The far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally) Party continues to grow in France, threatening to topple the current government, led by centrist François Bayrou, and preparing for the next presidential election.
David Broder, an political analyst who publishes on far-right movements in Europe, has written a commentary on the current situation in France, published in The New York Times.
Broder argues that “The [Rassemblement National] party is often stereotyped as a protest vote for left-behind industrial workers, but its appeal is much broader. While the party still trails the left among the very lowest paid, its electoral support has in recent years stretched deep into the middle class. Given that Ms. Le Pen inherited the leadership from her multimillionaire father, the party might not seem like an ideal champion of meritocracy. Yet this promise, to restore the value of individual endeavor, is its pitch today.”
Photo: The New York Times.
According to Broder, “Ms. Le Pen is often cast as a defender of the old French social model, and it’s true that her party opposed Mr. Macron’s raise of the retirement age. Yet she takes a far more ambiguous position on welfare provision generally, as her preference for a pension system more dependent on individual employees’ contributions shows. Her party channels the dissatisfaction of many late-career employees forced to work longer, to be sure, but also that of younger voters skeptical about paying into a system that might never reward them. By the same balancing logic, the party tends to oppose budget cuts while standing against tax rises for consumers and households.”
“The party’s signature move is to cast ethnic minorities, immigrants and the undeserving poor as a special drain on resources. Ms. Le Pen’s supporters are galvanized by fear of such populations, according to researchers such as Félicien Faury and Violaine Girard, yet — interestingly — they do not favor broad welfare support, even for white people. Rather, they increasingly identify with values of self-reliance and homeownership. This is less honey-eyed nostalgia for the postwar golden era than a 21st-century expression of individual autonomy. It demands a tough call to order, though always for someone else.”
French historians have been monitoring the rise of the Front National, the forerunner of the Rassemblement National, and far-right politics in France for several decades. Only now does it seem that the far-right movement might actually be poised to take power in France.
David Broder, “France is in a Deep, Deep Hole,” The New York Times (11 February 2025).
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is challenging the concept of “institutional neutrality” in higher education institutions.
The AAUP makes a forceful argument against so-called “institutional neutrality” on its website: “The AAUP urges universities not to hide behind the pretense of remaining neutral in times of conflict or crisis. As the second Trump administration continues its assaults on academic freedom—and on critical research that saves lives, advances science and innovation, and benefits communities in the United States and around the world—neutrality is neither possible nor viable.”
The statement on its website indicates that “today, the AAUP released the new statement On Institutional Neutrality. As college and university communities begin to suffer the consequences of unchecked power, the statement reaffirms that institutional neutrality is neither a necessary condition for academic freedom nor categorically incompatible with it—and that respect for faculty voices and shared governance procedures is essential to sound decision-making and the protection of those who dissent.”
The AAUP offers a historical perspective on the development of ideas of “institutional neutrality” over the past 50 years or so. “Challenging the notion that institutional neutrality is ‘a timeless principle with a fixed meaning,’ the statement explores the history of the concept and the interpretation of the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, produced amid widespread protests over the Vietnam War on US campuses and invoked now as an authoritative source by those calling for neutrality in response to today’s most pressing political and social issues. ‘A commitment to neutrality,’ the new statement declares, ‘is not some magic wand that conjures freedom. Calls for neutrality instead provide an opportunity to consider how various practices of an institution—not only its speech or silence but also its actions and policies—might promote a more robust freedom of teaching, research, and intramural and extramural speech.'”
The AAUP explains: “Formulated by a subcommittee of Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, On Institutional Neutrality asserts that principles of academic freedom and shared governance should be chief considerations in the issuing of institutional and departmental statements and in decisions about financial investments and campus protest policies. Its conclusion notes, ‘A university’s decision to speak, or not; to limit its departments or other units from speaking; to divest from investments that conflict with its mission; or to limit protest in order to promote other forms of speech are all choices that might either promote or inhibit academic freedom and thus must be made with an eye to those practical results, not to some empty conception of neutrality. The defense of academic freedom has never been a neutral act.'”
