Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Digital Roundabout: Understanding Phone AddictionWake up, 100 messages from group chat overnight about something – what? another assassination attempt; a village destroyed in Lebanon; the football result in England; the weather in Iran being manipulated; the pesticides causing lung and bowel cancer, so everyone who eats salads is now at risk of cancer; meditate for 20 minutes, then fire up x.com, a place I thought I'd never want to revisit, with its carnival barkers and supplement salesman, and have you seen the Lego thing calling Trump a paedo?, you gotta see the Lego thing, and this is before my first coffee, yet x.com is the coffee and the tea, whatever Elon has done to the For You algorithm is evil genius, it's like the global collective id, nasty and funny and addictive and compelling – like gawking at a car crash, like soaking in a hot bubble bath of anger, and memes, and geopolitical dramas, and Trump, Trump, Trump – soaking in Trump, and then, For Me (just as Elon promised).So begins the circuit around my phone, that goes all day and night, around the tiny screen with its icons (when a born-again Christian once told me he had favourite icons, for a long time I thought he meant apps, not pictures of the Virgin Mary). I started to feel like I was in Canberra, on one of those enormous roundabouts, rotating between the icons – not Joseph, not Jesus, but X and WhatsApp and TikTok and even LinkedIn for Christ sakes – round and round from one app to the next, just checking, checking in case something is happening. I watched tiny videos and maybe, occasionally, got distracted by the novel I am meant to be writing, which is due on 31 July. But the novel is boring, just a static Word doc on a screen, it's not giving; it's taking hard work. So I spend six minutes with my novel, and then it's time to go back to my phone, to circle the roundabout visiting all my icons again, like a demented Stations of the Cross, because I can't focus, I just can't focus on work right now when there is so much good scrolling to do …Clearly, this had to stop or I would become deranged and my novel wouldn't get finished by 31 July.But what could break the hold of a phone that seemed more and more addictive every day?The Physical Solution: Brick and Locked DevicesThen, while listening to a Guardian podcast (on my phone) I came across an author talking about a device that locked her phone and gave her her time and attention span back.I had tried apps to lock my phone before, but somehow having them embedded in the phone itself was like placing a piece of fruit in a box of chocolates. Sure you go in there to retrieve the fruit, but you end up distracted by the chocolates. Before you know it, the chocolates have been eaten! The fruit, of course, remains untouched and rotting.I needed an external device to lock my phone. This author was talking about something called Brick ($59US; £54 or $120 AUD including postage), a small plastic puck that you place on your phone which locks its most appealing apps. Hard!The Brick and its cheaper rival Locked ($39USD; £32; $59AUD) use Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to block whatever apps you nominate. To unblock them, you have to physically return to the puck and tap it against your phone. You can set a timer – I set it for one or two hour blocks when I want to focus on my novel – and if you try to unBrick beforehand, it asks you if you want to have a life, or if you want your phone back. That prompt is enough to make me affirm that, yes, I want a life.The Economics of Digital AttentionWhat Brick understands, and what every app-based screen time limit fails to grasp, is that the problem is not information or intention. I already knew I was using my phone too much. The problem is friction, or rather the total absence of it. Digital guardrails collapse the moment you need them most: one tap and you're back on Instagram. Brick makes that tap a physical hurdle.Using the Brick at night has been transformative. The hours I was losing in the roundabout, I now spend reading, thinking and occasionally just sitting in silence.The novel is moving again and I can focus in longer and longer increments.The algorithm doesn't get me after 8pm any more, and it turns out the algorithm, deprived of its evening session, has less purchase on me during the day too.The Psychology of Digital BoundariesBrick hasn't cured my addiction, but it has restored the thing addiction most destroys, which is the moment of pause between impulse and action.These physical devices represent a growing recognition that our relationship with technology requires more than just self-control – it needs environmental design and intentional friction to counteract the sophisticated algorithms designed to capture our attention.As digital products become increasingly sophisticated at capturing and holding our attention, the market for tools that help us reclaim our time and focus is likely to expand beyond simple app blockers to more comprehensive systems of digital wellbeing.The Future of Digital WellbeingLooking ahead, we can expect to see more innovative solutions that address the fundamental design principles of digital products. The success of devices like Brick suggests that consumers are becoming more aware of how their attention is being monetized and are seeking ways to regain control.As awareness of digital addiction grows, we may see regulatory interventions that require technology companies to build more ethical design principles into their products, potentially creating a market for both wellbeing tools and more responsibly designed digital experiences.Ultimately, the journey toward healthier digital habits will likely involve a combination of personal discipline, technological solutions, and systemic changes in how digital products are designed and monetized.