SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " hostility " 20 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Woman Says She Was Threatened After Using a Nearby Business’ Bathroom: ‘The Front Desk Dude Has Serious Issues’
Taylor, or @adyaguilera2.0 on TikTok, posted a video about the time she used a bathroom and was met with hostility. Somehow, the interaction escalated after a man who worked at a nearby business had p...
A New York Times article claimed hostility by Mary Peltola. Will it affect Alaska’s Senate race?
Additional reporting shows conflicts between Alaskans and East Coast staff during Peltola’s term in Congress.
No More ‘Trump Avenue’: Canada’s Capital Moves to Rename Street Amid Tense Trade War
“I don't like the idea of anything that's named for Donald Trump, who's demonstrated hostility towards Canada,” said Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, referring to the all-out trade war.
Irish PM worried over hostility to politicians after lawmaker assaulted
Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin on Thursday condemned an assault on an independent politician as "an attack on democracy" and said the country needed to take very seriously a rise in hostility to those in office.
Sexual And Reproductive Health Is ‘On The Frontline’ Of Anti-Science Attacks
The defenders of sexual and reproductive health and rights are on the frontline of the “heightened hostility to science, fact, and truth, directly facing the
Sexual And Reproductive Health Is ‘On The Frontline’ Of Anti-Science Attacks
The defenders of sexual and reproductive health and rights are on the frontline of the “heightened hostility to science, fact, and truth, directly facing the
The Latest: Canadian Prime Minister Carney tells Trump: ‘Stop trying to be tough’
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is pushing back against a fresh wave of hostility from Washington, telling the Trump administration Tuesday to “stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough.”.
Science Philanthropy in a Democracy Under Pressure
Lessons from Brazil on how science philanthropy can and should act in the face of political hostility.
Curing U.S. Health Care, Part II
On March 23, 2010 President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — usually referred to either as the Affordable Care Act or as Obamacare — into law. Joe Biden, then the vice president, could be overheard whispering “This is a big fucking deal.” And it was. The ACA, which went into full effect in 2014, created a system of subsidies and regulations designed to make health insurance available to many Americans who had previously been left out. It worked: In 2010 there were 47 million uninsured people in America, but by 2016 this number had dropped to 27 million. This still fell short of the universal health insurance that every other advanced nation has, but it was real progress. In 2017, during his first term, Donald Trump tried to destroy the ACA, replacing it with the American Health Care Act — legislation that would have eliminated most of the provisions that expanded health insurance under Obama. At the time the Congressional Budget Office projected that the G.O.P.’s replacement bill would nearly double the number of Americans without health insurance, increasing the total uninsured population by 23 million and undoing all of the progress achieved under the ACA. However, the attack on Obamacare failed by one vote in the Senate, and the ensuing public backlash against the G.O.P. delivered a large victory in the 2018 midterms to the Democrats. After these developments many observers assumed that the ACA had become a more or less permanent feature of American life. Such assessments, however, failed to take into account the deep hostility of the U.S. right toward policies that expand access to healthcare. As we’ll see, this hostility goes back generations. And the second Trump administration has taken actions that the CBO projects will add 16 million people to the rolls of the uninsured by 2034. How did we get here? And now what? Today’s primer will analyze the political economy of U.S. healthcare since the 1940s and the combination of danger and opportunity created by the current crisis. Beyond the paywall I will discuss the following: US health care on the eve of Trump II 80 years of US health politics The Obamacare story The new assault on healthcare
The Guardian view on AI politics: US datacentre protests are a warning to big tech
Editorial: In both Republican and Democratic states, scepticism and hostility towards an unregulated construction boom is growing
Note to Colorado lawmakers — parents protecting kids isn’t abuse, it’s their job
By Matt Sharp and Sharon Supp During the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made at least one thing clear: Colorado is consistently overreaching to apply its laws in unconstitutional ways. Colorado treated a cake artist with hostility because of his religious beliefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state […]
Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras - April 7, 2026
Deliberative democracy advocates argue that deliberation can strengthen democracy in part by reducing partisan hostility and affective polarization. Yet - Why Do Deliberative Discussions Reduce Affective Polarization? Evidence from a Deliberation Experiment in Honduras April 7, 2026
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Trump staffs science and technology panel with non-scientists
Appointee list is in keeping with the administration's hostility toward science.
What a Recent Court Win Reveals About the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Attacks on Climate Science
This article was originally published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The second Trump administration is taking its hostility to climate science to new levels. In addition to its rhetoric dismissing climate change as a con or scam, recently released government documents show how the adm
The Republicans Made Peace With Science
The Trump administration’s hostility to science is real, but it isn’t matched by the rest of the GOP.
Pride and unease: US Winter Olympians navigate politics, patriotism and Trump attacks
Some athletes at the Milano Cortina Games speaking out on the complications of representing the US abroad are facing hostility from home
2025 Has Been a Year of Unraveling Progress in Health
From vaccine hostility to the dismantling of USAID, the consequences of this year’s retrenchments will be felt for years to come.