrical machinery — not to mention vehicles and auto parts. Mexico is also the top consumer of U.S. exports, ranging from corn, pork and dairy products to natural gas, to auto parts.

Given these ties, the stakes will be high on July 1, 2026, when U.S., Mexican and Canadian trade negotiators begin a required trilateral review of the 2020 trade deal underpinning this relationship. But a de facto stalemate is likely, resulting in uncertainty that will dampen growth in all three member countries.

Meanwhile, consumers will have to keep paying the tab for imports affected by Trump’s tariffs, including global tariffs announced in April 2025, as well as specific levies on autos and products made with steel and aluminum. According to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. inflation rate in March 2026 would have been 0.8 percentage point lower year on year without these tariffs.

As a scholar of U.S.-Mexico relations, I argue this outcome reflects President Donald Trump’s desire to reduce U.S. trade deficits, bring manufacturing back to the U.S. and retain coercive power over his neighbors. But all it will likely do is yield a poorly defined process of annual reviews of the longer-standing agreement — signed by Trump during his first term.

The logic of trade integration

The 2020 pact, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, has been a linchpin for U.S. global competitiveness, especially for the trade relationship with Mexico. With some modifications, it succeeded the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mexico doesn’t export just agricultural goods and products assembled with factors of production imported from the U.S. It supplies such inputs to the U.S. production process as well. This bilateral trade supports key cross-border supply chains for regional manufacturing.

This is most striking in the automotive industry. A telling measure is that a typical “U.S.” vehicle crosses the U.S.-Mexico border up to eight times during the manufacturing process. The U.S. and Mexico don’t just trade finished products; they produce things together, as Mexico scholar Chris Wilson has put it.

These deeply integrated supply chains lower the cost of production, which in turn helps the U.S. compete with China, generate investment, spur job creation — and keep consumer prices down. Recognizing this, the Trump administration agreed to exempt all exports that comply with the terms of the 2020 trade pact from the global tariffs announced in April 2025. This exemption now applies to 85% of Mexican exports, according to Mexico Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard.

Annual reviews are likely outcome

Under the terms of the 2020 pact, the three countries have to review the deal after six years. Potential outcomes of the 2026 negotiation round range from renewing the deal in full for 16 more years, ending it altogether or agreeing to undergo a series of annual reviews that could extend it through 2036.

Given the three countries’ supply-chain integration, preserving predictability in trade and investment through a successful review should be a slam-dunk case. But that outcome looks unlikely for three reasons.

First is Trump’s abhorrence of trade deficits, stemming from his belief that they’re caused by U.S. production and jobs moving overseas due to unfair trade practices. While this argument applies to U.S.-China trade to a certain degree, it does not to Mexico. For example, 30% of Mexican-manufactured exports to the U.S. include U.S. content, a share that rises to 40% for vehicles. The effect of these integrated supply chains is to create jobs rather than replace them.

What Trump also overlooks is that Washington’s success in pressuring manufacturers to move production out of China and into low-cost producers — including Mexico — has helped widen the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, a “problem” of Washington’s making. In fact, a 2026 Federal Reserve study found that 53% of the increase in Mexico’s trade deficit with the U.S. over the past five years resulted from U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports.

Despite such clear findings, the Trump administration remains fixated on reducing the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, making a successful review even less likely.

The reshoring illusion

Second, Trump is wedded to the idea of “reshoring,” or bringing production back to the U.S. But that position runs against the trade deal’s logic of “nearshoring,” or bringing production back to North America. That was the principle also embedded in NAFTA.

This reshoring obsession drove Washington’s refusal to exempt Mexican steel and aluminum exports from the 50% tariff that the administration imposed in mid-2025 and provide only a partial exemption on a 25% tariff on autos and auto parts. It’s also behind Trump’s demand to add a high minimum U.S. content requirement in autos.

Taken together, the levies and demands by Trump will likely stymie a successful review of the pact that replaced NAFTA.

Coercion through chaos

Finally, Trump and his team believe that advancing Washington’s interests depends on wielding U.S. power to coerce other countries. This includes using tariffs not merely to redirect international trade but to pressure allies and adversaries alike to meet U.S. demands.

Mexico and Canada were the first two targets of this coercive tool in February 2025, when Trump slapped tariffs on all Mexican and Canadian exports to force their leaders to cooperate on migration and drug policies.

Although the goods that fell under the 2020 trade pact were quickly declared exempt and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the legal foundation for those levies was unconstitutional, Trump’s desire to exploit the coercive power of tariffs persists. He has no incentive to ink a trade agreement that limits his power to impose tariffs at will.

He restated this indifference in June 2026, when he asserted that he wasn’t “looking to renew” the pact because he believes the U.S. would do better without it.

“We don’t need anything that Canada has,” he added. “We don’t need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have. They have to treat us better.”

Implications of annual reviews

Mexico needs investors to have the certainty provided by a successful review.

But without knowing the future rules of the road, investors are sitting on the sidelines, which is weakening the country’s growth strategy tied to nearshoring. As a result, Mexico has focused on preserving the 2020 agreement — even if this means a more ad hoc cycle of annual reviews — because it still guarantees a lower tariff rate compared with what other countries face with Trump in the White House.

Indeed, in a private conversation, a Mexican official told me that keeping this lower rate is a core objective in Mexico’s trade talks with the United States.

Although not ideal, this outcome would protect the North American supply chains that drive growth in a country where exports account for 37% of its GDP.