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy for most immigration arrests exceeds the authority granted by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.The Second Circuit Overturns Mandatory Detention PolicyIn a 3‑0 opinion authored by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, the court held that the administration’s reading of the law was “novel but incorrect” and would “send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society.” The ruling restores the ability of detained non‑citizens to seek release on bond, reversing a policy that treated virtually all arrests as mandatory detention.Numbers Behind the Controversy: Detention Stats and Legal ChallengesThe policy aimed to detain most people arrested in the immigration crackdown, affecting millions of non‑citizens.More than 370 lower‑court judges nationwide have already rejected the administration’s interpretation.Overcrowded facilities have been a persistent issue, with detention centers operating at or above capacity for years.Ripple Effects on Immigration Enforcement and CommunitiesThe decision threatens to ease the strain on detention facilities, reduce family separations, and restore a long‑standing practice of offering bond hearings to non‑citizens without criminal records. Advocacy groups, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, hailed the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections and basic human decency.What’s Next? Potential Supreme Court Review and Policy ShiftsWith two other appellate courts upholding the policy, the split increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue. The Department of Justice, which continues to defend the policy, has not commented, but the ruling may force the administration to revise its detention guidelines or face a definitive high‑court verdict.

Executive Summary of the Congressional AddressKing Charles III delivered a humor‑tinged speech to the United States Congress, reaffirming transatlantic solidarity, urging continued NATO cohesion, and pressing for sustained support for Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion.Royal Message Emphasizes NATO Unity and Shared HistoryThe monarch highlighted the historic bond between the United Kingdom and the United States, referencing “a tale of two Georges” and the joint sacrifices of two world wars, the Cold War, and Afghanistan. He avoided direct commentary on the US‑Israel conflict with Iran or President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, instead focusing on collective defence under Article 5.Trade and Investment Figures Underscore Economic Ties$430 billion in annual bilateral trade, described as “continues to grow”.$1.7 trillion in mutual investment fueling innovation.Recent US threat of a “big tariff” over the UK’s digital services tax.Strategic Implications for the US‑UK Alliance and Ukraine AidThe address signals a diplomatic push to keep NATO members aligned, especially as the Republican‑controlled Congress debates aid packages for Ukraine. By invoking shared legal traditions—from the Magna Carta to US constitutional checks—Charles framed the alliance as a bulwark for the rule of law and global security.Looking Ahead: Potential Shifts in Defense and Climate CooperationCharles’ nod to “nature’s own economy” hints at renewed UK‑US dialogue on climate policy, contrasting President Trump’s climate‑skeptic stance. Observers expect the speech to bolster bipartisan support for Ukraine assistance and may pressure the US administration to address trade disputes and green energy collaboration.

The Musk‑OpenAI Trial Ignites a Clash Over AI GovernanceThe trial opened on Monday, April 27, 2026 in Oakland, pitting the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, against his former co‑founder, Sam Altman. Musk alleges that Altman breached OpenAI’s founding agreement by converting the nonprofit into a for‑profit entity, while OpenAI counters that Musk is a sore loser after launching his rival AI venture, xAI.Financial Stakes: $134 bn Claim and Potential Market FalloutMusk is seeking more than $134 bn in damages, arguing that the sum should be funneled to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. If awarded, the judgment could cripple OpenAI’s ability to raise capital, jeopardizing its competitive position in the AI race. Conversely, a victory for Altman and Greg Brockman would preserve the for‑profit structure that fuels massive investor inflows.Damages sought: >$134 bnKey executives at risk: Sam Altman (CEO), Greg Brockman (President)Potential impact on funding: Reduced ability to attract venture capital if for‑profit arm is dismantledWhy Personal Grievances Overshadow AI Safety DebateThe courtroom drama is dominated by personal pettiness rather than substantive AI safety questions. Musk’s own track record—such as the Grok chatbot scandal involving non‑consensual deep‑fake content and alleged environmental negligence from xAI data centers—undermines his credibility as an AI safety advocate.Implications for the AI Industry’s Profit vs. Public‑Good BalanceRegardless of the verdict, the case highlights a fundamental tension: should AI development be driven by profit motives or by a mission to benefit humanity? A Musk win could force OpenAI to revert to a nonprofit model, potentially slowing its pace of innovation. An Altman win would reaffirm the for‑profit approach, signaling that massive capital inflows remain essential for competing in the global AI arms race.What the Verdict Could Mean for Future AI RegulationLawmakers and regulators are watching closely. A ruling that emphasizes contractual fidelity over strategic flexibility may encourage stricter governance frameworks for AI startups. Conversely, a decision that upholds the for‑profit structure could embolden other firms to prioritize shareholder returns, prompting policymakers to consider new safeguards to align AI development with broader societal interests.

