The world risks a resurgence of the HIV epidemic after international financing to combat the infectious disease suffered a “profound shock” last year, according to a new report from UNAIDS, the United Nations agency.
Overall, government funding declined by more than $1.5 billion to $7.3 billion in 2025 — an 18% decline and the lowest level in nearly two decades. Prevention programs, in particular, have historically relied heavily on donor assistance in most regions, with especially high dependency in sub-Saharan Africa, where it reached 83% two years ago.
Other factors contributing to the worrisome outlook are high debt burdens in countries most affected by the disease and backsliding on human rights and gender equality, the report noted.
Outside the small town of Paducah, Kentucky, a wealth of uranium is locked away in thousands of storage cylinders filled with waste material from a now-closed nuclear enrichment facility. Lasers could help get it out.
A company called Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) is looking to reprocess this old material with a new technology called laser enrichment. It could be more efficient than conventional enrichment methods, allowing the company to refresh the material and produce feedstock at the same concentration as a natural mined source. And in the future, the company claims, laser enrichment could be used to make material for nuclear fuel, including the kind used in advanced reactors.
Nuclear power provides about 9% of global electricity today, and that fraction could tick up as major world powers like the US and China look to build new reactors, including some based on next-generation technology. New, cheaper methods to obtain fuel could help ensure that those nuclear projects stay on track.
Naturally occurring uranium is largely made up of uranium-238 (over 99%) and uranium-235 (about 0.7%). Uranium-235 is the fissile type, meaning that, when hit with slow low-energy neutrons, it can sustain a chain reaction that generates electricity. So reactors generally use material with a higher concentration of U-235 than what’s pulled from the ground. Today’s conventional reactors usually use low-enriched uranium, typically is about 5% U-235, though some advanced reactor designs will use fuel that’s up to 20% U-235.
Today, centrifuges are the dominant tech used to enrich uranium. The equipment essentially takes uranium-containing material and spins it around incredibly quickly, so the heavier material (which contains U-238) spins out to the edge, while the lighter material (which has U-235) stays closer to the center. (If you’ve ever swung a mustard bottle to get the last of it out, you’ve used the same basic idea behind a centrifuge.) Then the material that has a higher concentration of U-235 can go on to be made into nuclear fuel.
Laser enrichment, on the other hand, takes advantage of the fact that all molecules vibrate and rotate at an atomic scale in ways that depend on their specific material. Even different uranium isotopes have distinct fingerprints.
Lasers are so precise they can target one particular material (like molecules that contain U-235, for example). If you shine a laser at a mixture, you can selectively excite just the material you’re targeting, giving it a bit more energy. This changes the way it behaves, which can make it easier to separate out the material you want using chemical or physical methods.
A wide range of separation approaches have been developed in research and industry. Some aim to electrically charge U-235 atoms, allowing them to be moved with electrostatic or magnetic fields. Others change how the material reacts chemically.
The details of GLE’s specific technology are classified, and company officials declined to share how the process works.
There’s been interest in using lasers for uranium enrichment for decades, says Charles Forsberg, a principal research scientist in nuclear science and engineering at MIT.
However, in their early days lasers tended to be high-maintenance, unstable and difficult to operate. They’ve improved dramatically, making laser enrichment a more attractive prospect than it was during the early research.
Even more than technological improvements, a recent geopolitical shift could boost new enrichment technology. Russia has the largest uranium enrichment ecosystem in the world, and the country has historically dominated the market. “Nobody in the West was going to build a new enrichment plant while the Russians flooded the world with enriched uranium,” says Forsberg.
Since the start of the Ukraine war, however, countries including the US and UK have taken steps to limit or ban imports of Russian uranium. That’s opened the door for companies to set up new enrichment operations, including some that use new technologies, Forsberg says.
Demand for fuel is increasing as countries look beyond Russia for uranium supply. “The gap is just becoming bigger and bigger, and this technology is right in the middle,” says Christo Liebenberg, president of LIS Technologies, one of the companies aiming to build laser enrichment capacity in the US.
