A two-pronged vaccine approach to prevent genital herpes

Yale University

Email

Genital herpes is a lifelong infection. While available treatments can manage symptoms, they cannot cure the infection or prevent transmission. Now, Yale School of Medicine researchers have taken a significant step toward a genital herpes vaccine that in preclinical models prevented infection.

In a study published June 19 in Science Immunology, researchers evaluated a two-part vaccination against genital herpes. With the technique, the first part — a typical intramuscular injection like you would receive for a flu shot, for example — is followed by the introduction of nanoparticles to the vagina, where herpes infection occurs in women.

The idea is the initial injection “primes” the immune system while the second localized treatment “pulls” immune activity right to where infection takes place. This study extends the original “prime and pull” approach by developing a new nanoparticle that effectively induces local immunity.

“We’ve found that, in preclinical experiments, this approach is a safe way to recruit the right immune cells in the right place to generate protective immunity,” said senior author Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology at Yale School of Medicine.

A two-pronged vaccine for genital herpes immunity

Efforts to develop a genital herpes vaccine have uncovered a key limitation of typical intramuscular injections: They do not establish robust immune cell populations or antibodies against the herpes virus at the vaginal lining where the virus is introduced in women. This limits the extent of immune attack against the herpes virus.

To address this challenge, the Iwasaki lab has explored methods to “pull” an immune response to the vaginal lining. They first tested whether introducing chemokines — proteins that can direct immune cells — to the vagina could establish immunity there. That technique led to only partial protection against herpes as it did not engage necessary immune cells called B cells.

They then evaluated a DNA molecule that stimulates the immune system. While it did reduce the amount of virus at the vagina, it also caused inflammation.

So the researchers wondered if combining the two methods might yield the best of both worlds.

“We had these two really promising strategies in the lab, but each had some shortcoming,” said Sachin Bhagchandani, a postdoc in Iwasaki’s lab and lead author of the study. “So we set out to formulate a particle that could overcome those shortcomings.”

Nanoparticles prevent herpes infection

The result of that work is BEACON (Bioactive Enhanced Adjuvant Chemokine Oligonucleotide Nanoparticles). The researchers made these nanoparticles by linking a piece of immunostimulating DNA to a chemokine.

“Sachin led this work, creating a nanoparticle that was stable and effective, which was no small feat,” said Iwasaki, who is also a professor of dermatology and of epidemiology, as well as an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

For the study, the researchers first primed female mice with an intramuscular vaccination against the herpes virus and then applied BEACON and virus antigen intravaginally. They found that BEACON established strong immune cell and antibody responses against the herpes virus in the vaginal tissue and that it lasted long term, at least six months.

When exposed to the herpes virus, mice given the “prime and pull” treatment were highly resistant to infection: 80% displayed no signs of disease over six months. That’s compared with just 40% of mice that received the intramuscular injection alone.

“That showed us that this approach could be profoundly impactful, establishing local immune responses for a significantly long period of time,” said Bhagchandani.

Further, BEACON enabled the researchers to target the right cells for generating immunity, rather than broadly affecting all cells. This meant they needed less of the DNA molecule than they used in previous experiments, and this smaller amount prevented the development of inflammation.

“This formulation is quite remarkable in that way,” said Iwasaki.

A vaccine for humans

The researchers are now evaluating whether this “prime and pull” method can be used to treat infection as well as prevent it. They’re also thinking about what this might look like for people.

“We’re collaborating with the Appel lab at Stanford to see if we can turn BEACON into translatable formulation, such as a vaginal suppository,” said Bhagchandani. “We’re also exploring a nasal approach wherein the ‘pull’ happens in the nose, which would allow this kind of treatment to work for men as well.”

While further down the road, the researchers aim to test this method in human clinical trials, because ultimately, the goal is to develop a vaccine for humans.

“A lot of the suffering patients go through is not just physical; it’s mental and societal,” said Iwasaki. “But viruses are the same — whether it’s the flu or Epstein-Barr virus or herpes simplex, it’s not the person’s fault that they caught it. And yet there’s a lot of stigma. We hope that this kind of strategy will prevent diseases that affect people in a profound way.”

---

DOI

10.1126/sciimmunol.aea6419 

Article Title

Bioactive enhanced adjuvant chemokine oligonucleotide nanoparticles (BEACONs) for mucosal vaccination against genital herpes

Article Publication Date

19-Jun-2026

FOR PROFIT MEDICINE VS PUBLIC HEALTHCARE 

US launches trade probe into Germany over medicine prices

Copyright AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi

By Johanna Urbancik

Published on 19/06/2026 - EURONEWS

Washington accuses Berlin of keeping the prices it pays for new medicines too low, while the US market pays significantly more for the same products. If the investigation finds Germany's policies are unfair, the United States could impose punitive tariffs.

