SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"We can't put a nuclear warhead on a teacher's desk in real life, but with AR we can make you see it there. It puts the cost of these decisions in the room where your kids learn, at the scale where you can actually feel it."
A new educational campaign is using augmented reality technology to help American students understand the true costs of possessing and maintaining a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Up in Arms, a campaign started by Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen to increase support for slashing the bloated US defense spending budget, has teamed with nonprofit media lab Amplifier to create Class Dismissed, a new initiative that gives students in K-12 classrooms a jarring visual representation of nuclear weapons.
"This is a campaign about tradeoffs," Classed Dismissed states on its website. "By placing full-scale representations of nuclear weapons into classrooms, gyms, libraries, and schoolyards, the project makes national spending priorities visible at human scale. As federal military budgets expand, domestic programs are squeezed year after year. While hundreds of billions flow into Cold War–era weapons, schools are left with overcrowded classrooms, aging buildings, and fewer teachers and support staff."
The campaign emphasizes that the weapons students will see depicted on their devices through augmented reality are "not hypothetical," but instead reflect "real weapons programs and real costs, translated through comparisons drawn from public reporting and nonpartisan budget analysis."
Aaron Huey, founder of Amplifier and creative director for Class Dismissed, said the campaign decided to use augmented reality technology to accomplish "things that are physically impossible but politically necessary."
"We can't put a nuclear warhead on a teacher's desk in real life, but with AR we can make you see it there," said Huey. "It puts the cost of these decisions in the room where your kids learn, at the scale where you can actually feel it."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 2025 projected that plans by the US Department of Defense and Department of Energy to "operate, sustain, and modernize current nuclear forces and purchase new forces" will cost $946 billion through 2034, an average of $95 billion per year.
"That total includes $357 billion to operate and sustain current and future nuclear forces and other supporting activities," CBO explained. "$309 billion to modernize strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they carry; $72 billion to modernize facilities and equipment for the nuclear weapons laboratory complex; $79 billion to modernize command, control, communications, and early-warning systems; and $129 billion to cover potential additional costs in excess of projected budgeted amounts estimated using historical cost growth."
"We knew surveillance was happening by the university, but it is shocking to see how systematized it is," said one student.
A dozen universities in the UK are facing criticism after a joint investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates revealed they hired a security firm run by former military intelligence agents to spy on pro-Palestinian student demonstrators.
Specifically, Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates reported they have "uncovered evidence that Horus Security Consultancy Limited trawled through student social media feeds and conducted secret counterterror threat assessments on behalf of some of Britain’s most elite institutions," including the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London.
The investigation found that Horus has been paid $594,000 by the universities since 2022, and it has been asked to monitor targets ranging from a Palestinian academic giving a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University to entire groups of pro-Palestinian organizations at the University of Bristol.
Many of the universities implicated in the investigation declined comment. Imperial College London, however, denied that it paid Horus to spy on its students, and said it merely wanted to "help identify potential security risks to its community, which might include protest activity within the vicinity of its campuses."
This rationale failed to satisfy critics, however.
Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, told Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates that “the use of AI to harvest and analyze student data under the guise of open-source intelligence raises profound legal concerns.”
Romero expressed particular concern that Horus is not accountable to any public scrutiny, and that students have no way to know how the data collected from them will be used in the future.
Lizzie Hobbs, a PhD student at the London School of Economics who has taken part in pro-Palestinian protests, said it was "deeply scary" to see universities invest money in surveilling their own students.
"We knew surveillance was happening by the university," she said, "but it is shocking to see how systematized it is."
Jo Grady, general secretary for the University and College Union, slammed the schools' "shameful" actions and said they had "wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds spying on their own students."
Journalist Mushahid Hussain Sayed also described the universities' actions as "shameful," adding that they discriminated "against students and academics on the basis of their peaceful political beliefs/activism in support of Palestine and against Israel!"
Book bans "were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities," said an American Library Association leader.