But for Americans, an unsuccessful review followed by ongoing talks without resolution has few upsides. Instead, it’s likely to weaken the U.S. competitive advantage relative to China — all while Trump’s trade policy leaves them grappling with higher prices on products such as cars and trucks and with no uptick in job creation.

Pamela K. Starr, Professor of the Practice of Political Science and International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Venezuela and its capital, Caracas, were rocked by two massive earthquake pulses on June 24, just seconds apart. The shaking from the magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 events caused buildings to collapse in cities across the northern part of the country, killing more than 500 people and trapping many more.

Geophysicist Sylvain Barbot of the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences explained what’s known about the earthquake pulses so far, what risks are still ahead and why Californians should pay attention.

How many earthquakes hit Venezuela, and why did it see so much damage?

Earthquakes are natural phenomena that typically happen at the boundaries of Earth’s tectonic plates. These plates, which make up the Earth’s crust, are tens of miles thick and carry the oceans and continents. They are slowly moving, but not in a smooth, consistent way.

Venezuela sits along the boundary between two of these plates: The South American plate and the Caribbean plate. As they slide past each other, these plates can stick, building up resistance before eventually having a catastrophic failure that generates an earthquake.

There were two big pulses of seismic activity within 39 seconds of each other on June 24, 2026, both over magnitude 7. They could have been separate events or a single earthquake with two pulses. Scientists don’t yet know because we’re still analyzing the data.

Two separate earthquakes is plausible. In 2023, there was an earthquake “doublet” in Turkey, where two magnitude 7-plus earthquakes happened within eight hours of each other. In that case, it was clearly two events.

In Venezuela the pulses were just a few seconds apart. There have been earthquakes of this magnitude in the past that ruptured different segments of very long faults, creating the appearance of two different earthquakes but that were actually ruptures from the same event.

What triggers destructive earthquakes like this?

Earthquakes are controlled by how rocks resist shear and stress. The stress can build up over years or decades until it overcomes the strength of the rocks, making them break. When that happens, the stress propagates and the rupture grows.

That’s not a gradual motion. Within seconds, the plates quickly move, causing an earthquake. This happens several miles underground, where the temperature and pressure are both very high.

That action is difficult to reproduce in a laboratory and involves many processes, from mechanics to chemistry to the motion of fluids. But the outcome is simple: There is a rupture that involves the sliding of rocks past one other that creates a surface rupture that breaks everything in its path, causing damage.

Are there similarities between the fault system in Venezuela and California’s San Andreas?

The faults involved in Venezuela’s earthquake and California’s San Andreas are very similar. They are known as transform faults, where this strike-slip motion happens as plates slide horizontally past each other.

Even the rates of motion are quite similar. In Venezuela the boundaries move past each other at about 0.8 inches (20 millimeters) per year on average. Along the San Andreas Fault it’s slightly faster, about 1.2 inches (30 millimeters) per year.

They also create large magnitude earthquakes at similar frequencies. On the San Andreas Fault, scientists expect on average a large earthquake of magnitude 7 or above every 170 years or so, with the timing varying along the fault. However, this is not clockwork — it can be much more frequent or much less.

Southern California’s last “big one” was the Fort Tejon earthquake of 1857, a powerful magnitude 7.9. A recent study suggested the stress along the southern San Andreas is stronger now than it has been in at least 1,000 years. If the assumptions of the work are correct, it may be ready for a rupture. But there is great variability in how frequently big earthquakes happen, so it may be another 100 years or it could happen tomorrow. We just don’t know.

Many earthquakes have happened on these faults in the past. That alone is reason for communities to have strong seismic codes for buildings and infrastructure, such as bridges and hospitals, and emergency preparedness plans.

Have scientists identified warning signs that might suggest an earthquake is imminent?

Scientists have been actively looking for reliable precursors that could generate warnings of an impending rupture, but we don’t yet have reliable signals.

There are anecdotal cases of seismic swarms before a large rupture that, in hindsight, could have provided some clues to possibly detect early signs of future large ruptures. But that isn’t always the case. Machine learning has identified systematic changes of microseismic activity that precedes large ruptures, and some studies of the physics of earthquakes have started to provide explanations of why that happens.

So, there is hope that in the future we’ll be able to connect the dots and have a good understanding of the mechanics. But we’re not there yet.

We can, however, pick up short-term warnings to issue alerts.

Once an earthquake has started, it generates seismic waves of different kinds that propagate at different speeds. The ones that propagate fastest arrive first, and they can be detected, allowing scientists to predict the second and third waves, which are slower and generally more destructive.

After the first waves, called the P waves, you have the S wave — the shear waves — that are a little more intense. And after those you have the surface waves. The first P waves can trigger early warning systems, giving people just seconds, but that’s enough time to stop traffic and shut down gas pipelines, fast-moving trains and infrastructure that is sensitive to shaking. It may be enough time to find cover to avoid being killed in your office or at home by the collapse of the building.

What risks does Venezuela face now?

We know a lot about the tectonics of these regions because geologists have spent decades mapping these faults and learning about their behavior. But to understand this particular event, scientists need to be at the scene to see the extent of damage and assess the extent of the rupture itself.

Meanwhile, earthquakes bring other hazards. The shaking is followed by a period of months or years when the region becomes more prone to landslides because the rocks have moved.

That means the next rainstorm will likely trigger landslides, so Venezuela can expect more damage, more hazards and perhaps more deaths.

This article, originally published June 26, 2026, has been updated with the death toll rising.

Sylvain Barbot, Professor of Earth Sciences, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Did the founders of the United States intend to create a Christian nation?