The United States has launched a trade investigation into Germany's drug pricing policies.

Washington says it wants to examine whether innovative medicines are undervalued in Germany, leaving US patients to shoulder a disproportionate share of pharmaceutical research and development costs.

The announcement was made on Thursday in a statement by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who said the investigation would determine whether Germany's "persistent underpayment for innovative pharmaceutical products by Germany is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts US commerce."

The investigation follows months of discussions between Washington and Berlin aimed at resolving the dispute.

The Trump administration argues that Germany's pricing system, which includes negotiated discounts and mandatory rebates, suppresses the prices paid for new medicines. US officials say this leaves American patients bearing a larger share of the costs of developing new drugs.

"I am particularly concerned by reports that Germany is fast-tracking legislation that would further reduce spending on innovative medicines," Greer said.

Relat

The move follows a directive issued by President Donald Trump on 12 May 2025, instructing the US Trade Representative to take action against foreign policies that force American patients to pay a disproportionate share of global pharmaceutical research and development costs.

"President Trump has made clear that American patients should not be shouldering a disproportionate share of global pharmaceutical research and development," Greer said.

If the investigation concludes that Germany's policies are unfair, the US could impose tariffs or other trade restrictions under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

The US has requested consultations with Germany, while a public hearing is scheduled for September.

Germany's health reform draws US criticism

For years, the United States has argued that European healthcare systems benefit from lower drug prices, while American consumers bear a larger share of the cost of pharmaceutical innovation.

Washington is particularly critical of the German government's planned healthcare reform.

The reform is intended to help plug a multibillion-euro funding gap in Germany's public health insurance system and includes, among other things, additional savings contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

At the heart of the initial plans was a dynamic manufacturer rebate linked to trends in drug prices and the revenues of health insurers.

Under the government's latest proposals, the industry is still expected to make a financial contribution to stabilising the health insurance funds. However, instead of a variable mechanism, discussions are now focusing on a fixed surcharge on the existing manufacturer discount.

At the same time, Federal Health Minister Nina Warken (CDU) has proposed exempting companies from additional rebates if they conduct clinical trials in Germany. The aim is to strengthen Germany as a research hub and ensure that patients continue to have rapid access to new therapies.

A vote in the Bundestag on the controversial health reform, originally scheduled for next week, has been postponed. According to parliamentary groups from the CDU/CSU and SPD, a key package of healthcare reforms proposed by Warken is now due to be adopted on 10 July, the last sitting day before the summer recess.

Politics Should Never Decide Who Gets Care

The Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule putting political appointees in charge of healthcare-funding decisions threatens the patients we serve.

Mercy Hospital ER nurse Katie Johnson treats Sister Margaret Cushman at the State Street emergency room on Wednesday, August 16, 2017.
(Photo by Carl D. Walsh/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

Teri Mills

Donna A. Gaffney
Jun 20, 2026

Common Dreams

As a nurse educator and a psychiatric-mental health nurse, we have built our careers on evidence-based practice, ethics, and compassion when caring for patients. Politics never entered the picture. Our responsibility has always been to provide care guided by science, professional standards, and the individual needs of our patients, not political ideology or partisan priorities. That is why the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule, Docket OMB-2026-0034, which would hand healthcare funding decisions to political appointees, stops us cold.

At first glance, this proposal may sound administrative or technical. In reality, it would fundamentally alter how federally funded healthcare, nursing education, behavioral health programs, and scientific research are approved, monitored, and terminated. Under rule §200.340, any grant can be ended at any point if it no longer aligns with the priorities of the administration. That is not oversight. It is political control.


‘Now Is the Time to Organize,’ Says Medicare for All Coalition


For nurses, the consequences would not be abstract. They would be immediate, personal, and dangerous for the patients we care for.

Psychiatric nursing already operates within a fragile system. Across the United States, communities face severe shortages of mental health professionals; long wait times for psychiatric care; rising suicide rates; surging substance use disorders; and escalating mental health crises among children, veterans, and older adults. Nurses are often the last line of support for patients who have nowhere else to go.

Healthcare funding decisions should be based on patient outcomes, workforce needs, public health evidence, and community impact, not whether a program aligns with the political priorities of whichever party holds power.

Every day, we talk with parents who are doing everything they can to find behavioral care for their children, but too often they feel frustrated and alone. Parents often share that they spend months calling providers, sitting on waitlists, and navigating insurance paperwork, all while trying to support their child through daily challenges at school and at home.