LIS Technologies was founded in 2023, and the company recently purchased a 200-acre site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. It’s currently in the pre-application process with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its facility. The company plans to take in natural-grade uranium and make a product that’s roughly 5% U-235, though it hopes to eventually make more concentrated material that can be used as fuel for next-generation reactors.
GLE is taking a different approach: Rather than using its technology to enrich freshly mined material to the 5% concentration that can be used in fuels, it’s hoping to start by rehabilitating old waste.
The company has a contract with the US Department of Energy to reprocess waste material at the enrichment site in Paducah. The facility could enrich up to 200,000 metric tons of material that contains small amounts of uranium leftover from an older enrichment process.
GLE is taking the material that’s at least 0.25% U-235 and enriching it to about 0.7%. That material can then be further processed and slotted into the uranium supply chain in place of freshly mined material. “It’s kind of like a large aboveground uranium mine for us,” says Nima Ashkeboussi, vice president of government relations and communications at GLE.
While each one of its units is more complex and expensive than a centrifuge, far fewer are needed to do the same work. A similar centrifugation plant would have many thousands of centrifuges working together, but a full-scale plant using GLE’s laser enrichment process would have fewer than a thousand of its units, says Stephen Long, the company’s CEO. Up-front investment should be smaller, and operating costs are also expected to be lower, partly because the process uses less energy than centrifuges, Long says.
GLE has a testing facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. In fall 2025, the company completed a demonstration pilot, processing several hundred kilograms of uranium. It decommissioned that system and is currently putting together a new demonstration at the North Carolina plant, which would show how the technology works at commercial scale.
The company also applied for a license with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its proposed facility in Paducah. The final safety evaluation should be finished in November, and the final approval should come in 2027, Long says. The plan is to start processing material at the plant by 2030.
In the long run, there’s plenty of uranium on the planet to keep reactors running for decades. But as interest in nuclear power grows and the geopolitics of fuel shift, there could be short-term gaps or price spikes that alternative sources could help smooth out.
Laser enrichment plants could turn out to be cheaper than existing technologies, says Stephen Greene, a senior fellow at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance. But as with most new technologies, “you don’t really know until you try to build one.”
For 18 months, the Trump administration has been accused by science advocates of shredding a social contract between academic researchers and the federal government that made the United States the world’s most powerful engine of discovery. Now it’s proposing a way to rebuild American science.
Taking inspiration from “Science — The Endless Frontier,” a 1945 manifesto that became the blueprint for the rise of American research universities, Trump’s science adviser, Michael Kratsios, this week put forth his version of such a report. Called “Science: A New Golden Age” and drafted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, it calls for shifting hundreds of billions of research dollars from universities to industry, primarily tech and artificial intelligence companies.
The report acknowledges problems scientists have long attempted to grapple with, but advocates and scientists expressed concern that the report’s espoused goal of improving science is being undermined by other administration actions, chiefly the grievances expressed by President Trump and his aides against immigration, universities, and programs that they deem as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The Men’s Health Act, a bipartisan bill to establish an office of men’s health within the Department of Health and Human Services, will be introduced in the U.S. Senate on Thursday by Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), with co-sponsorship from Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).
Mirroring the bipartisan bill that was introduced in the House this year, the measure would require a study from the Government Accountability Office on the state of men’s health in the U.S. to be presented within a year of the law’s enactment. Following the report, and incorporating its findings, the office would coordinate existing and new research and raise awareness about men’s health, both physical and mental.
Dozens of researchers funded by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality received notices last week that they would not receive future installments of funding for their ongoing research grants. While frustrating, the development was largely not a surprise to these researchers, many of whom had been waiting months for renewed funding or been unable to get explanations as to why the funding spigots had run dry from staffers at the agency.
The notices punctuated nearly a year of uncertainty for health services researchers funded by AHRQ and left those who lost funding concerned about the future of their field. AcademyHealth, a professional organization representing health services researchers, has confirmed at least 78 grants worth $200 million have been affected. In all, those grants had $109.2 million in funding remaining, it estimated.