Political leaders who addressed a prayer rally on the National Mall on May 17, 2026, seem to think so: House Speaker Mike Johnson led the crowd in “rededicat(ing) the United States of America as one nation under God.”

Some, and perhaps many, scholars would say no: that while many founders were religious, as a group they concluded that the national government should not support any particular faith.

As a scholar of Colonial North America, I believe that history provides an answer. European colonizers in lands that became the United States did link church and state. But the architects of the new nation broke from that idea as surely as they broke from Britain.

‘Doctrine of Discovery’

The European desire to expand the boundaries of Christendom played a central role in the Colonial era, as I describe in my 2026 book, “Contested Continent.”

That drive mattered greatly to Christopher Columbus, who sailed west in 1492. Upon landing in the Bahamas, he laid claim to already populated territories, writing that Christ would rejoice “as he foresees that so many souls of so many people heretofore lost are to be saved.”

The “Doctrine of Discovery,” proclaimed by the Vatican in 1493, granted European monarchs title over lands occupied by non-Christians and urged them to convert the people who lived there.

New church

Less than a generation later, the Protestant Reformation transformed Christianity, dividing Europe and spawning brutal violence.

In England, the schism reshaped the relationship between church and state. King Henry VIII severed ties with the pope in the 1530s. He ordered the dissolution of monasteries, and his followers defaced church statues of Catholic saints.

After Henry rejected Rome’s authority, Parliament passed the Supremacy Act of 1534, which made the monarch the leader of an independent national church, the Church of England.

Queen Elizabeth I, Henry’s daughter, further reduced the political power of English Catholics in 1559. Her desire to promote her Protestant faith, along with a yearning to expand England’s political authority, helped fuel a vicious campaign to take control of Ireland, where the Reformation’s teachings had not taken hold.

Protestant migrants

The desire to promote Protestantism also figured in English plans for the colonization of North America.

In the 1580s, an expedition sent by Sir Walter Raleigh arrived on the Outer Banks of what is now North Carolina. They were eager to learn about the region’s natural resources and its peoples. English colonial planners also hoped to convert Carolina Algonquians, and to keep Catholics away. A small group of Jesuit priests had already tried to establish a mission on a tributary of Chesapeake Bay in 1571, but they were killed by Indigenous people.

Thomas Harriot, who chronicled the English efforts when he arrived in 1585, believed that Carolina Algonquians would convert to Protestantism. In fact, he wrote, Native people were so eager to accept the faith that they grabbed a Bible “to embrace it, to kisse it, to hold it to their bre(a)sts” in order to absorb the lessons it contained.

In 1607, the Virginia Company of London established a settlement at Jamestown, promising, according to the colony’s 1609 charter, that colonization would lead to “the conversion and reduccion of the people in those partes unto the true worshipp of God and Christian religion.” To advance their goal, they tried to bar anyone holding “the superstitions of the Churche of Rome.” Colonists had to swear the oath of supremacy to the English monarch, which meant accepting the Church of England.

Within a generation, other Protestants arrived in English America, including critics of the Church of England who are now often called “Pilgrims.” Puritans, who migrated soon after, held similar beliefs. Persecuted in England for their dissenting views, they arrived eager to demonstrate to the world that they knew the best ways to advance a civilization, based on their interpretation of Scripture.

Among these migrants was John Winthrop, a leader of the Massachusetts Bay colony. In 1630, he wrote what became the most famous sermon in early America — although he was not a minister and likely never delivered it to a congregation.

Winthrop advocated the blending of church and state. As he put it, drawing on the Bible’s Book of Matthew, “We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” Colonists’ failure, he suggested, would be a victory for the enemies of God.

Competition for American souls

English advocates of colonization were aware that Catholics had been erecting churches in modern-day Mexico and Peru. Protestants feared that Rome’s influence might spread across the East Coast, moving southward from French Canada and northward from Spanish Florida. While English authorities allowed limited migration of Catholics, especially to Maryland, their Colonies remained Protestant strongholds.

No single official church establishment stretched across the 13 Colonies that would eventually join in the American Revolution. But church and state were closely related in each.

Towns across New England taxed residents to support local Congregational churches, which evolved out of Puritan traditions. Colonial governments established the Church of England in Virginia in 1619 and in New York in 1693.

Pennsylvania’s 1682 frame of government promised that law-abiding people would not be persecuted for their religious views or forced to worship. But those who held public office needed to “possess faith in Jesus Christ.” Even Rhode Island, famous for its tradition of tolerance, specified in its 1663 charter that residents should edify “themselves, and one another, in the holie Christian faith.”

A revolutionary achievement

By the mid-1770s, many Colonial Americans decided that the time had come to separate from Great Britain. Many also wanted to separate church and state.

In 1777, just a year after he drafted the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom. As he put it, one’s ability to serve the public should “have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than on our opinions in physics or geometry.” When the statute became law in Virginia in 1786, it protected freedom of worship and ended taxes to support the Church of England.

Article 6 of the United States Constitution, written in Philadelphia in 1787, forbade any religious oaths for those who wanted to hold office. The First Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in late 1791, held that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The leaders of the American Revolution did not agree on all matters of faith. But had they wanted public support of religious institutions, they had plenty of models at hand — including the Church of England.

They decided, instead, that a durable republic could best survive if politics and religion inhabited different spheres. This recognition contradicted almost two centuries of Colonial practice, making it among the most radical achievements of the founding era.

Peter C. Mancall, Distinguished Professor, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities, Linda and Harlan Martens Director of the Early Modern Studies Institute, and professor of history, anthropology, and economics, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

U.S. Army 1st Lt. Allison Parra faced one of the toughest challenges of her military career not long after graduating from the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts: the Army’s Sapper Leader Course.