AI Takes Center Stage at Cannes' Parallel FestivalThe first edition of the World AI Film Festival (WAIFF) opened in Cannes this week, presenting a surreal lineup of AI‑crafted shorts ranging from fish‑scaled men to hyper‑realistic animal protagonists. While the official Cannes Film Festival barred AI entries from its Palme d’Or competition, the up‑start festival attracted big‑tech backers and Hollywood execs, branding the movement a new "nouvelle vague" of cinema. Numbers Behind the AI Film Surge5,000 AI‑created films submitted, up from 1,000 the previous year.Hollywood studios eye multiple $50m AI or hybrid productions instead of a single $200m conventional blockbuster.Swiss‑Italian filmmaker Dario Cirrincione produced a dementia‑themed short for €500 (≈£433), compared with an estimated €20,000 for traditional VFX. Legal and Ethical Friction Over CopyrightA short film echoing Aardman Animation's Wallace and Gromit was shortlisted, prompting director Mathieu Kassovitz to exclaim, "What the fuck?" The festival jury later withdrew the film, citing "strong resemblance to an existing work" and reaffirming its commitment to respecting copyright. The episode underscores ongoing tensions between AI model training on vast troves of human‑created content and the demand for creator compensation. Industry Ripple Effects of AI‑Generated CinemaExecutives like Joanna Popper (LA film and tech) and Marco Landi (former Apple Europe lead) highlighted AI's potential to lower production costs and accelerate shooting schedules. Yet veteran filmmakers such as Gong Li and Claude Lelouch expressed ambivalence, noting that AI excels at technical precision but often lacks narrative heart. The festival also featured a poignant €500 short on dementia, illustrating how AI can enable low‑budget storytelling that would otherwise be financially prohibitive. Future Trajectory of AI in FilmWith major studios pledging to integrate AI across the production pipeline, the next Cannes edition will again exclude AI works from competition, reaffirming the belief that "a film is not an assembly of data; it is a personal vision." However, as Marco Landi warned, the wave of AI adoption is rising: "Stay and the wave will destroy you, or learn to ride it." The coming months will likely see a hybrid model where AI tools augment human creativity while legal frameworks scramble to catch up.

City’s Dramatic Late Turnaround Secures FA Cup Final BerthIn a pulsating semi‑final at Wembley, Manchester City overturned a 1‑0 deficit in the final eight minutes to win 2‑1, thanks to a stunning 87th‑minute strike from Nico González. The comeback not only booked City’s fourth consecutive final but also highlighted Pep Guardiola’s depth and tactical flexibility.Eight‑Minute Goal Burst That Changed the Tie79′ – Finn Azaz (Southampton) scores from 25 yards, giving the Saints a 1‑0 lead.84′ – Jérémy Doku equalises after a quick transition, beating goalkeeper Daniel Peretz.87′ – Nico González fires a rising left‑foot shot into the top corner, sealing the win.The sequence produced three goals in just eight minutes, a rarity in FA Cup semi‑final history.Statistical Snapshot of the Semi‑FinalShots on target: City 7, Southampton 5.Possession: City 48 %, Southampton 52 %.Bench impact: Bernardo Silva, Doku, Foden, Erling Haaland and Nico O’Reilly all featured after halftime.Attendance: approx. 85,000 spectators.What the Victory Means for City and the SaintsFor Manchester City, the win reaffirms their dominance in English cup competitions and showcases Guardiola’s willingness to rotate a star‑laden squad without sacrificing results. Southampton, unbeaten in 20 Championship matches before the tie, proved they can challenge Premier League giants, raising their profile ahead of a potential promotion push.Looking Ahead: Final Opponent and Tactical OutlookCity now await the winner of the Chelsea‑Leeds clash to determine their final opponent. Guardiola is expected to field a strong XI, possibly integrating the bench performers who proved decisive, while Southampton will reflect on a near‑historic upset that could fuel their league campaign.