Ninety years ago a democratically elected leader dismantled a constitutional republic in record time.
This is a good reminder of how constitutional mechanisms can be used to undermine constitutional systems.
On 30 January 1933, “Adolf Hitler was appointed the 15th chancellor of the Weimar Republic. In one of the most astonishing political transformations in the history of democracy, Hitler set about destroying a constitutional republic through constitutional means. What follows is a step-by-step account of how Hitler systematically disabled and then dismantled his country’s democratic structures and processes in less than two months’ time,” according to historian Timothy W. Ryback, who is director of the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation in The Hague.
Hitler had long been working to subvert the democratic system of Germany’s Weimar Republic. Ryback examines evidence of Hitler’s political methods: “Hans Frank served as Hitler’s private attorney and chief legal strategist in the early years of the Nazi movement. While later awaiting execution at Nuremberg for his complicity in Nazi atrocities, Frank commented on his client’s uncanny capacity for sensing ‘the potential weakness inherent in every formal form of law’ and then ruthlessly exploiting that weakness. Following his failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923, Hitler had renounced trying to overthrow the Weimar Republic by violent means but not his commitment to destroying the country’s democratic system, a determination he reiterated in a Legalitätseid—’legality oath’—before the Constitutional Court in September 1930. Invoking Article 1 of the Weimar constitution, which stated that the government was an expression of the will of the people, Hitler informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to mold the government as he saw fit. It was an astonishingly brazen statement. ‘So, through constitutional means?’ the presiding judge asked. ‘Jawohl!‘ Hitler replied.”
Ryback describes the gradual erosion of democratic norms in Weimar Germany: “By January 1933, the fallibilities of the Weimar Republic—whose 181-article constitution framed the structures and processes for its 18 federated states—were as obvious as they were abundant. Having spent a decade in opposition politics, Hitler knew firsthand how easily an ambitious political agenda could be scuttled. He had been co-opting or crushing right-wing competitors and paralyzing legislative processes for years, and for the previous eight months, he had played obstructionist politics, helping to bring down three chancellors and twice forcing the president to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections.”
“When he became chancellor himself, Hitler wanted to prevent others from doing unto him what he had done unto them. … Hitler had campaigned on the promise of draining the ‘parliamentarian swamp’—den parlamentarischen Sumpf—only to find himself now foundering in a quagmire of partisan politics and banging up against constitutional guardrails. He responded as he invariably did when confronted with dissenting opinions or inconvenient truths: He ignored them and doubled down.”
Hitler acted swiftly. “The next day, Hitler announced new Reichstag elections, to be held in early March, and issued a memorandum to his party leaders. ‘After a thirteen-year struggle the National Socialist movement has succeeded in breaking through into the government, but the struggle to win the German nation is only beginning,’ Hitler proclaimed, and then added venomously: ‘The National Socialist party knows that the new government is not a National Socialist government, even though it is conscious that it bears the name of its leader, Adolf Hitler.’ He was declaring war on his own government.”
As Germany prepared for another election, a massive fire destroyed the Reichstag building on 27 February 1933. Hitler’s government blamed the Communist arsonists for the fire and banned the Communist Party. The National Socialists declared a national emergency and President Paul von Hindenburg signed the emergency provisions into law.
The National Socialists won the election, but only with 44 percent of the vote. It was enough to allow Hitler to form a coalition government and prepare to pass an enabling law.
Hitler’s empowered government acted immediately to take over all state agencies. “The next day, the National Socialists stormed state-government offices across the country. Swastika banners were hung from public buildings. Opposition politicians fled for their lives. Otto Wels, the Social Democratic leader, departed for Switzerland. So did Heinrich Held, the minister-president of Bavaria. Tens of thousands of political opponents were taken into Schutzhaft (‘protective custody’), a form of detention in which an individual could be held without cause indefinitely. … Hindenburg remained silent.”
“On Thursday, March 23, the Reichstag delegates assembled in the Kroll Opera House, just opposite the charred ruins of the Reichstag. … Hitler, dressed now in a brown storm trooper uniform with a swastika armband, arrived to pitch his proposed enabling law, now formally titled the ‘Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.'”