Grant recipients were told in a letter of “non-award” that “AHRQ is adjusting its discretionary health services research award portfolio in order to better prioritize agency resources towards the above-mentioned priorities to best serve the interests of the Federal Government,” according to one such letter reviewed by STAT. The letter states the agency is prioritizing research on patient safety, antibiotic resistance, AI, long Covid, nutrition, and understanding autism, among others.
You’re reading the web edition of D.C. Diagnosis, STAT’s twice-weekly newsletter about the politics and policy of health and medicine. Sign up here to receive it in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
“You best step back before I bust a smack, yak!” That’s not what RFK Jr. said before fending off a shaggy beast with a phone thump to the nose, but it would’ve been cooler if he did. Send news tips and missed opportunities to John.Wilkerson@statnews.com or John_Wilkerson.07 on Signal.
Messaging wars: affordability vs. fraud
Rising out-of-pocket health care costs remain voters’ top health priority overall, but Republicans are more worried about fraud in government health programs, according to a KFF poll.
WASHINGTON — Federal health officials said Monday they remain focused on lettuce from Taylor Farms as the source of a multistate outbreak of a diarrhea-causing parasite, despite inaccurate test results that the government briefly publicized over the weekend.
Food and Drug Administration officials on Monday said a laboratory test incorrectly identified a positive result for cyclospora on a sample of lettuce from Taylor Farms. The FDA posted the finding to its website on Saturday but then said Sunday that the result had been a false positive.
This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.
Over the weekend, several current and former advisors to President Donald Trump on AI publicly lobbed insults at the country’s leading AI companies. David Sacks, the president’s AI and crypto “czar” until March, branded Anthropic’s models as “lobotomized” and “woke.” Emil Michael, a top Pentagon official, called OpenAI’s new head of strategic futures a “supreme village idiot.”
It began because no one can agree on what to do about Kimi, a free, open source model that Chinese AI company Moonshot launched last week. It appears to rival the intelligence of models from OpenAI and Anthropic, which are very much not free.
Kimi and other Chinese models like it pose a real problem for Trump. And they’re dividing the top AI strategists in his orbit into factions. Every time a new smart, free model from China like Kimi gets released, US companies see less reason to fork out money to access models from Anthropic or OpenAI. Given that enthusiasm for these and other AI companies is driving an outsized share of economic growth, China’s AI models create both economic and political problems for the president. They are “a threat for an administration that really doesn’t want more economic bad news,” Anton Leicht, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, wrote on X. They’ve already rattled US stocks.
What is Trump to do? First, consider that this is all happening just a week after New York imposed the country’s first state ban on new data centers. There is growing distrust of AI companies, and I imagine a not-insignificant share of Americans would have little sympathy for OpenAI or Anthropic as they fend off cheaper competitors, and would say it’s not the government’s job to protect their interests.
On this point, they’d see a sliver of agreement (and really just a sliver) with David Sacks, who on July 19 criticized top AI companies that “want the government to eliminate their open source competition.” He has also argued that Chinese AI models have become popular because they come with fewer restrictions on how people can use them (putting aside the built-in state censorship).
Sacks, however, is out of a job. He no longer has a formal role advising Trump, and his position that more open AI is better has been largely replaced in the administration by one that sees a larger role for government intervention. The thinking behind this view is that because AI models have gotten strong enough to pose threats to national security, the government must control how they’re used.
This position has fueled the new White House review process that aims to vet AI models’ security before they’re released. Dean Ball, a former Trump AI advisor who now works for OpenAI, criticized it over the weekend as a “de facto licensing regime for frontier AI.” Ball predicted Trump may solve his Chinese open source problem with a bit of soft power, perhaps by making US companies afraid to use models like Kimi. That drew a response from Michael, who, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has been the agency’s main liaison with AI companies. Michael called Ball the AI industry’s “supreme village idiot,” bristling at the suggestion that the government would quietly strong-arm companies rather than, as Michael put it, go through “the democratic process not some Deep State scheme.”