The elite combat-engineering school, often compared to Ranger School for Army engineers, is known for its punishing physical demands and sleep deprivation along with leadership evaluations. Students carry heavy loads over long distances while operating under intense pressure.

Parra arrived nearly convinced she wouldn’t make it. “There’s no way I pass this,” she recalls thinking.

At one point, after being required to repeat part of the course, she considered quitting. Sick, exhausted and physically depleted, she felt she had reached her limit. But a fellow soldier offered some simple advice: “Quit tomorrow.”

The next day, she stayed. Then she stayed another day. And another, until she graduated.

The confidence to attempt the course, Parra says, was built over years of encouragement from leaders who pushed her to take on difficult challenges, including USC Army ROTC mentors who continued to support her long after she commissioned.

The experience left her physically depleted but emotionally stronger. “I definitely proved to myself that I may not be the smartest. I may not be the most athletic. But if I set my mind to something, I’m going to accomplish it,” she says.

A confidence boost leads to USC and ROTC

Parra, who graduated from USC Dornsife in 2024 with a psychology degree, grew up in a military family, moving frequently before eventually settling in San Diego. Her parents served in the Air Force. Her grandfather fought in Vietnam. And her sister serves in the Army today.

Military service always felt like a near certainty. College, on the other hand, did not.

As a teenager, Parra struggled academically. Her grades suffered during her freshman year of high school, and she began to see herself as someone who simply wasn’t good at school.

Then she moved with her mother to Arizona for a year, where the high school used a different curriculum that fit her better. For the first time, she excelled academically, earning a 4.0 GPA, and she discovered a newfound confidence.

“I was told at a young age that I wasn’t good in school,” she says. “Then the second I was told, ‘No, you’re doing a good job,’ I wanted to ride that wave.”

The experience altered the trajectory of her life.

Though she nearly enlisted after high school, Parra instead applied to college. USC had long been her dream school, thanks in part to her father’s lifelong enthusiasm for Trojan football.

Army ROTC made attending USC financially possible. But Parra says the program ultimately became much more than a scholarship. While exploring ROTC opportunities, she found herself drawn to USC’s program because of the support she received from its cadre and recruiters.

“They really guided me along in the process and were always there to help me with anything I needed,” she says.

Over the next four years, ROTC became one of the places where Parra learned to lead. Alongside her coursework, she developed decision-making skills and resilience expected of future Army officers.

Just as important, she found strong mentors, and years after she graduated, they remain trusted sources of advice and encouragement for her.

“Having these people in your back pocket when you’re going through something tough,” she says, “they can definitely help you out.”

USC’s ROTC programs are administered by the USC Price School of Public Policy, and any undergraduate at the university is eligible to apply.

USC launched its support of America’s military in 1914, when it opened a training school for U.S. Army officers. It began hosting ROTC in the 1940s. Graduates include highly decorated military and civilian leaders, such as four-star generals, astronauts, Medal of Honor recipients, and top-level government officials.

USC Dornsife ROTC student finds her footing as a leader

Parra arrived at USC planning to study biology and eventually attend medical school but soon found herself drawn toward psychology. The major proved to be a natural fit as she dove into human behavior and mental health, guided by USC Dornsife scholars.

She gained lessons outside the classroom, as well. A lifelong rugby player, Parra sought out the USC team hoping to join but discovered the program had fizzled. So she contacted alumni, recruited players, worked through university approvals and secured practice space. Eventually, the team returned.

The effort reflected a pattern that would define much of her time at the university. Whether serving as president of the rugby club, managing the men’s rugby team or helping lead USC’s Barbell Club, Parra repeatedly stepped into roles that required her to create opportunities rather than wait for them.

“I feel more purpose when I’m involved in making decisions for something that I truly care about,” she says.

Now, as a platoon leader responsible for 33 soldiers, she draws on her USC experiences daily. “I think it really helps me today, dealing with soldiers and interacting with them on a day-to-day basis,” she says.

Early in her post-USC career — and looking forward

At 24, Parra is still deciding exactly where her career will lead.

She hopes one day to join the Army’s specialized 911th Technical Rescue Engineer Company, an elite unit trained to respond when disasters leave people trapped in collapsed buildings and other dangerous environments.

She says she also hopes to return to USC Army ROTC to help guide future generations of leaders as her mentors helped her.

For now, though, she’s focused on the soldiers entrusted to her care. She says she sees connections between the struggling student she once was, the USC graduate she became and the Army officer she is today. Each challenge taught the same lesson: Confidence doesn’t arrive all at once — sometimes it grows one challenging day at a time.

When the Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, Exxon President Lee Raymond oversaw the cleanup and a US$1 billion federal settlement for the extensive damage to the coastline and wildlife. Afterward, he helped lead a 14-year legal battle that ultimately got courts to cut a $5 billion punitive damages award for business and property owners harmed by the spill to $500 million.

Along the way, Raymond denounced environmentalists as “extremists” and “ideologues,” falsely blaming them for exacerbating a disaster that investigators attributed to errors by the ship’s crew.

But Raymond’s most consequential legacy will be his role in spreading doubt about climate change.

Leveraging his scientific credentials – a Ph.D. in chemical engineering – Raymond, who died on June 9, 2026, at the age of 87, sought to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming.

In a 2005 interview with broadcaster Charlie Rose, Raymond repeated his attempts to link present-day climate change, which is far faster and more severe than at any time in the geological record, to natural causes rather than human activities like burning fossil fuels.