Many centrist and moderate delegates joined with the National Socialists and their allies to pass this enabling law, granting Hitler extraordinary dictatorial powers and effectively ending the Weimar Republic.
“Joseph Goebbels, who was present that day as a National Socialist Reichstag delegate, would later marvel that the National Socialists had succeeded in dismantling a federated constitutional republic entirely through constitutional means. … ‘The big joke on democracy,’ he observed, ‘is that it gives its mortal enemies the means to its own destruction.'”
The Trump administration is now launching direct attacks on fundamental research, applied research, higher education, and university and college institutions across the United States.
The Washington Post reports that “Days into President Donald Trump’s second term, colleges and universities are confronting sweeping, fast-moving challenges that touch on almost every aspect of their operations.”
“The administration has threatened their funding, federal agencies are launching investigations, lawmakers may increase the endowment tax, and executive orders aimed at wiping out diversity, equity and inclusion efforts nationwide could transform the culture at some universities.”
“And on Friday, the Trump administration spread alarm among universities with an announcement that the National Institutes of Health is cutting billions of dollars in ‘indirect’ costs for biomedical research funding.”
These moves will disrupt the basic functioning of scientific, medical, social sciences, humanities, educational, and applied research at universities, colleges, and their partner institutions.
And, further, student scholarships and financial aid programs have already been thrown into chaos.
The Washington Post reports on the so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s assault on research and higher education.
The unlawful and unconstitutional actions of Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency constitute a “Naked Power Grab,” according to the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D – Connecticut).
“The Constitution is clear about many things. There are three branches of government. Presidents can only be elected to two terms. And Congress, not the executive branch, has the power of the purse, meaning the power to control federal spending. It is right there, as clear as day in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'”
This clause of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Appropriations Clause, which is normally an uncontested and uncontroversial principle of constitutional law.
Image: The New York Times
DeLauro argues that “this is a bedrock principle of our government, which President Trump and his unchecked billionaire buddy are attempting to subvert. They are trying to do so through a variety of avenues, including using social media platforms to berate elected officials into submitting to their demands, impounding funds — which is nothing less than stealing congressionally appropriated dollars promised to Americans — and empowering the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.”
The U.S. Congress explains the historical background of the Appropriations Clause: “The Appropriations Clause makes part of American constitutional law a regular practice of British Parliaments dating from at least the Glorious Revolution of the late seventeenth century. Parliament’s function of granting its consent to raise revenue as a supplement to the Monarch’s ordinary revenue sources had by then been an established and powerful tool. However, prior to the Glorious Revolution, Parliament does not seem to have regularly directed its attention to decisions of how voted sums would be used. The view of King Charles II’s chief ministers in the decades prior to the Glorious Revolution, for example, was that the Monarch was the master of his own money and that his ministers had discretion to apply voted sums to defray any casual expenses, of any nature whatsoever. The ministers viewed a 1665 supply bill passed by the House of Commons, for example, as not fit for [a] monarchy because it included a clause of appropriation, that is, legislative language stating that sums the bill raised could be used only for the costs of war against the Dutch Republic. However, when King William III and Queen Mary II jointly assumed the throne in 1689, they recognized Parliament’s power to legislate supply and expenditure. Thereafter, clauses of appropriations became common features of parliamentary legislation.”
The experience of the American War of Independence and the rejection of monarchical rule arguably reinforced the principle of legislative control of appropriations in the fledgling United States.
The U.S. Congress emphasizes that “when the American states framed new systems of government after Independence, most state constitutions made legislative authorization a prerequisite for drawing any funds from a state treasury. … Perhaps owing to the pedigree then enjoyed by the view that a legislature should be solely endowed with the authority to identify the purposes for which public money may be spent, the Appropriations Clause itself attracted little debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.”
The Appropriations Clause is popularly referred to as “the power of the purse” and is rightly considered central to constitutional law on all spending by the federal government of the United States.
Representative Rosa DeLauro’s comments were published in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.