Hospitals are faced with the daunting task of finding inpatient services for patients in crisis. Sometimes the search for placement takes hours or even days, resulting in patients, many of them young people and the elderly, sitting in over-crowded emergency departments, waiting for care that may never come.

Many of the programs that train psychiatric nurses, support community mental health services, fund suicide prevention initiatives, and expand rural behavioral healthcare depend on federal grants and cooperative agreements. Under §200.205, the proposed OMB rule places a single political appointee in control over those funding decisions, with the power to override independent scientific and professional review.

This should alarm every American, regardless of political affiliation.

Healthcare funding decisions should be based on patient outcomes, workforce needs, public health evidence, and community impact, not whether a program aligns with the political priorities of whichever party holds power. Mental healthcare especially requires stability, continuity, and trust. When funding becomes politicized, patients inevitably suffer.

We are equally concerned about the chilling effect this rule would have on nursing schools and healthcare education programs. Federal support helps nursing programs prepare students to work in underserved communities, conduct behavioral health research, develop telepsychiatry services, and address disparities in care. Under §200.206 a political appointee could deny funding to any institution deemed “un-American,” a standard so vague it could be applied to programs addressing mental health disparities, harm reduction, or any work that falls outside current political favor.

We encourage nurses, educators, researchers, and the general public to join us and submit public comments on Docket OMB-2026-0034 before July 13, 2026, urging federal officials to reject these policies.

The proposed rule threatens the integrity of evidence-based practice itself. Nursing education is built on teaching students how to evaluate research critically, apply best practices, and advocate for patient-centered care. We cannot tell future nurses to “follow the science” while simultaneously allowing political officials to override scientific peer review and the expertise of those closest to patients.

We know what happens when systems become unstable. We witnessed it during the pandemic. Burnout rises. Staffing worsens. Experienced clinicians leave. Patients wait longer for care. Rural communities lose services first. One of us lived through the 2025 Southern California wildfires. Vulnerable populations suffer most. The mental health system was already stretched thin before the flames arrived.

This OMB proposal risks accelerating those exact outcomes.

Public trust in healthcare depends on the belief that medical and scientific decisions are guided by expertise rather than ideology. Once political influence is written into the structure of healthcare funding, that trust may never be fully restored. Mental health patients already fight stigma, long waits, and shrinking access to care. They should never have to wonder whether a political appointee is shaping the care available to them.

Nurses are educated to protect human dignity, promote health equity, and uphold evidence-based care. Those values do not change depending on which party controls Washington. They are foundational to the nursing profession and guide how nurses advocate for patients, families, and communities every single day.

The OMB proposal is framed as a restructuring of federal financial assistance, but for healthcare professionals on the ground, it represents something much larger: a deliberate shift away from independent expertise and toward political control over healthcare priorities. That does not strengthen nursing, mental healthcare, or public health. It dismantles all three.

We encourage nurses, educators, researchers, and the general public to join us and submit public comments on Docket OMB-2026-0034 before July 13, 2026, urging federal officials to reject these policies. If we allow political ideology to dictate which healthcare programs survive, which research is funded, and which communities receive support, we risk abandoning the very people the healthcare system exists to protect.

Nurses stand at the bedside of patients during their most vulnerable moments, regardless of politics, income, geography, or background. Federal healthcare policy should reflect a similar commitment. The future of mental healthcare, nursing education, and public trust in science depends on preserving independent, evidence-based decision-making free from political interference. Our patients deserve nothing less.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Teri Mills
Teri Mills, MS, RN emeritus, is a retired adult nurse practitioner, the 2019 Oregon nurse of the year, and a board member and founding member of Grandparents for Vaccines.
Full Bio >

Donna A. Gaffney
Donna A. Gaffney, DNSc, PMHCNS-BC, FAAN, is a nurse, psychotherapist, and author of Courageous Well-Being for Nurses: Strategies for Renewal. Gaffney is also founding member of Grandparents for Vaccines and a leader in Defend Public Health and Nurses for America.
Full Bio >

INDIA

NFHS-6: Why Falling Numbers Don’t Mean Women Are Safer

Trishna Sarkar , Harshit Kumar

 | 11 Jun 2026

• 
  
• 
  

Underreporting is one of the defining features of gender-based violence in India.

Newsclick Image by Sumit Kumar

The murder of Debosmita Paul should have been unimaginable. A university academic, she was killed in her home in Delhi by individuals who travelled across states, planned their crime carefully, and exploited trust to carry it out. This was not impulsive violence; it was deliberate and calculated. Sadly, this is a familiar pattern today.