“It has to do with sun spots. It has to do with the wobble of the Earth,” Raymond said before reminding viewers, “Look, I am a scientist.”

Raymond, Exxon’s CEO from 1993 through 2005, including after its 1999 merger with Mobil, made these claims despite mounting global evidence that burning fossil fuels was driving climate change. Exxon’s own scientists had produced some of the most accurate early models of human-caused climate change years earlier, showing how greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels worldwide would continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and raise global temperatures.

Under Raymond’s leadership, Exxon also helped fund a sophisticated climate misinformation network, directing millions of dollars to organizations that promoted climate denial, particularly denial that human activities were fueling climate change, while insisting that the science remained “unsettled.” Internal documents from Exxon and other companies and industry groups have offered insight into how well officials understood the risks they were denying.

Why misinformation works and how to disable it

Climate misinformation ranges from misleading to absurd. Some efforts to mislead the public falsely attribute climate change to natural forces; deny links between greenhouse gas emissions, rising temperatures and extreme weather; and cast doubt on solutions such as renewable energy and electric vehicles.

The most egregious claims portray fossil fuels and global warming as beneficial, while denying the fact that burning fossil fuels raises global temperatures, which increase flooding, drought, sea-level rise and other consequences of climate change. Others veer into conspiracy theory, like alleging that climate-fueled wildfires were deliberately set to destroy child-trafficking tunnels.

As over-the-top as many of these examples may seem, climate misinformation tactics have served as highly effective tools for oil, gas and coal companies in the fight for both public support and to block climate laws and policies that would restrict the use of their products.

Exploiting human psychology

These tactics can succeed because they exploit psychological and social processes that help people evaluate the credibility of information.

For example, fossil fuel-funded think tanks and politicians often reinforce misinformation efforts by pointing to the opinions of scientists with iffy credentials who, nevertheless, seem credible by virtue of the simple fact that they have received Ph.D.s. Getting to the bottom of their actual scientific credentials requires more careful scrutiny of their resumes.

Likewise, misinformation is often built on stories with high emotional appeal. This tactic works for topics like climate change because triggering people’s emotions can cause people to ignore objective data.

Some textbook examples include stories that incite fear and panic that reducing our reliance on oil and gas would lead to both widespread and permanent unemployment and demolish the economy. Similarly, misinformation about climate change seems believable to people when it aligns with their preexisting beliefs or behaviors. And repeated exposure to false claims, such as on social media, can increase the perception that they are credible.

Pre-bunking to inoculate against misinformation

Fighting back against misinformation about climate change has proved to be possible, though not easy. One promising strategy, “pre-bunking,” involves helping people understand the tactics of those spreading misinformation so they can recognize it as false.

Pre-bunking is like a vaccine that protects people’s minds against lies. It can prompt people to ask critical questions about the sources and communication styles of those sharing misinformation and propaganda.

And because funny memes and funny people are both easier to understand and viewed as credible, others have used humor to try to counter climate misinformation. Activists often use humor in their signs or when highlighting the absurdity of false claims, for example.

Critical reasoning is critical – so is courage

An even more important tool is the ability to think critically.

In my work as a psychologist and environmental scientist, critical thinking isn’t just a catchphrase. It hinges on a high degree of self-awareness, which allows us to recognize when our instincts would benefit from a reality check rather than simply ignoring or dismissing information that is inconvenient or that contradicts our initial beliefs.

Critical reasoning also depends on knowing when to seek out and listen to people with more expertise or experience than we possess. And, above all, it requires a willingness to change our minds and behaviors – and to learn from the outcomes after we do – when credible information suggests that we should.

In addition to critical reasoning, addressing climate change, and misinformation about it, requires another important ingredient: courage.

It’s not easy for people to admit when they are uninformed or wrong, or that they might need help from experts.

But it would be wrong to place the burden of courage on the consumer. Doing so would perpetuate another mistruth often peddled by Big Oil: that it’s everyday consumers who are ultimately responsible for causing climate change, and for taking the necessary steps to fix it.

Where the burden of courage really lies

The real burden of courage lies on corporate leaders like Lee Raymond.

It’s no secret in the oil and gas business that the name of the game is protecting investments and assets and generating profits. But companies can do these things while also telling the truth and publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change. To resort to lies and misinformation is a tactic of the weak and desperate.

Not only that, but publicly traded companies that knowingly lie about material risks are breaking the law. By not exhibiting honesty, companies and their executives deprive their shareholders of the opportunity to hold them accountable – accountable for balancing long-term risks, like those from climate change, against short-term financial returns and, ultimately, for ensuring the company and the money invested in it remains viable far into the future.

This is especially true of a company like ExxonMobil, which promotes itself as an energy company, not just a producer of oil and gas. As CEO, Raymond should have known this. And, as someone who liked to remind others that he was a scientist, he should have known better.

Whatever their major, students often think about how to strengthen their work in a field or broaden their knowledge in a new one — and how to demonstrate that focused work to others. Now they have a new way to do that: by building practical knowledge and skills while earning a credential that appears on a diploma and transcript. This opportunity is available to students throughout the university as USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences introduces its first Intensives.

Each Intensive is earned through a sequence of three courses in a particular area of study. Open to all undergraduates, regardless of major or school, the new credentials give students a way to build knowledge and skills in specific areas of academic and professional interest and demonstrate that focused work to prospective employers or graduate schools.