For more information on History and Constitutional Law, see the Historians Council on the Constitution at the Brennan Center for Justice, which is “an independent, nonpartisan law and policy organization that works to reform, revitalize, and when necessary, defend our country’s systems of democracy and justice.”
The United States has entered into the maelstrom of a constitutional crisis.
Constitutional lawyers and legal historians seem to agree that Elon Musk’s actions and the Trump administration’s broader attempts to disrupt federal agencies have created an unprecedented constitutional crisis in the nation.
The New York Times reports that “There is no universally accepted definition of a constitutional crisis, but legal scholars agree about some of its characteristics. It is generally the product of presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings. It is not binary: It is a slope, not a switch. It can be cumulative, and once one starts, it can get much worse.”
“It can also be obvious, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley. ‘We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis right now,’ he said on Friday. ‘There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this.'”
Professor Chemerinsky “ticked off examples of what he called President Trump’s lawless conduct: revoking birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, shutting down an agency, removing leaders of other agencies, firing government employees subject to civil service protections and threatening to deport people based on their political views,” according to The New York Times.
“That is a partial list, Professor Chemerinsky said, and it grows by the day. ‘Systematic unconstitutional and illegal acts create a constitutional crisis,’ he said.”
Kate Shaw, Professor of Law (University of Pennsylvania) argues that “the administration’s early moves … also seem designed to demonstrate maximum contempt for core constitutional values — the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, equal justice under law.”
Adam Liptak, “Trump’s Actions have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say,” The New York Times (10 February 2025).
Five former U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury are raising alarm about the unprecedented and unlawful changes made by the Trump administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the system of payments for the entire federal government of the United States.
Former Secretaries Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H. Summers, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, and Janet L. Yellen have published a collective opinion piece in TheNew York Times, stating: “We take the extraordinary step of writing this piece because we are alarmed about the risks of arbitrary and capricious political control of federal payments, which would be unlawful and corrosive to our democracy.”
They emphasize that “A key component of the rule of law is the executive branch’s commitment to respect Congress’s power of the purse: The legislative branch has the sole authority to pass laws that determine where and how federal dollars should be spent.”
The former Secretaries explain that “The role of the Treasury Department — and of the executive branch more broadly — is not to make determinations about which promises of federal funding made by Congress it will keep, and which it will not. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court previously wrote, ‘Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.’ Chief Justice John Roberts agrees: He wrote that ‘no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.'”
The payment system managed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury affect millions of American citizens directly. “Many people and entities depend on Treasury’s faithful disbursement of federal funds: Social Security checks arrive each month. Veterans receive their benefits. Medicare providers are reimbursed. Federal workers, members of the military and businesses that provide goods and services to the government are all paid on time and in full. Holders of outstanding federal debt receive interest payments.” All citizens should be concerned about the unprecedented changes in the payment systems of the U.S. federal government.
Unfortunately, this statement could have been stronger if some former Secretaries of the Treasury who had served in Republican administrations had joined the statement.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing the Treasury payment system. Nonetheless, the United States has clearly entered a constitutional crisis.
In addition, DOGE officials may have already committed an illegal breach of federal data on all American citizen’s private data held in government payment systems. “Bruce Schneier, a cybersecurity expert at Harvard and the author of a series of books on security vulnerabilities, including Click Here to Kill Everybody, called the entry of Mr. Musk’s force ‘the most consequential security breach’ in American history,” according to the New York Times.
We will see whether federal judges will be able to act effectively to preserve fundamental constitutional provisions and processes.
Constitutional lawyers, political scientists, legal historians, historians of the United States, and historians of state development are monitoring the situation.
Heather Cox Richardson, Professor of History (Boston College), has analyzed the illegal nature of the DOGE maneuvers, explaining that “Billionaire Elon Musk’s team yesterday took control of the Treasury’s payment system, thus essentially gaining access to the checkbook with which the United States handles about $6 trillion annually and to all the financial information of Americans and American businesses with it. Apparently, it did not stop there.”