Donald Trump will break a long‑standing presidential tradition by attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner for the first time as a sitting president, signaling a potential shift in the fraught relationship between the administration and the press.The Historic Shift: Trump’s First Attendance at the Correspondents’ DinnerThe Saturday, April 25, 2026 gala in Washington, DC, marks the first occasion the incumbent president will sit at the black‑tie event that has been held annually since 1921. Until now, presidents have routinely appeared at least once, but Trump previously declined five invitations across his two terms.Numbers Behind the Break: Invitations Declined and Format ChangesFive invitations refused (2017, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024)Comedian performances omitted in 2022, 2024, and 2026 – replaced by mentalist Oz PearlmanFirst private‑citizen attendance in 2011Press Freedom at a Crossroads: Reactions from Journalists and Advocacy GroupsMedia watchdogs—including the Society of Professional Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the National Association of Black Journalists—issued an open letter urging the White House Correspondents’ Association to reaffirm that “freedom of the press is not a partisan issue.”The letter cites a series of actions by the administration: limited White House and Pentagon press pools, FCC threats to broadcasters, immigration enforcement against non‑citizen journalists, and an FBI raid on a Washington Post reporter’s home.What This Means for Future White House‑Press RelationsAnalysts predict the dinner will become a platform for renewed press‑government dialogue, but the absence of a comedian suggests a more controlled, less confrontational tone. If journalists leverage the event to spotlight constitutional protections—e.g., wearing “First Amendment” pins—the dinner could re‑establish its role as a barometer of press freedom under a contentious administration.

Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon have killed at least four people in the Nabatieh district, despite a recently announced three‑week ceasefire extension with Hezbollah. The strikes, reported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, highlight the volatile security environment and the humanitarian toll on civilians.The Deadly Raids on Yohmor al‑Shaqif and Bint JbeilTwo coordinated raids targeted a truck and a motorcycle in the town of Yohmor al‑Shaqif, resulting in four fatalities. Simultaneously, Israeli forces bombed buildings in Bint Jbeil and residential blocks in Khiam, with residents describing the “rumble and thud of explosions” across the region.Casualties, Claims, and Public Opinion NumbersFour civilians killed in Yohmor al‑Shaqif.Israeli military claimed to have eliminated six Hezbollah fighters near Bint Jbeil.A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute showed overwhelming Israeli public support for continuing the conflict, even at the risk of U.S. friction.Implications for the Fragile Lebanon‑Israel CeasefireThe attacks come just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire extension, challenging its credibility. Hezbollah lawmaker Ali Fayyad called the pause “meaningless” and affirmed the group’s right to retaliate. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s “full freedom of action” against any perceived threat.Civilian displacement is worsening; families like Huda Kamal Mansour from Aitaroun have been forced into an empty stadium in Beirut for over a month, living in constant fear of further bombardments.Future Trajectory: Risks of Further EscalationAnalysts warn that the ceasefire could collapse if Israeli operations continue unabated, potentially drawing in regional actors and complicating U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran. Continued civilian casualties may increase international pressure on both sides, but without a mutually enforced halt, the likelihood of renewed large‑scale hostilities remains high.