The first three Intensives are:

• Writing and Responsible AI
• AI for Molecular Biology
• Survey Design and Data Analysis

More information about Intensives, including course options for the first three, is available at dornsife.usc.edu/intensives.

The new credentials give students a powerful way to connect their academic work to areas of growing importance in research, industry and public life, said James Bullock, USC Dornsife’s dean.

“A USC Dornsife education already gives students the ability to think critically, communicate clearly and engage with complex problems,” said Bullock. “Intensives build on that foundation by giving students a focused undergraduate credential in areas that matter right now — and to have that expertise recognized on their diploma and transcript.”

The first three Intensives are only the beginning, said Emily Hodgson Anderson, college dean for undergraduate education.

“We’re excited to expand the program in the next academic year,” said Hodgson Anderson. “We see this as the start of a growing set of opportunities for students across USC to pursue focused study in areas that connect academic depth with the world they’re preparing to enter.”

For students planning their fall schedules, Intensives offer something new to consider: how a set of courses can add up to a credential with lasting value in an increasingly competitive market.

Editor’s note: Jim Key contributed to this article.

Long gone are the days of the distant dad.

According to some estimates, the average time dads spend caring for their kids each day has quadrupled over the past 50 years. Their attitudes about parenting are also changing. Today, men are about as likely as mothers to say parenting is a key source of meaning and a central priority in their lives. Roughly 85% of fathers identify parenthood as one of the most important aspects of their identity.

As a parenting researcher who focuses on fathers, I’m pleased to see that dads are so invested in their kids. It correlates with better outcomes for kids, and it reduces pressure on moms.

But there’s a less encouraging trend tucked into these gains. More is being asked of dads — and moms, for that matter — because the extended family and community networks that once supported childrearing have shrunk or deteriorated.

Parenting alone

In researching my new book, Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How it Shapes Men’s Lives, I talked to an anthropologist named Barry Hewlett, who has spent his career studying hunter-gatherer fathers.

One society he studies, the Aka Pygmies of the Central Congo, have been called “the best fathers in the world” for their dedication to childcare. Aka men are frequently observed within arms reach of their infants and take a lead role in raising them. Children are seen as central to men’s lives.

However, if you compare the time Aka dads spent on childcare with recent data on American parents, as parenting writer Tomo Kumaki recently did, you might be surprised.

According to 2024 American Time Use Survey data — considered the gold standard of evidence on how Americans are spending their time — American dads of infants are devoting about 125 minutes a day to what’s called “primary child care,” in which their main activity is tending to the child. They’re spending another 394 minutes on what’s known as “secondary child care,” which involves watching a child while doing something else, such as cooking dinner or straightening up the house.

In contrast, according to Hewlett’s research from the field, Aka fathers of infants spend about 57 minutes a day on primary and 96 minutes a day on secondary childcare.

The minutes American dads relayed should be taken with a grain of salt; it’s a stretch to compare an anthropologist’s direct observations with self-reported time diary data, which can often be subject to bias. Still, it’s striking to see how — based on these calculations, at least — today’s new dads are devoting far more time to parenting than a society described as having the best dads in the world.

When I spoke with him about how fatherhood has changed, Hewlett told me he thinks the role of fathers has taken on more importance today than ever before — not just because mothers are more likely to have jobs outside the home, but because there are simply fewer childcare helpers around.

When you’re surrounded by your kin and neighbors in a communal setting like the Aka, it’s easy to get assistance with kids. Fathers care for children, but so do lots of other people.

A 2021 study of another hunter-gatherer society, the Agta, which lives in the mountains of the Philippines, found that fathers provided only about 7% of child care. Mothers, however, provided only about 25%. The rest came from siblings, grandparents, extended family, peers and other community members, who all pitch in.

A class divide

In much of the industrialized world, daily life is organized around the nuclear family, with relatives and neighbors playing a less central role than they once did.

Today’s fathers contribute more to childcare than even the most hands-on hunter-gatherer dad, because there’s simply less of a village to support shared care.

Even as men are being asked to take on a bigger role in childcare, it’s become harder for some men to do so. That’s because — in the U.S., at least — the time men are able to spend on childcare has become increasingly stratified by class.

Journalists Derek Thompson and Aziz Sunderji analyzed multiple waves of U.S. data collected by the Multinational Time Use Study and were able to show that the significant rise in the time dads spend parenting over the past 60 years has primarily been driven by college-educated fathers.

When the Multinational Time Use Study started in the 1960s, fathers with a college degree were devoting only a few extra minutes per day to childcare compared with noncollege-educated dads. But the gap has quintupled over that time span, such that college-educated dads are now spending 46 more minutes with their kids each day compared with noncollege-educated dads.

So why the growing divide? In part, it’s because benefits such as universal paid paternity leave and stable, flexible work options are available only to dads with good jobs.

Only about half of U.S. fathers take any paid paternity leave following the birth of a new baby, because many employers don’t offer it. In theory, most dads who can’t access paid leave should be eligible for unpaid leave through the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. However, since that legislation doesn’t apply to small businesses or many part-time or gig work situations, about 44% of workers are ineligible for it. Low-wage dads are also often reluctant to take leave because they can’t afford to lose income.

The rise of what sociologists call intensive parenting among the most educated, affluent parents also helps account for some of the class divide in parenting time. As the wealth gap between the richest and poorest Americans has widened over the past 60 years, many parents have been eager to optimize their children’s success. Devoting extra time to children, including monitoring their schoolwork and enrolling them in enrichment activities that require time and money, has become one way for parents with privilege to give their children a leg up.