Left out of the conversation has been how a model like Kimi got so good in the first place.For much of the Biden administration and even the beginning of Trump’s second administration, keeping China from getting top chips was a priority. Those export controls have loosened—Trump made the controversial decision to allow Nvidia to sell more chips to China, in exchange for the US government taking a cut—and the government has alleged that some chip smuggling has taken place. But China nonetheless has limited computing power, and it’s not clear what chips the company behind Kimi used to train the model.
It’s possible that the process involved some distillation, a practice in which AI models are trained on the outputs of existing AI models. OpenAI and Anthropic have long complained that Chinese AI companies do this, and they have requested government help to put a stop to it. In April, they got it, when the Trump administration announced a series of efforts to curb the practice.
But Kimi is out there and free, and it is nearly as good as the Anthropic model the US government deemed so powerful that it was briefly shut down because it threatened national security. The weekend’s sparring suggests many in Trump’s orbit see that as a wake-up call. But nobody can agree on what for.
This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.
AI is more likely than humans to form biases when hiring
The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there’s good reason to question whether AI will judge you fairly.
We already know that LLMs pick up human biases from their training data. New research suggests they can also develop their own biases from experience—and stereotype job applicants more than humans do.
As AI companies race to build agentic models that remember the tiniest details about users, they may be handing them ammunition for forming those biases.
Every morning, airline dispatchers, grid operators, and farmers around the world make decisions based on weather forecasts. More recently, the forecasts have become relevant for another industry: prediction markets, where people bet money on all kinds of real-world events, including the weather.
The temptation to manipulate weather data to get an edge in these markets, combined with a collective move toward data-driven AI weather forecasting, is starting to put the accuracy of weather predictions at risk.
As experts in the field, we can foresee scenarios where the risks snowball into far bigger, more systemic problems.
—Monique Kuglitsch, Jesper Dramsch, Franz G. Kuglitsch, & Andrea Toreti
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 SpaceX is negotiating to sell the Pentagon AI compute It would provide data center capacity worth billions of dollars. (WSJ $) + Deepening ties between Elon Musk’s company and the DoD. (Reuters $) + Meanwhile, Anthropic is in talks with Meta to acquire compute. (CNBC) + The compute explosion is only just beginning. (MIT Technology Review)
2 Trump Media wants $100,000 a month for early access to Trump’s posts The premium feed is being pitched to trading firms and banks. (FT $) + It aims to monetize Trump’s market-moving social media posts. (Reuters $) + Critics described the plan as “brazen corruption.” (Guardian)
3 ICE shared Medicaid data it wasn’t supposed to have with Palantir Court filings show the data reached the contractor before being deleted. (NPR) + ICE is using data broker tools to identify “unaccompanied minors.” (Wired $)
4 Apple briefly overtook Nvidia as the world’s most valuable company The iPhone maker’s earnings durability has impressed investors. (Reuters $) + While Nvidia’s rise has stalled amid shifting AI bets. (CNBC)
5. Politicians are trying to change what chatbots say about them A new industry has sprung up to help them edit AI outputs. (NYT $) + Chatbots can sway voters better than political ads. (MIT Technology Review)
6 Washington is opening the door to armed robots The Pentagon is accelerating AI weapons development. (WP $) + “Humans in the loop” in war is an illusion. (MIT Technology Review)
7 China’s Moonshot has paused new subscriptions amid surging uptake Demand for the headline-grabbing Kimi K3 has strained capacity. (SCMP) + China’s open-source AI is challenging US models. (MIT Technology Review)
8 Lab-grown teeth could soon replace fillings and implants Scientists believe regenerative medicine could transform dentistry. (BBC) + Humanlike “teeth” have been grown in mini pigs. (MIT Technology Review)
9 AI slop on birdwatching forums is putting research at risk It could contaminate records of species. (Guardian)
10 Heart experts have good news for your coffee habit Roughly five cups per day is fine—and may even be beneficial. (Gizmodo)
Quote of the day
“The most authoritarian government is producing the most egalitarian models, and what should be the most democratic government is breeding companies that are the most authoritarian.”
—Rayan Krishnan, CEO of Vals AI, a company that evaluates AI performance, gives the New York Times his take on the competition between Chinese and American models.