Timothy Snyder, Professor of History (Yale University), argues that “the ongoing actions by Musk and his followers are a coup because the individuals seizing power have no right to it. Elon Musk was elected to no office and there is no office that would give him the authority to do what he is doing. It is all illegal. It is also a coup in its intended effects: to undo democratic practice and violate human rights.” Snyder emphasizes that “in gaining data about us all, Musk has trampled on any notion of privacy and dignity, as well as on the explicit and implicit agreements made with our government when we pay our taxes or our student loans. And the possession of that data enables blackmail and further crimes. In gaining the ability to stop payments by the Department of the Treasury, Musk would also make democracy meaningless. We vote for representatives in Congress, who pass laws that determine how our tax money is spent. If Musk has the power to halt this process at the level of payment, he can make laws meaningless. Which means, in turn, that Congress is meaningless, and our votes are meaningless, as is our citizenship.”
Seth Masket, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center on American Politics (University of Denver) observes that “There are many disturbing aspects of this. But perhaps the most fundamental is that Elon Musk is not a federal employee, nor has he been appointed by the President nor approved by the Senate to have any leadership role in government. The ‘Department of Government Efficiency,’ announced by Trump in a January 20th executive order, is not truly any sort of government department or agency, and even the executive order uses quotes in the title. It’s perfectly fine to have a marketing gimmick like this, but DOGE does not have power over established government agencies, and Musk has no role in government. It does not matter that he is an ally of the President. Musk is a private citizen taking control of established government offices. That is not efficiency; that is a coup.”
I will update this post as additional historians and social scientists publish analyses.
The New York Times published the opinion piece by the former Secretaries of the Treasury. The Associated Press (AP) reports on the federal judge’s blocking of DOGE. The New York Times reports on privacy issues and the security breach.
President Trump’s outrageous suggestion that the United States annex Gaza and remove the Palestinian people from the territory would be blatantly illegal, constituting a crime against humanity.
President Trump yesterday proposed seizing Gaza, leveling its remaining buildings, clearing debris, and removing its entire population in order to make way for the development of a “Riviera of the Middle East.” He is advocating territorial imperialism, mass deportation, and ethnic cleansing.
Trump is channeling his admiration for President Andrew Jackson’s removal of Amerindians during the early nineteenth century and his love of real estate development into a criminal foreign policy for the twenty-first century. However, an enormous body of international law has developed over the past century and a half that challenges his criminal enterprise.
Trump’s proposed actions would clearly violate international law in multiple ways.
The New York Times reports that “President Trump’s proposal for the United States to take over Gaza, transfer its population to Egypt and Jordan and redevelop it into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’ would unquestionably be a severe violation of international law, experts say.”
“Forced deportation or transfer of a civilian population is a violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime and a crime against humanity. The prohibition against forced deportations of civilians has been a part of the law of war since the Lieber Code, a set of rules on the conduct of hostilities, was promulgated by Union forces during the U.S. Civil War. It is prohibited by multiple provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II defined it as a war crime.”
Displaced Gazans. Photo: New York Times
“The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists forcible population transfers as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. And if the displacement is focused on a particular group based on their ethnic, religious or national identity, then it is also persecution — an additional crime. (Because Palestine is a party to the International Criminal Court, the court has jurisdiction over those crimes if they take place within Gaza, even if they are committed by citizens of the United States, which is not a member of the court.) …
“Janina Dill, the co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said in a statement that forcing Gazans to leave would be a crime: ‘The scale of such an undertaking, the level of coercion and force required, hence the gravity, make this a straightforward crime against humanity.’
“It would be a further, severe violation for the United States to permanently take over the territory of Gaza. …”
I teach courses on HIST 384 War in History since 1500, HIST 399 Civil Wars, and HIST 610 Religious Violence in Global Perspective at Northern Illinois University. Each of these courses considers cases of massacre, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. Ethnic identities, racial ideologies, religious politics, and nationalist programs can all fuel mass violence.
Historians arguably need to work more closely with international lawyers on the problem of violence in order to address issues of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Historical examples from pre-modern periods may be useful in considering forms of mass violence and criminality that are not analogous to the twentieth-century examples that tend to dominate case studies in international law.