The Erasure of a Scholar's LegacyWhen Donald Trump returned to office in January last year, one of his first acts was to sign an executive order intended to cut federal funding for any school teaching what the administration defined as "critical race theory." A raft of other orders mandated the termination of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) personnel, offices and training across the federal government. Federal agencies began flagging hundreds of words to avoid or eliminate, including "intersectional" and "intersectionality." All of which has amounted to 40 years of Kimberlé Crenshaw's work being literally and deliberately erased.The Architect of IntersectionalityFor decades, the 66-year-old legal scholar has been naming things that powerful people would prefer remain unnamed. In 1989, she coined the term intersectionality to describe the way race and gender overlap to shape lived experience, often in ways the law fails to recognize. Around the same time, she was one of a group of African American scholars who created the framework that came to be known as "critical race theory," which sought to examine how racism is embedded in legal systems rather than simply enacted through individual prejudice. Now, Crenshaw's ideas are being contested like never before.The Political Weaponization of Academic Concepts"Unfortunately, I did see this coming," she tells me over a video call from the California offices of the African American Policy Forum, the thinktank she co-founded. We are calling to discuss Crenshaw's new memoir, Backtalker, but the conversation soon shifts. "The fact that they are targeting this … it is because they understand the power of these ideas, the power of this history." Behind her, posters reading "History repeats when we forget" and "The freedom to learn is the freedom to live" hang alongside shelves of critical race theory texts and Black history books the likes of which have, in some states, become politically radioactive.The Cultural War Over "Woke" IdeologyWhat makes the intensity of this backlash striking is how recently Crenshaw's work entered mainstream public consciousness. Until a few years ago, ideas such as intersectionality and critical race theory remained largely within the domain of legal scholarship, academic debate and activist vernacular. It wasn't until 2020, when a loose coalition of conservative activists, media figures and politicians began elevating them as political flashpoints, that they were thrust into the centre of the culture wars. In the ensuing five years, this snowballed into all-out war against "woke," with critical race theory as its ultimate bogeyman. It became a byword for liberal overreach, a catch-all for everything that was wrong with the US in the eyes of the conservative right.The Fascist Narrative and American Democracy"Trump jumped on a bandwagon started by a few rightwing propagandists, claiming that intersectionality and critical race theory were anti-white, anti-male and anti-American," she says. "Fox News amplified this, and within weeks, these ideas were mentioned more than they had been in the previous four decades."Crenshaw, true to form, is not shy about naming what she considers to be the problem. "One of the keys of fascism is control of the nation's narrative," she says. "That, alongside creating a group of people that are legitimate targets of exclusion – an us and them – allows for the autocrat to be seen as the embodiment of the essential nation. And in the United States, we come prefabricated for that dimension of fascism to set into our politics."Why is it that so many white Americans are willing to continue to vote for a president that is demolishing democracy, so long as he's willing to affirm them effectively as true Americans?" she continues. "Because of the idea that those over there are different from us. They don't really belong. That is the way fascism works."From Childhood Inequality to Intellectual FrameworkIt is clearly in Crenshaw's DNA to confront injustice, as is evidenced in Backtalker, which chronicles her journey from witnessing inequality as a child to challenging entrenched power structures in law, academia and politics. "Being a backtalker is like being lactose intolerant," she writes. "There is BS that I cannot digest. To accept anything close to second-class status as the price of belonging sickens me."Born in Ohio in 1959, on the verge of the civil rights movement, Crenshaw grew up at a time of expanding yet restricted possibilities. She watched that tension unfolding in real time, in the speeches of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr on television, and in discussions around the kitchen table, where her parents, dedicated anti-racist activists, treated politics as a daily practice. "As a Black child, I had early inklings that differences would matter in my life, even if I couldn't name them," she says.The Making of an Intersectional ConsciousnessOne such inkling came when her family moved to the predominantly white suburb of Canton, Ohio. "When we arrived, there were children playing everywhere," she remembers. "I was excited." But almost overnight, the children vanished. Neighbours treated the new family as intruders and shouted slurs when they walked by; an estate agent knocked on their door urging a quick sale.Perhaps the most formative incident came when she was five years old, and was the only girl in her all-white class who was not given the opportunity to play the princess, Thorn Rosa, in a school performance. "Thorn Rosa marks the stirring of my nascent awareness that my colour and my girlness were linked," she writes."You push that doubt down until something happens that forces it open," she tells me. "You realize that how others see you will shape your experiences. And that realization is traumatic."The Trauma of Loss and the Birth of ActivismWhat mattered, she says, was that those moments were not dismissed. "I credit my parents for taking them seriously," she says. "They refused to minimize what I experienced, even as a young child. That affirmation was freeing, it told me my feelings were grounded in reality and gave me permission to understand them."It was tragedy that would, in many ways, become the making of the young Crenshaw. She was eight years old when Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated in 1968 – a before-and-after moment in her life. The following day, young Black activists in Canton directed schoolchildren to