One More Thing
RICHARD CHANCE
The curious case of the disappearing Lamborghinis
A new wave of theft is rocking the luxury car industry—mixing high tech with old-school chop-shop techniques to snag vehicles while they’re in transport.
It’s remained under the radar, even as it’s rocked the industry over the past two years. MIT Technology Review identified more than a dozen cases involving high-end vehicles, obtained court records, and spoke to law enforcement, brokers, drivers, and victims in multiple states to reveal how transport fraud is wreaking havoc across the country.
By Mai El Shoush, Partnership Campaign Manager, SNF Global Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health at the Child Mind Institute
Few events unite the world quite like the FIFA World Cup, demonstrating soccer’s unique ability to connect people across cultures and communities. As millions tune in, the moment offers a timely reminder on how sports can reach young people far beyond the field. This belief underpins the work of Grassroot Soccer, a valued partner of the SNF Global Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health at the Child Mind Institute. They utilize the power of soccer to advance youth mental health — and have reached more than 25 million young people around the world through this approach.
The partnership incorporates three interconnected areas:
Building capacity for frontline workers
Generating evidence
Contributing to thought leadership on child and adolescent mental health in low-resource settings
The 2026 Men’s World Cup in North America and the upcoming 2027 Women’s World Cup in Brazil present an important opportunity for the organization to take its mental health programming from sub-Saharan Africa and adapt it to the U.S. context.
We spoke with Grassroot Soccer’s Mental Health Specialist Charmaine Nyakonda about the organization’s approach, the impact of their collaboration with SNF, and the growing role of sports in improving the mental health of young people and communities globally.
Grassroot Soccer’s Mental Health Specialist, Charmaine Nyakonda
As international attention increasingly turns towards soccer’s global reach with the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, what role can sports play in advancing youth mental health care across diverse communities?
Soccer is the most popular and accessible sport in the world. From the largest global stages like the World Cup to the most remote rural villages, it’s played everywhere on the planet. As the World Cup shows, soccer has the power to captivate across geographies, cultures, and time zones.
Soccer (and sport in general) is a powerful tool that teaches youth important life skills and character-building lessons like resiliency, hard work, courage, trust, and teamwork. On top of this, soccer’s universal appeal across diverse communities means using the language of the game can also be an effective way to break through the stigma around sensitive but pressing topics like mental health. This is why Grassroot Soccer uses soccer as a teaching tool for mental health.
Grassroot Soccer has successfully touched the lives of millions of young people across settings worldwide. What has the team learned about the universal role that sports can play in supporting mental health, resilience, and social connection?
Across our programs, soccer serves as a universal entry point that hooks young people and meets them where they are. From there, our play-based activities use soccer games and metaphors to make learning about mental health fun and engaging. They break down stigma and create safe spaces where young people can feel comfortable opening up and being vulnerable. This drives exceptional participation and completion rates.
Importantly, our signature soccer-based mental health promotion and prevention program, called MindSKILLZ, is guided by core mental health design principles. This includes grassroots co-creation, trauma-informed practice, relationship-centered delivery, and strengths-based learning — which ensures that programs are ethical, culturally grounded, and safe for adolescents in both stable and crisis-affected settings.
“Soccer (and sport in general) is a powerful tool that teaches youth important life skills and character-building lessons like resiliency, hard work, courage, trust, and teamwork.”
What elements of Grassroot Soccer’s approach do you believe could serve as a transferable blueprint for other organizations seeking to improve outcomes for young people in different sectors and communities?
Our commitment to co-design with young people: We believe that young people are the experts on their lives and needs, so we intentionally apply the principle of “Nothing about us without us” to our work. We put this into practice by engaging young people at every point in the program life cycle to ensure our work meets their needs, from design to implementation to evaluation.
In 2023, Grassroot Soccer officially launched a Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) composed of young leaders that serves as an internal advisory and advocacy body for the organization. The Committee consists of SKILLZ Coaches, Master Coaches, and trainers between the ages of 18 to 30 from the communities we serve.