In India today, violence against women does not happen in isolation; it exists within a system that allows it to continue.  This makes the current situation paradoxical. On paper, India seems to be making progress. According to NFHS-6 (National Family Health Survey) data, reported spousal violence among women aged 18 to 49 has decreased from 29.2% to 22.3%. Physical violence during pregnancy has dropped from 3.1% to 2.7%, and early sexual violence among young women has also fallen.

For a country with over 1.4 billion people, even small percentage-point declines mean millions of women are facing less violence.  However, the lived reality does not match the data.  National averages hide deep and persistent inequalities. While states like Karnataka have seen dramatic declines—from 44.4% to 14.1%—others still report alarmingly high levels of violence. Bihar, at 36.1%, remains far above the national average, while Telangana and Tamil Nadu also show consistently high rates. Kerala, often viewed as a development model, has actually recorded a sharp increase. These variations make it clear: India is not progressing uniformly. It is a mix of advancement and stagnation.  

The gap between rural and urban India further emphasises this unevenness. Nearly 24.4% of rural women report spousal violence compared with 17.5% in urban areas. This gap highlights structural inequality—less access to education, limited economic independence, weaker institutional support, and stronger social pressures that discourage reporting.  And even these numbers only scratch the surface. 

Every NFHS statistic represents a lower estimate. Underreporting is one of the defining features of gender-based violence in India. Surveys struggle to ensure privacy, especially in joint-family households. Social stigma, fear of backlash, and lack of trust in law enforcement keep many women silent before they can speak up. The gap between what women experience and what gets reported is not incidental; it is systemic.  

This is where NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data provides a sobering contrast. Over 4.4 lakh cases of crimes against women are reported each year in India. The largest share consists of cruelty by husbands or relatives, followed by tens of thousands of rape cases each year, most involving perpetrators known to the victims. Yet, the most telling statistic is not the number of incidents but the outcomes. Conviction rates remain low, usually around 25% to 30% in rape cases and even lower for domestic violence offenses. Cases drag on for years, survivors withdraw, and justice often remains incomplete.  The result is a system where violence can be reported, but accountability is uncertain.  

Cases like Debosmita Paul’s murder also challenge another belief—that education or an urban setting guarantees safety. Here was a financially independent, educated woman in the national capital, targeted due to a dispute over property and trust. Her case reflects a broader truth: women’s autonomy—economic, social, or legal—does not always protect them; in some cases, it can even make them targets. 

This aligns with decades of NFHS data. Gender-based violence in India is structural. It is influenced by economic dependence, unequal education in households, early marriages, caste-based discrimination, and substance abuse, particularly the consumption of alcohol by men.  

At the same time, the data highlights what works. Women’s financial inclusion has improved significantly, with bank account ownership rising from 78.6% to 89%, and workforce participation increasing from 25.4% to 30.8%.

Economic empowerment is not accidental—it is a consistent factor associated with reduced vulnerability to violence. Having the ability to earn, save, and leave changes a woman’s standing within her household and in society.  Yet empowerment is uneven—and where it is limited, it often clashes with rigid social norms.  

India’s policy framework shows both ambition and contradiction. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), Mission Shakti, One Stop Centres, and fast-track courts create a substantial institutional structure. However, implementation falls far short of what is intended. Police responses are inconsistent, complaints are often discouraged, and basic requirements like appointing Protection Officers are not met uniformly across states. 

Meanwhile, significant legal gaps remain. Marital rape is excluded from the criminal code, despite evidence of violence in marriage, including during pregnancy.  What emerges, then, is not a lack of policy but a lack of execution.  

The decline in reported violence is real, but it exists within an ongoing crisis. When one in five married women still reports experiencing spousal violence, the baseline itself is deeply concerning. When millions of cases never enter the legal system, and those that do often fail to result in convictions, progress begins to resemble incremental relief rather than real change.  The danger lies in confusing statistical improvement for structural transformation.  

The headlines tell a different story. They reveal that women remain vulnerable at home, in public spaces, at work, and even within systems meant to protect them. They show that violence adapts—it does not simply go away.  India is moving forward, but not quickly enough, not evenly enough, and not deeply enough.  

Until this changes, every drop in numbers will coexist with tragedies that remind us how far we still have to go.

Trishna Sarkar is Faculty in the Dept of Economics, Dr BhimRao Ambedkar College, University of Delhi. Harshit Kumar is pursuing Masters in Economics, Ambedkar University, Delhi. The views are personal.

Why Wild Bats Matter To Agave, Tequila, And Desert Ecosystems – Analysis

Bats flying at dusk.

June 13, 2026 
By Reynard Loki

Bats pollinate wild agave plants, sustaining desert ecosystems and preserving the genetic diversity that supports tequila and mezcal production.