In my view, hands-on parenting should not be a luxury good. Americans should be fighting for policies that empower all dads, no matter their income, to enjoy time with their children. The village could use some rehabilitation, too, since parents fare best when they have access to community support and stronger connections with their neighbors, friends and family.

Darby Saxbe, Professor of Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A student-designed structure is throwing shade near L.A.’s World Cup matches — but in a good way.

First showcased on June 12 at Los Angeles Metro’s Downtown-Inglewood station during L.A.’s opening World Cup match, the build takes a concept by USC students and puts it to real-world use. The simple framework topped with a hexagonal roof shows how temporary, portable infrastructure could provide more shade for transit riders and pedestrians, and help L.A. adapt to rising temperatures.

Soccer fans and thousands of Exposition Park visitors can now view the structure in front of the California African American Museum. Its prominent location and proximity to the L.A. Memorial Coliseum gave attendees of this weekend’s FIFA Fan Festival a unique opportunity to engage with the installation as part of their overall match day experience at Expo Park.

“This project represents the very best of what higher education can do when student creativity, partnerships with private and public-sector agencies, and community needs come together,” said USC Associate Professor Bhavna Sharma, Director of Chase L. Leavitt Building Science Program, and faculty lead for the Shade Zones Design Competition. “When students see their ideas put into use for the public, it gives a powerful sense of meaning to their work.”

Neri Landi and Jaci Hinman, juniors at the USC School of Architecture, created the design for the structure, which they named “The (Not So) Primitive Hut,” for ShadeLA’s 2025 Shade Zones Design Competition. Made of wood and designed to fit a sidewalk or fill a plaza, it features an intricate lattice covering that provides shade for guests standing or sitting beneath it.

Amid full-time classes and the demands of finals and other student projects, Hinman and Landi spent three months working alongside a team of engineering, architecture, and construction professionals from Arup, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), and advised by MATT Construction to build the structure.

Autodesk, the project’s leading supporter, gave the students access to Autodesk Forma to bring their ideas to life and donated the funds to construct the winning design.

Fifty student teams from throughout L.A. submitted entries to the 2025 Shade Zones Design Competition, which called for designs for shade systems that can be built quickly and easily, and moved across a variety of public settings.

The 2026 competition gets underway this fall and will engage students in designing permanent structures for the public right-of-way across L.A. County. The competition plans to return for a third round in 2027.

“The Shade Zones Build was so different from anything I had done before,” Hinman said. “The hard deadline pushed everyone involved to make thoughtful decisions at every step, which I think was a blessing in disguise. It kept us on track and helped maintain a cohesive theme throughout the entire design process.”

Landi said he appreciated the project’s demands. “It forced us to continue iterating on our design, working closely with structural engineers and designers to ensure that the project could be transformed from an idea to a tangible reality. I learned so much about how to negotiate real-world constraints and consider all aspects of the design process.”

Shade Zones — a collaboration among Sharma, USC School of Architecture, and USC Dornsife Public Exchange — is part of the broader ShadeLA coalition. And while the current installation is a single structure, ShadeLA organizers see it as the first step in a larger effort to rethink how shade can be integrated into public space across the region ahead of major global events, including the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

“The goal is not just one successful structure,” said Max Teirstein, USC Dornsife Public Exchange and Shade Zones Project Manager. “It’s creating scalable solutions that can help cool neighborhoods across Los Angeles for years to come.”

When sophomore Jacqueline Morales arrived at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, she had a clear vision for her future. A biochemistry major, she planned to pursue a career in medicine while exploring opportunities that blended her interests in science, health and service.

This led her to the USC Dornsife Alumni Mentorship Program, where she discovered that some of the most valuable opportunities are the ones you don’t expect.

Matched with alumnus Jorge Osuna ’13, director of technical services at Gilead Sciences, Morales found a mentor who encouraged her to pursue opportunities beyond her immediate interests and remain open to experiences that could broaden her perspective.

Acting on that guidance, Morales applied for research positions she might otherwise have overlooked and ultimately joined the lab of James Moffett, professor of biological sciences and civil and environmental engineering at USC Dornsife. Under Moffett’s direction, she helps measure levels of the rare-earth metal gadolinium in Los Angeles rivers and harbors as a tracer of municipal sewage inputs.

Morales’ story reflects the mission of the Alumni Mentorship Program, which connects students with alumni for career exploration, networking and professional development. Through conversations and activities tailored to their goals and interests, students gain insights from alumni who have already navigated many of the paths they hope to pursue.

Throughout their mentorship, Morales and Osuna, who graduated with a PhD in chemistry from USC Dornsife, discussed academic and professional goals and explored the many possibilities available to someone with a STEM background.

Osuna also partnered with fellow mentor and USC Dornsife alum Gerard Jensen ’94 to host joint Zoom meetings that brought together multiple mentors and students, creating opportunities for networking, peer learning and conversations about a wide range of career paths.

“Prior to the program, I was primarily focused on pursuing a career in medicine,” Morales says. “Through conversations with my mentors and learning about their professional experiences, I became more open to exploring opportunities in fields such as biopharmaceuticals and biotechnology.”

Alumni mentors build their legacy by helping ensure students’ success

Across USC Dornsife, alumni mentors help students build professional skills, expand their networks and gain confidence as they prepare for life after graduation.

For Osuna, mentorship is rooted in gratitude.

“My motivation to become a mentor comes from a genuine desire to help others in the same way I was helped throughout my life,” he says. “I’ve been fortunate to have educators, mentors, coaches and peers who took an interest in my development and played a meaningful role in shaping my education and career.”