Mental health integration: Mental health promotion and prevention must be woven into every service that young people access. Mental health is both a driver and an outcome of young people’s overall well-being. Unaddressed mental health challenges undermine progress in HIV, sexual and reproductive health, education, and other youth development areas. And those same factors profoundly shape young people’s mental health in return.
What has made the partnership with the SNF Global Center particularly valuable, and what role do cross-sector and multidisciplinary partnerships play in expanding support and opportunities for young people?
The diverse cultural perspectives from Greece, Brazil, the United States, and South Africa — and especially youth voices — have enriched our understanding of the barriers young people face, the values that motivate them, and the creative solutions they come up with when it comes to mental health.
We’ve also benefited tremendously from the scientific and clinical expertise at the SNF Global Center. We were able to co-develop an open-access, near-peer emotional support online training that aims to enhance the capacity of frontline workers to identify, refer, and support common mental health problems among children and adolescents. This is especially important in low-resource settings.
Additionally, through thought leadership and advocacy collaboration, this partnership has been valuable in contributing to an important shift in the global conversation to framing low-resource settings (the Global South) as sources of innovation that can positively impact the Global North.
Over the years, what has most reinforced your belief in the power of soccer to support youth mental health, and what examples best bring that impact to life?
We’ve seen a few powerful stories of impact in humanitarian settings, where the need for mental health care is at its greatest but resources are at its most limited.
For example, in 2024, relentless downpours following a tropical cyclone caused rivers in Malawi’s Nkhotakota and Karonga districts to overflow, leading to widespread flooding impacting over 150,000 people and forcing many displaced residents to seek refuge in makeshift internally displaced person (IDP) camps.
In the camps, people had no access to mental health and psychological support services or safe spaces, and youth were not attending school. The Malawi Ministry of Health identified a major gap in mental health support for adolescents and young people and called on Grassroot Soccer to deliver MindSKILLZ to respond to this need.
Grassroot Soccer’s response team focused heavily on play, coping skills development, and trauma-informed support, creating critical psychological and physical safe spaces for youth within the camp environment.
Looking ahead, how would you like to see the conversation evolve at the intersection of sports, youth well-being, and mental health?
Firstly, we would like to see the conversation move beyond asking whether adolescent girls and young women like to play sports and instead asking, “What can we unlock when they do?”
For too long, sports (and soccer in particular) have been understood as primarily a significant part of adolescent boys’ and young men’s lives only. That assumption has shaped who gets access, who feels welcome, and whose well-being is centered. Grassroot Soccer’s own programming challenges this directly — we have reached more adolescent girls than boys, and in doing so have created space for girls to reconstruct gendered ideas about soccer. The conversation on sports, youth, and mental health needs to evolve to view sports games like soccer as universal tools that can transcend gender norms, age, and socio-economic background to support young people.
At the same time, we want to see the conversation take adolescent boys’ mental health more seriously, not less. Qualitative insights from Grassroot Soccer show that rigid masculine norms remain a profound barrier for boys.
More broadly, we ultimately want to see the conversation shift from individual resilience to multi-systemic access and inclusive enabling environments. Young people need culturally grounded, safe environments that work for them — and include them in design and delivery to help them develop into healthy adults who carry that capacity forward.
What do you see as the greatest opportunities for the next generation of young people, and what must we do collectively to help make that future possible?
With the largest generation of adolescents coming of age, their ability to live healthy and productive lives will have a profound impact on not just their own life trajectories, but also on the world. Tackling critical global issues from poverty to climate change will require a generation of young people who are strong, healthy, and empowered — and their mental health is central to all this.
At Grassroot Soccer, we are committed to investing in youth mental health to realize a world where mental health challenges have been normalized. We want young people to understand their own mental health, have practical coping skills to deal with frustration and aggression, and recognize the value in seeking support from others. This will help develop a population with reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as overall improved mental well-being. Then we can collectively realize our vision for a better future.
Through the SNF Global Center, the Child Mind Institute partners with organizations around the world to strengthen child and adolescent mental health systems by combining scientific expertise, local leadership, evidence-based innovation and youth voices. Grassroot Soccer is one example of how cross-sector partnerships can expand access to mental health support in communities where young people already learn, connect, and thrive.