Bats move through desert night skies with a purpose that is easy to overlook and difficult to replace. As they travel from plant to plant, feeding on nectar, they are also performing one of the most important ecological services in arid landscapes: pollination. For agave plants—long-lived, slow-growing succulents that define much of Mexico’s desert ecology—bats are not just occasional visitors. They are essential partners in reproduction.

This relationship is a classic example of mutualism, in which two species depend on each other for survival. Nectar-feeding bats gain a high-energy food source in agave that sustains their long-distance movements. In contrast, agaves rely on those bats to transfer pollen between flowers, ensuring fertilization and genetic diversity. The consequences of this exchange extend well beyond the desert; it helps shape ecosystem resilience, influences the future of agriculture, and even affects the production of tequila and mezcal.
The Interdependent Relationship Between Bats and Agave Plants

Agave plants are adapted to environments where water is scarce, and weather conditions can be extreme. Many species store energy in their thick, spiny leaves for years, sometimes decades. When the agave plants are ready to reproduce, they send up a single flowering stalk that can tower above the surrounding landscape. This bloom is both spectacular and final. After flowering and setting seed, the plant dies in most agave species.


Because each agave has only one opportunity to reproduce, successful pollination is critical. The flowers open at night, when temperatures are cooler, and there is less evaporation. They are large, pale, and highly visible in low light, and they release a strong, musky scent that can travel long distances. These traits are not random. They are signals evolved specifically to attract nocturnal pollinators—most importantly, bats. “Bats are one of the only ways wild agaves can reproduce—plants exposed to bats produce nearly 3,000 viable seeds for every seed made by a plant that wasn’t,” states a blog by FoodPrint.

Among the key species involved are the lesser long-nosed bat and the Mexican long-nosed bat, both of which migrate seasonally across Mexico and the southwestern United States. A bat approaches a flowering agave, guided by scent and visual cues. These bats have evolved physical traits that align closely with the structure of agave flowers. Their elongated snouts and tongues allow them to reach deep into the blooms, accessing nectar that other animals cannot easily reach. As they feed, their bodies come into contact with the flower’s reproductive structures, picking up pollen that will be carried to the next plant.

The mechanics of this process are straightforward but highly effective. When the bat brushes against the anthers where pollen is produced, it sticks to its fur, especially around the face and chest. When the bat moves on to another agave, some of that pollen is deposited onto the stigma of the next flower, completing the process of fertilization.


This repeated movement between plants enables cross-pollination, which is essential for maintaining genetic diversity. Genetic variation allows agave populations to adapt to changing environmental conditions, including drought, disease, and climate shifts. Without it, agave plants become more uniform and more vulnerable to stress.

In desert ecosystems, where resources are limited and environmental pressures are high, such resilience becomes especially important. The bats that pollinate agave are often described as keystone mutualists—species whose ecological roles disproportionately affect their environment. By supporting agave reproduction, bats help sustain a wide range of other organisms that depend on these plants for food and habitat.
The Multifaceted Role of the Agave Plant in Ecosystem Support

Agaves are foundational species in many desert systems. Their flowers provide nectar not only for bats but also for insects and birds. Their leaves and structures offer shelter to small animals, and their presence helps stabilize soil and influence local microclimates. When agave populations are healthy and diverse, the surrounding ecosystems tend to be more stable as well.

The relationship between bats and agave is also directly connected to human economies and cultural traditions. Agave plants are the raw material for tequila and mezcal, spirits deeply embedded in Mexican heritage and increasingly popular worldwide. “Agave, which Native Americans call Maguey, has long been rooted in the culture and traditions of Mesoamerica and Mexico. … The Aztecs drank a form of fermented agave called “pulque” in their rituals. This was the first distilled drink produced in the Americas. Pulque, which is similar to kombucha, remains part of the Mexican culture and is popular even today,” states the Naples Botanical Garden.

Most commercial agave production, however, does not rely on natural pollination. Instead, farmers often propagate plants clonally, using cuttings to produce genetically identical crops. This approach offers consistency and predictability, which are valuable in large-scale agriculture. But it also reduces genetic diversity, making crops more susceptible to pests and disease. Historical examples of this in other crops—from the Irish potato famine to Panama disease in bananas—demonstrate how genetic uniformity can lead to widespread vulnerability.


Wild agave populations, maintained through bat pollination, serve as a critical reservoir of genetic diversity. They contain traits that may be essential for adapting to future challenges, such as changing climate conditions or emerging plant diseases. In this way, the work bats perform in the wild indirectly supports the long-term sustainability of agave agriculture.