Retired financial planner Leon Laub, who graduated from USC Dornsife with a BA in Spanish in 1980 and an MBA from the USC Marshall School of Business in 1990, has participated in the mentorship program for three years. He helps students strengthen résumés and LinkedIn profiles while they navigate internships, graduate school applications and career opportunities.

Shanelle Sua ’16, who leads recruiting and development at financial planning firm Strategic View Advisors, was motivated to mentor by her own experience as a USC student.

“I remember being lost and confused about my future, and the people who mentored me really helped me,” says Sua, who graduated with a degree in international relations with an emphasis in global business from USC Dornsife. “I want to do the same now that I’ve been able to establish my career.”

Meaningful connections create lasting impact

While students gain guidance and professional connections, mentors also find the experience rewarding.

“Mentorship creates a two-way exchange,” says Osuna. “Mentees gain guidance and insight, while mentors gain fresh perspectives, renewed curiosity and a sense of fulfillment.”

For Morales, that exchange gave her a broader perspective on what her future could become.

“I am more excited about discovering new fields, gaining diverse experiences and remaining open to career paths that align with my interests and strengths as they continue to develop,” she says.

Recruitment for next year’s Alumni Mentorship Program will begin over the summer, with invitations and program details shared via email. Check the program webpage frequently for updates, as well, at dornsife.usc.edu/careerpathways/mentorship-programs/.

Just weeks after graduating from the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Darnell Adler won the top prize in a global innovation competition for students and first-time founders.

Adler’s startup, Lifeline AI, won Red Bull Basement’s 2026 World Final in San Francisco, earning $100,000 in equity-free funding, $25,000 in Microsoft Azure credits and mentorship from Red Bull Ventures.

The competition drew more than 135,000 ideas from 40 countries. Adler’s winning concept is a personal safety platform designed to help people discreetly call for help in moments when taking out a phone and speaking or dialing 911 may be unsafe.

For Adler, who graduated in May with a degree in economics from USC Dornsife, the victory capped a whirlwind few weeks that included final exams, graduation and two rounds of high-stakes pitching. It also brought him back to his hometown, where his family was in the audience when Lifeline AI was named the global winner.

USC Dornsife News spoke with Adler about the idea behind Lifeline AI, what it was like to win on a world stage and how his USC Dornsife experience helped prepare him to build something he hopes will make people safer.

How did the idea for Lifeline AI begin?

When you’re a guy, you don’t always think about your own personal safety as much as other people might. What really sparked the idea was that something bad happened to someone close to me. That made me realize this wasn’t just something that could happen to someone I love. It’s a global issue.

I started running surveys and talking to people. In one survey with 137 people, 99% said they wished they had a safety tool like Lifeline AI. That helped me understand how many people could use something like this and how important it is to build tools that can help make the world safer for the people we love.

What does Lifeline AI do, and how does it work?

Lifeline AI is everything in a police report delivered in seconds, without ever taking your phone out of your pocket.

It allows someone to trigger a silent SOS without anyone around them knowing. With one gesture, nobody hears it and nobody sees it, but the important information from that situation can be sent to the people who need it — friends, trusted contacts or even emergency responders.

How did the idea evolve as you developed it?

At first, I had a product that was completely different. I wasn’t necessarily thinking enough about what consumers would actually want or use.

So I went to potential users and asked them directly: “This is what I have. Would this work?” And they told me straight up, “No, this is not what we need. This is not what we would use.”

Taking that feedback completely changed the product. It pushed me to build a tool designed around the moments when people need help most.

How did you get involved with Red Bull Basement?

I had no clue what Red Bull Basement was.

I played club lacrosse at USC, and our team manager was a Red Bull student marketeer. She told me I should apply. I’m pretty sure it was one of the last days to apply, and I think I got my application in with about 15 minutes left.

Thank God I did.

What was it like to hear Lifeline AI named the global winner?

I still don’t think I have the words for it.

There was a lot going through my head. I never thought I’d be in that position. Being in my hometown of San Francisco, surrounded by the other finalists, who were all congratulating me, and hearing my family a couple of aisles away; it was surreal.

Just hearing everyone so excited, and knowing that Lifeline AI can actually help build a safer world, was an incredible feeling.

You graduated from USC Dornsife just before the World Final. What was that stretch like?

During finals week, I actually had to push some of my finals because I had the Red Bull Basement national final. I was trying to prepare my product, understand my pitch and study for five different courses at the same time.

Once I walked across the stage at graduation, I felt like a weight had been lifted. Then I went fully into build mode.

Being able to walk at graduation and then walk across the World Final stage — and receive that recognition — is hard to put into words.

Why did you choose economics at USC Dornsife?

Economics is such a broad and powerful major. It gives you the ability to go into so many different areas, including real estate, quantitative work and entrepreneurship.

I also had some of the best professors in economics. They helped me understand myself and how to think about the things I wanted to build. All credit to Dornsife.

How did your USC Dornsife education help prepare you for this moment?

Everything I learned in class helped me think about building products.

In statistics, for example, I worked on projects using regressions and thinking through real estate markets. I was always taking things I learned in class and bringing them into products I was passionate about.

USC Dornsife also gives you the ability to figure yourself out. It’s broad enough that you can explore different avenues, but it also pushes you to make the most of your time. At USC, every person you meet can open another door.

What’s next for Lifeline AI?

Because Lifeline AI deals with people’s lives, trust is the most important thing. We have to take things one step at a time and make sure we get it right.

The goal is for Lifeline AI to become the global standard for calling for help — until no one has to choose between their safety and their silence.

Editor’s note: This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.