the local church for a hastily organized memorial service. Crowded into pews, everyone was silent when the activists asked if anyone had anything to say about Dr. King. No one moved. It was Crenshaw who broke the silence, exhorting the crowd not to let his death be the end of the freedom struggle. "We pick up where he left off," she recalls saying. "We continue to walk in his footsteps. They can't kill his dream for us – not if we won't let them."Further devastation followed. A year later, her father, an apparently healthy 34-year-old, died suddenly, leaving the family reeling. Not long after, her older brother Mantel was shot and killed while at university. The circumstances were never fully explained, and justice never came. She writes of that period with unflinching candor: "Happiness was dead." These losses left an indelible mark, sharpening her awareness of the unevenness of justice in a world already structured by racial and social inequities.The Complexity of Solidarity and the Limits of "We"Crenshaw arrived at Cornell University in 1978, to a campus shaped by the afterlives of civil rights struggle and Black student organizing. It was there that she entered into a relationship with a fellow student that became physically abusive. In one incident, he beat her and tried to throw her from the window of her 10th-floor dorm room."We were eye-to-eye when he threw the first punch," she writes in Backtalker. "Pressed out of denial, I woke to the fact that he was going to beat the daylights out of me."What followed unsettled her understanding of community more profoundly than the violence itself. Rather than rallying around her, many of her peers – fellow Black students and friends – closed ranks around him. To involve authorities, they told her, would be to expose a Black man to a system already predisposed against him. The implication was that her suffering as a woman should be subordinated to a broader racial solidarity."The way that sexual violence against Black women has long been justified – framing us as unlikely ever to say no to any sexual encounter – you can know this historically, but then when you experience it interpersonally, you have to grapple with the fact that more people in your own community will come to the defense of your abuser than you," she says. "It really presses the question of 'what is solidarity supposed to look like?' she continues. "What does it mean to defend the 'we', when that 'we' often excludes me?"The Birth of Intersectionality in Legal TheoryCrenshaw returns to that question – of the instability of "we"– again and again. From arriving at Harvard Law School and being called the N-word on her first day, to being directed to enter the university's exclusive Fly Club through the back door because she was a woman – the Black male friends she was with, rather than challenge the slight, urged her not to make a scene. What she would later call "asymmetrical solidarities" revealed themselves in practice: loyalty expected but not returned. "I cannot bring myself to ride or die for a politics that won't ride or die for me," she writes of the incident.In legal terms, the problem came into focus when Crenshaw came across a 1976 case in which an African American woman was denied the ability to bring a discrimination claim against her employer on the grounds that the law could recognize race or gender, but not both at once. Her experience – specifically of being discriminated against as a Black woman – fell through the cracks and the case was thrown out of court. In 1989, Crenshaw identified this form of compound discrimination and gave it a name: intersectionality. Around the same time, she was part of a group of scholars developing what would become critical race theory, a broader attempt to understand how racism is a structural part of the legal system.The Promise and Limits of Political RepresentationIt is a lesson that would resurface, years later, in a very different arena. When Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the language of "we" returned with renewed force – this time, as a promise. For many, Obama's election felt like a rupture with the past. But for Crenshaw, it quickly raised a familiar question."I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime," she says, of that initial hope after Obama's victory. "It felt like a miracle. My mother and I celebrated together on the phone – I was dancing on a table at Stanford and she was doing the same in her retirement facility. For her especially, it was a dream come true."But symbolism, Crenshaw suggests, has limits, particularly when it is used as a substitute for structural change. She found his reticence to address racial injustice head-on frustrating. Very quickly, the terms of Obama's political viability became clear."He had been framed as post-racial, beyond these issues," she says. "And that framing became a constraint on what he could say and how directly he could address racial injustice."Even when Obama did address racial inequality more explicitly in his second term – most notably after the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012 – the focus, she felt, remained narrow, failing to address the systemic nature of the problem.The Future of Racial Justice in AmericaAs Crenshaw reflects on her life's work and the current political climate, she remains committed to the struggle for racial justice, even as her ideas face unprecedented opposition. "If speaking out means being at odds with people I love, well, so be it," she writes. "I still love them. I hope they still love me."Looking ahead, Crenshaw sees both challenges and opportunities in the fight for racial justice. The backlash against critical race theory and intersectionality, she argues, is a sign of the power these ideas hold to transform American society. "There's a long history in this country of using the threat of violence to keep people under heel," she observes. "But the resistance has always been there too, and it's getting stronger."As America continues to grapple with its racial legacy, Crenshaw's work – and the concept of intersectionality she pioneered – offers a framework for understanding the complex ways race, gender, and other identities intersect to shape experiences of discrimination and privilege. Whether this framework will survive the current political assault remains to be seen, but Crenshaw's decades of scholarship and activism have already left an indelible mark on American discourse and law.