There is a massive body of historical and legal literature on ethnic cleansing, mass deportation, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. I have long bibliographies to support each of my undergraduate courses and graduate seminars. I will just signal two collective volumes as starting points on these issues:
Schabas, William A., ed. The Cambridge Companion to International Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Heller, Kevin Jon, et al, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) provides definitions of the elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The New York Times reports on the illegality of President Trump’s proposed Gaza annexation and removal of Palestinians. Peter Baker assesses reactions to the proposed annexation at The New York Times. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports on U.S. allies’ rejections of Trump’s outrageous proposal.
The long-anticipated assault on the Department of Education is now beginning.
President Trump and his allies have long wanted to minimize or destroy the Department of Education, as well as broader public education systems in the United States. Educational institutions and issues represent a major battleground in today’s Culture Wars.
The Washington Post reports that “President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order aimed at eventually closing the Education Department and, in the short term, dismantling it from within, according to three people briefed on its contents.”
“The draft order acknowledges that only Congress can shut down the department and instead directs the agency to begin to diminish itself, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal issues,” according to the Washington Post. “That work is underway already. The new administration has been trying to reduce the workforce by putting scores of employees on administrative leave and pressuring staff to voluntarily quit.”
Many universities, state agencies, education advocacy organizations, parents’ groups, and students’ groups are mobilizing to oppose the cuts to the Department of Education.
The Washington Post indicates that “already, the National Student Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group, is exploring legal challenges to any effort to dismantle the agency. ‘Effectively shutting down the Department of Education through Executive Order or mass firings is a recipe for chaos that will disrupt the lives of students across the country,’ said Aaron Ament, a former Obama administration official who is president of the group. ‘Trying to do so without Congress is not only short-sighted but illegal and unconstitutional.'”
President Trump is aggressively acting to fulfill a long-held dream of many Republican party leaders. The Washington Post emphasizes that “Closing the department has been an off-and-on Republican goal since it was created in 1979. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to ‘return’ responsibility for education to the states, a misleading sentiment echoed by many other GOP candidates. (States and school districts, not the federal government, operate public schools.)”
Anyone with a family member who attends public schools or universities should follow these developments closely. Similarly, anyone who aims to use federal student loans or Pell Grants to pay for college will be directly affected by any changes to the Department of Education’s management of those programs.
The assault on the Department of Education seems likely to have ripple effects on research funding, curricular programs, diversity programs, and academic freedom at universities and public school systems across the United States.
The Washington Post and Politico report on the Trump administration’s assault on the Department of Education.
The AI revolution is continuing to develop rapidly.
OpenAI has launched a new AI search engine called Deep Research, which can allegedly conducted more targeted research than previous AI tools.
The New York Times reports that “OpenAI unveiled the new tool, called Deep Research, with a demonstration on YouTube on Sunday, days after showing the technology to lawmakers, policymakers and other officials in Washington.”
OpenAI has focused on market research and job candidate research applications with its recent launches of AI tools (or agents). Deep Research seems targeted at managerial users in corporations and government agencies, rather than at students, academic researchers or scientific researchers.
“‘It [Deep Research] can do complex research tasks that might take a person anywhere from 30 minutes to 30 days,’ Kevin Weil, OpenAI’s chief product officer, said at the event in Washington. By contrast, Deep Research can accomplish such tasks in five to 30 minutes, depending on the complexity.”
The New York Times explains that “during the briefing on Capitol Hill, Mr. Weil showed the technology gathering information about Albert Einstein. He asked the tool to put together a detailed report about the physicist for a hypothetical Senate staff member preparing for a congressional hearing where Einstein is a nominee for U.S. secretary of energy. In addition to providing information about Einstein’s background and personality, it generated five questions that a senator could ask the physicist to determine whether he was the right person for the job.”
I have not tried out Deep Research, since it is available through ChatGPT Pro—which is a subscription service that costs $200 per month. I would invite comments from researchers who have tested this AI tool and considered its potential applications for academic research.
Brian Sandberg: Historical Perspectives 