"The State of America's Libraries" report "is in a very real way a report on the state of our nation," American Library Association executive director Dan Montgomery wrote in the introduction of the annual publication, released Monday.
"Unsurprisingly, then, there is much to be deeply concerned about in these pages, and much to bring hope," the ALA leader acknowledged. "Ultimately, this report can serve as a clarion call to those who love libraries and our republic."
Published at the beginning of National Library Week, the report explores a range of topics, including threats to intellectual freedom. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) found that last year at least 4,235 unique titles were challenged—the association's term for an attempt to have a resource removed or restricted—the second-highest ever documented, just short of 2023's record.
OIF also found that at least 5,668 books were banned from libraries—66% of those challenged—and 920 books faced restrictions such as relocation or a parental permission requirement. The ALA noted that "this is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship" dating back to 1990.
"In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts," explained Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the OIF, in a statement. "They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities."
Specifically, OIF found that 92% of all book censorship efforts were initiated by "pressure groups, government officials, and decision-makers," and fewer than 3% came from individual parents. Additionally, 40% of the unique titles challenged last year—1,671 works—were about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and people of color.
"Libraries exist to make space for every story and every lived experience," stressed ALA president Sam Helmick. "As we celebrate National Library Week, we reaffirm that libraries are places for knowledge, for access, and for all."
The most-targeted titles in 2025 were:
1. Sold by Patricia McCormick
2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
3. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe
4. Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas
5. (tie) Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo
5. (tie) Tricks by Ellen Hopkins
7. A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas
8. (tie) A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
8. (tie) Identical by Ellen Hopkins
8. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green
8. (tie) Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout
The ALA publication also features sections on library services for people who are incarcerated or in reentry, how libraries can "approach literacy in a community-driven, responsive way to meet today's rapidly evolving and growing literacy needs," and "intensified debates over access to information and shifting fiscal priorities."
The report highlights ALA's Show Up For Our Libraries campaign, launched in the face of attacks from Republican President Donald Trump—who has issued executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to effectively dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He also fired the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, and the register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter.
From threats to (and victories for) intellectual freedom, to increasing services for incarcerated people, to a whirlwind of legislative and legal battles, 2025 proved pivotal for our nation's libraries.Read more in our State of America's Libraries Report: A Snapshot of 2025: https://bit.ly/3ORpvpE
[image or embed]
— American Library Association (@amlibraryassoc.bsky.social) April 20, 2026 at 9:00 AM
While the report sounds the alarm on the state of US libraries—and the nation more broadly—it also emphasizes, as Lamdan wrote in one section, that "the story of library censorship in 2025 is... not only about the challenges libraries faced, but also about the resilience of the people who stood up for them."
"Legal victories and new state-level protections emerged in several regions, reinforcing longstanding principles of intellectual freedom and reaffirming libraries' role as institutions that serve all members of their communities," she noted. "Coalitions of library workers, authors, educators, and community members successfully advocated for right to read laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island that protect intellectual freedom, libraries, and library workers."
"Courts across the nation held that censorship legislation was unconstitutional," Lamdan continued. "Judges declared that laws including Florida's HB 1069 and Iowa's SF 496, which provide for the removal of books containing certain viewpoints, were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Courts also affirmed the First Amendment right to read in libraries. Voters in states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas rejected censorship-focused school and library board candidates, electing board members who promised to protect people’s right to read and learn."
She added that "2025 was also a year of coalition-building. Grassroots activists, advocacy organizations, writers, authors, publishers, teachers, parents, and library workers came together to celebrate libraries and the joy of reading."
The report was released less than three months ahead of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.
"As we look toward the next 250 years, the choice is ours," said Helmick. "We can let our libraries fade, viewed as charming relics of a bygone era. Or, we can choose to invest in them as a bedrock of our future. Let us decide, right now, that they are not optional. They are the very breath of a free society, and they are worth fighting for."