There is growing recognition of this connection, and with it, a shift in how some producers approach cultivation. Conservationists and industry groups have promoted “bat-friendly” practices that allow a portion of agave plants to flower rather than being harvested prematurely. By leaving these plants in the ground to bloom, farmers provide food for bats and enable natural pollination. “[P]reserving enough agaves to feed the bats doesn’t take a huge shift: allowing just five percent of the agaves used in tequila production to fully mature and flower could support more than two million bats. A number of growers and distillers have signed on to do this through the Tequila Interchange Project, producing spirits under the Bat Friendly label. It’s been a success so far, with bats returning to the field and pollinated plants producing viable, genetically variable seedings,” according to FoodPrint.

These flowering agaves can form part of an “agave corridor” along migratory routes, supporting bats as they travel long distances in search of food. The availability of flowering plants at regular intervals can make the difference between successful migration and population decline, sustaining bat populations that, in turn, continue to pollinate wild agaves.

This approach reflects a broader shift toward integrating ecological knowledge into agricultural systems. Rather than treating wild and cultivated landscapes as separate, it recognizes their interdependence, in which healthy ecosystems and thoughtful agricultural practices can sustain one another.
Safeguarding Bats and Agave Plants

Conservation efforts focused on bats and agave also address broader challenges. Many bat species face threats from habitat loss, climate change, and human disturbance. Misunderstandings about bats, often rooted in fear or misinformation, can further complicate conservation efforts. Highlighting the ecological and economic value of bats helps reframe them not as pests, but as essential contributors to both natural systems and human livelihoods.

Protecting this mutualistic relationship requires attention at multiple levels. It involves preserving habitats where wild agaves can grow and flower, supporting agricultural practices that allow for pollination, and maintaining migratory pathways for bats. It also requires continued research to better understand how these systems function and how they respond to future changes.

The story of bats and agave illustrates the interconnectedness of ecological relationships. A single nighttime interaction between a bat and a flower can ripple outward, influencing plant populations, animal communities, and human industries. These connections are not always visible, but they are fundamental to the operation of ecosystems.

As demand for agave-based spirits continues to grow, the pressures on both wild and cultivated agave populations are likely to increase. Balancing this demand with ecological sustainability will require approaches that value diversity, resilience, and long-term thinking. The role of bats in pollinating agave is a reminder that some of the most important processes in nature happen quietly, often out of sight, and depend on species that are easy to overlook.

Ensuring that these processes continue is not just a matter of conservation for its own sake. It is an investment in the stability of ecosystems and in cultural and economic systems shaped by the domestication and traditional management of agave in Mexico. In the case of agave and bats, the connection is clear: without bats, wild agaves struggle to reproduce and maintain genetic diversity; without that diversity, ecosystems weaken, and the long-term resilience of agave cultivation—central to sustaining the tequila and mezcal—becomes more uncertain.


What happens in the desert at night does not stay there. It shapes the landscapes we depend on, the foods and products we consume, and the systems that sustain life across regions. Recognizing and supporting these relationships is a step toward a more integrated understanding of how human activity and natural processes can coexist.

Author Bio: Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory. He is also a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute, where he serves as the editor of Earth | Food | Life.

Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

About Reynard Loki
Reynard Loki is a co-founder of the Observatory, where he is the environment and animal rights editor. He is also a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute, where he serves as the editor and chief correspondent for Earth | Food | Life. He previously served as the environment, food, and animal rights editor at AlterNet and as a reporter for Justmeans/3BL Media covering sustainability and corporate social responsibility. He was named one of FilterBuy's Top 50 Health and Environmental Journalists to Follow in 2016. His work has been published by Yes! Magazine, Salon, Truthout, BillMoyers.com, Asia Times, Pressenza, and EcoWatch, among others.
View all posts by Reynard Loki →

OPINION

Here is why we sanctioned Hillel at the New School and why students everywhere should follow our lead

In May, the New School's Student Senate sanctioned its Hillel chapter for its ties to Israeli war crimes and violations of international law. With 850 chapters worldwide, students everywhere should join the campaign to "Drop Hillel."

By Ryder Glickman 

 June 4, 2026 
MONDOWEISS

Students participating in the “Hillel on Base” program. (Photo: Instagram/hillelatbaruch)


Two years after University administrators and state actors destroyed the Gaza Solidarity Encampments, expelled and deported students, and smeared anyone protesting against the genocidal Zionist state and in support of a liberated Palestine, the student movement is developing new tactics. One of these tactics involves challenging, exposing, and removing Hillel from our campuses. The New School, where I was chair of the Student Senate, was the first example. It should not be the last.

In May 2026, the New School’s Student Senate sanctioned its chapter of Hillel, a Zionist organization that operates on 850 campuses worldwide, by designating them “Not in Good Standing,” suspending all funding and collaboration. Hillel is an explicitly Zionist organization that claims to provide “Jewish life” services to students but, as a matter of policy, excludes students and speakers who are not Zionist. The New School Senate agreed that Hillel had violated both the Senate and the New School’s own university policy, requiring all student groups to adhere to international law.

As Chair of the Senate, I led the vote that culminated an 18-month Senate investigation. Throughout the investigation, which was supported by New School Jewish Culture Club and Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as the Drop Hillel campaign, student representatives compiled a 35+ page report documenting Hillel’s direct and extensive material ties to Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes, and illegal occupation of Palestine.

The genocide of the Palestinian people has required a coalition of non-state actors, including civil institutions, news and media outlets, non-profits, and even groups on university campuses.

One of these groups is Hillel.

The Drop Hillel Campaign – Why Hillel?

Across the United States, Hillel embeds Israeli soldiers on university campuses to promote Israeli propaganda, or hasbara, and counter “anti-Israel activism.” The organization conducts Zionist programming on campus, often featuring active duty soldiers from the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF), and has numerous programs where students go directly to IOF bases and volunteer for the Israeli army.

Hillel has surveilled and doxxed students, particularly of Palestinian or Arab descent. It is apart of the same Zionist ecosystem as doxxing organizations like “Canary Mission” which the Trump administration has used to identify and target pro-Palestinian academics and student protesters for deportation.

The Hillel at the New School is particularly egregious. As part of the Leder Family Hillel, which also includes Hillel at Baruch and seven other NYC campuses, Hillel at the New School, a registered student organization (RSO), offers a program titled “Hillel on Base” where students fly to Israel and directly volunteer for the Israeli military as they commit genocide, war crimes, mass starvation, and displacement.

The normalization of these trips to Israeli military bases reflects the inherent depravity of Zionism. There are students on college campuses who, during their summer and winter breaks, are providing direct material support for a military committing genocide, occupation, and apartheid.

Hillel defends these trips to military bases, calling them “normal Jewish ties to Israel.”

But, it is not normal to volunteer for a military committing a genocide. It is not normal to dress as a combatant by wearing Israeli military uniforms. It is not normal to prepare meals for Israeli soldiers who have committed massacres. And yet, this is exactly what Hillel at the New School and their affiliated students have chosen to do, and will continue to do, unless stopped.

As students and organizers, we must absolutely refuse to give even an inch to normalizing Zionist narratives and accusations of ‘antisemitism.’ Students across the United States must refuse this normalization, which builds the consensus needed to justify the massacre of the Palestinian people by the State of Israel and advance principled anti-Zionist struggles on our campuses.

Building the case against Hillel

Earlier this year, the New School Student Senate passed a bill requiring student organizations to be in compliance with international law. Additionally, we created an “RSO compliance committee” to monitor student groups’ adherence to international law and school policy. Given that Hillel was already widely known for its collaborations with the Israeli military during the genocide in Gaza, the senate’s RSO compliance committee formally placed Hillel “Under Review” and produced an extensive report detailing Hillel’s violation of international law.

On May 1, 2026, the Senate heard the committee’s findings. These findings included not only Hillel’s direct material complicity in genocide, but also that students were aiding and abetting through providing logistical support to the Israeli military. For example, the report extensively documented that Hillel students supported the Israeli military through both the “Hillel on Base” program and its Birthright “Onward Students” program. The report identified that students volunteered on two Israeli military bases and served four brigades, which have themselves been implicated in the violation of international law, including war crimes.

In the report, we identified two bases associated with the Hillel on Base program. The Hatzerim airbase and the Tze’elim Army Base. The Hatzerim airbase stations F-15I and F-16I combat squadrons that have conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Gaza and Lebanon, resulting in the maiming, disabling, and murdering of thousands of families. The Tze’elim Army Base, nicknamed “Mini Gaza,” is an Israeli military training site used for occupation tactics deployed on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Nine months into the genocide in Gaza, Hillel on Base sent students from the New School to volunteer on these two bases, where they aided over 700 soldiers from four different units: the Golani Brigade, Handasa Corps, Kfir Brigade, and Oketz Unit.

In March of 2025, the Golani brigades massacred 15 paramedics in Gaza and buried them in mass graves along with their ambulances to cover up their war crime. Mohammad Bhar, a man with Down syndrome, was mauled to death by an Oketz military dog in his family home. Omar Assad, 78, a Palestinian-American grandfather, was zip-tied, blindfolded, and left to die of a state-induced heart attack in the cold by the Kfir Brigades. The 92nd Battalion of the Kfir Brigade abducted two elderly Palestinian men, Ali Marouf and Nadi Marouf from Beit Lahia, forced them to strip and used them as human shields before killing them. The Handansa Corps has systematically destroyed Gaza’s universities, hospitals, and homes. These are only some of the violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes these groups have committed. Hillel directly aided, abetted, and provided support to all four brigades.

For these reasons, Hillel at the New School is in direct violation of international law and should be sanctioned and held accountable.

It is not the fault of Palestinians that Judaism is articulated through and expressed by Zionism, nor is it that the “center for Jewish life” on campuses is a part of a global architecture of genocide.

Administrative retaliation

Immediately following the vote, the administration retaliated against students involved with the Drop Hillel initiative. The university issued a Title IX notification to the Student Senate for its decision to adhere to international law. Additionally, Student Senate members experienced doxxing, threats, and a sweeping condemnation by Zionist media outlets and state actors, including NY Representatives Ritchie Torres and Dan Goldman, both of whom accused the students and the senate of “antisemitism.”

The day after the vote, the New School administration sent a community-wide email from President Joel Towers, Provost Richard Kessler, and Vice Provost Robert Mack to students, parents, and university affiliates, smearing the actions as a targeted act of antisemitism and anti-democratic deliberation. Hillel’s director, Adam Lehman, and the Anti Defamation League (ADL) president, Jonathan Greenblatt, both issued similar statements. Ilya Bratman, an executive director of Hillel, sent an email to the New Schools President demanding a meeting to ensure the administration continues to repress the democratic decision.

There has not been such a wide-sweeping campaign of condemnation since the 2024 Gaza Solidarity Encampments.

A blueprint for students everywhere

This fearmongering was also reflected by Zionist media outlets, including the Times of Israel, which warned that this is a new tactic and has been described elsewhere as a “new front in anti-Israel campus activity”. “The New School is just the beginning. It’s a precedent that’s set for a bunch of campuses,” said the campus director of Hillel, and forewarned that “student governments elsewhere will prosecute their Hillels using the same blueprint.”

As students, we have the power to demand that no group on our campus should have direct material ties to war crimes, let alone be participating in the genocide perpetuated by the Israeli military against the Palestinian people.

This is where the Drop Hillel campaign and Hillel agree: the goal was to build a blueprint, and we are already seeing our movement spread.

A plurality of tactics is required to dismantle Zionism. The campaign at the New School reaffirms that, as students, we have the power to demand that no group on our campus should have direct material ties to war crimes, let alone be participating in the genocide perpetuated by the Israeli military against the Palestinian people. As students, we understand that international law will never alone liberate Palestine, as has been well documented. However, the vote at the New School shows that wielding it as an instrument can lead to success.

This tactic also heightens the contradictions and asymmetries of both the university policy and international law. Right now, students are holding their institutions accountable to their own promises and policies by presenting a case in line with their own guidelines. The repression that has ensued speaks both to the hypocrisy of these institutions and their institutionalized anti-Palestinian racism. However, this repression also reveals a shifting world order, where overt dominance, violence, and force are no longer veiled in the discourse of legality.

Zionists and their administrative colleagues will be increasingly placed on the defensive and forced to address our questions. Why is there a student organization on our campus that has direct ties to genocide? Why is serving a foreign military only acceptable when it is the Israeli military? These are questions we must demand answers to, and which the New School administration, and President Joel Towers refuse to answer.

One goal of the campaign at the New School was to act as a catalyst and open a new front for the student movement in the struggle against the Zionist State, in accordance with Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), and Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Students should advocate for, or themselves propose, legislation affirming the necessity of compliance with international law at their universities.

Nothing short of a total boycott, sanctioning and ostracization of all Zionist institutions complicit in the colonization, bombing and genocide of Palestine—and the expansion of the Zionist project into Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Syria—is acceptable.

The stigma has now been broken. No longer will students allow Zionist organizations – such as Hillel – to mask their racism and support for genocide in the language of religious right. To all other students at universities, let this quote, written in a private email that I obtained from the executive director of a New York City Hillel chapter to the president of the New School, be used as a call for mobilization: “Our greatest concern is that this action sets a dangerous precedent – not only for The New School, but for colleges across America.”

Let’s make it so.

Ryder Glickman
Ryder Glickman is a 4th year Economics student at the New School for Social Research studying the Political Economy of Palestine, international trade, critical minerals, and the economics of imperialism. As a member of SJP, he served as Chair of the New School Student Senate, implementing students’ demands for BDS, PACBI and divestment. He remains committed to organizing for Palestine, and for the liberation of people everywhere.