Older

July 16 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has announced that all service members aged 30 and older will undergo mandatory screening for testosterone deficiency during their annual health assessments, as the Trump administration continues to emphasize traditional masculine ideals in its public presentation of the U.S. military.

The former Fox News host announced the new policy in an online video statement, saying the new testosterone-screening program is to ensure all U.S. soldiers “have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best.”

“We owe our warriors the absolute best medical care in the world, and this program delivers on that obligation,” he said.

According to a Department of Defense statement, while mandatory for all active-duty and reserve personnel over the age of 30, younger service members may also request screening during their periodic health assessments.

Hegseth said if treatment for a deficiency is recommended, it is up to the service member to decide whether to undergo testosterone replacement therapy.

“This initiative — it’s not about artificial enhancement. It’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight,” he said.

Testosterone is produced in the testicles and helps maintain men’s bone density, fat distribution and muscle strength and mass, among other functions, according to the Mayo Clinic, which said that after the age of 30 or 40, men’s testosterone levels decline at a rate of about 1% a year.

Testosterone replacement therapy seeks to alleviate issues caused by low levels of the hormone, though the Mayo Clinic states that its unclear if such treatment would benefit older men who are otherwise healthy.

The announcement comes as testosterone and testosterone-replacement therapy has been a focus of the Trump administration.

Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it had requested to remove labeling from testosterone-replacement therapy that stated the safety and effectives of the treatment in men with age-related have not been established.

It also comes as Hegseth has sought to cultivate a more traditionally masculine image and culture within the U.S. military, implementing President Donald Trump‘s ban on transgender services members and imposing male physical standards for combat positions, a move critics say could reduce the number of women serving in those roles.

He has also sought to instill a “warrior ethos” in the military and routinely refers to service members as warriors. The Trump administration also refers to the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” though a permanent change to the department’s name requires congressional approval.

Some Democrats were quick to point out that testosterone-replacement therapy is a form of gender-affirming care, which the Trump administration and Republicans have sought to restrict and ban.

“This, by the way, is gender-affirming care,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said during a congressional hearing held shortly after Hegseth’s announcement.

“And, by the way, male members of this committee, watch what you vote for. Do you really want the government getting into your business, taking your testosterone levels and determine whether or not you have enough testosterone? Are you male enough to be in Congress?” she said, mocking the policy.

The latest government measure aimed at curbing digital harm comes after an under-16 social media ban was announced last month.

The United Kingdom has proposed an overnight social media curfew for older teenagers as part of the government’s latest push to protect minors from digital harm, though users will be permitted to bypass the restrictions.

The Labour administration announced the plans on Wednesday, outlining a six-hour default lockout from midnight to 6am for 16- and 17-year-olds on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

Under the proposal, highly engaging mechanisms, such as autoplay videos and infinite scrolling, would also be deactivated by default for this age group to encourage better sleep and focus.

The initiative follows a June announcement by outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who unveiled a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 slated to take effect in 2027.

While the younger cohort faces a strict prohibition on major networks, ministers chose a softer approach for older adolescents.

The UK’s restrictions reflect a rapidly growing global crackdown on young people’s social media access. Australia made waves in December by enacting a world-first ban on social media for under-16s, which its government is already looking to tighten following studies showing that many teenagers easily bypass the restrictions.

The ban, which came into force on December 10, made Australia a global test case for countries trying to curb children’s access to social media.

Defending the voluntary nature of the curfew, UK Secretary for Online Safety Kanishka Narayan rejected criticism that teenagers would simply disable the restrictions. He told Sky News that the government wanted to avoid outright bans for older teenagers, aiming instead for a “smooth slope” into adulthood.

“We want to empower our teenagers,” Narayan said, citing data from a pilot scheme and previous voluntary platform trials where more than 90 percent of teenagers kept the restrictive default settings active.

“The evidence base is clear, the motivation is very clear, and I wouldn’t do the disservice to teenagers of saying they’re all going to switch it off.”

However, political opponents and child safety advocates expressed scepticism about the policy’s efficacy.

Laura Trott, the education spokesperson for the opposition Conservative Party, dismissed the plans as illogical.

“Either they think 16- and 17-year-olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can simply switch off won’t achieve anything,” Trott said, according to the Associated Press news agency.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a prominent UK children’s nonprofit, welcomed the development, but warned that it was a temporary fix.

Chief executive Chris Sherwood cautioned that unless the government implements “further, stronger measures”, the policy will act only as a “sticking plaster” that fails to address the deeply addictive algorithms driving excessive screen time.

The proposals must still be formally legislated. Because they represent some of the final legislative steps of Starmer’s administration, the responsibility of implementing them is expected to fall to his anticipated successor, Andy Burnham.

July 15 (UPI) — Britain announced plans Wednesday for a midnight social media curfew for older teens aimed at preventing them from staying up late into the night on apps such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, with the new measures expected to take effect in Spring 2027.

Targeted at 16- and 17-year-olds and following on from a full social media ban for children younger than 16 announced in June, the package of measures calls for a 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. curfew to be set by default within the apps and that other “addictive features” such as autoplay and customized feeds be automatically disabled, the government said in a news release.

However, unlike the total ban for under-16s, restrictions on the older teens will be discretionary, meaning they will be able to override them, or turn features back on again, at will.

The Science, Technology and Innovation Department said the move was designed to ease young people’s transition into the online world and ensure there was “no cliff edge” when the full social media restrictions they will have been under, in some cases for their entire life, were suddenly lifted when they turn 16.

It said the protections, which came out of a nationwide pilot that found they improved sleep and focus, struck a balance between protecting older teenagers while giving them age-appropriate independence to change the settings, trusting that they will make good choices.

“Our consultation provided a clear message from parents and teenagers alike — even as young people gain greater independence at 16, they should still be protected from the most addictive online features that can have a harmful impact on their wellbeing,” said Technology Secretary Liz Kendall.

“These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life,” she added.

The first set of regulations will be introduced to parliament by the end of this year, with measures expected to come into force in spring 2027, timed to coincide with when the social media ban for children younger than 16 comes into force.

The opposition Conservative Party’s shadow education secretary Laura Trott described the move as “absurd.”

“Either Labour think 16 & 17 year olds should be on social media or they don’t, but curfews they can switch off won’t achieve anything. They should stop tinkering and get on with getting u16s off social media,” she wrote in a post on X.

Ellen Roome, who alleges her 14-year-old son lost his life in an online dare that went awry in 2022, was also highly critical.

“I just think it’s not good enough really just to have a product you can switch off; it’s a bit like offering a 17-year-old a bottle of alcohol and then moving it slightly out of arm’s reach, they can just drag it back in, I really wish they could go stronger and harder on these things,” she told the BBC.

Kendall said measures were also in the pipeline to help children younger than 18 use AI chatbots safely, including regular breaks, and tackling bots or apps pushing “dangerous, misleading or unverified” mental health tips with ministers open to all solutions, including banning chatbots that put children at serious risk.

Wednesday’s development follows announcements in June giving Apple, Google and other tech firms three months to stop explicit images from being shot, shared or viewed on children’s mobile phones and in April on planned legislation to ban children from using smartphones in schools in England.

Fifty years ago, in 1976, the median age of the global population was just under 21 years. That means of the 4.1 billion people on Earth at the time, about half were younger than 21 and half were older. Today the median age is 31, and by 2050 the United Nations projects it will reach 36. The typical human being is steadily getting older.

What is the replacement rate?

The engine of that change is fertility. Demographers measure it using the total fertility rate, the average number of children a woman would have over her lifetime at current birth rates. The figure that matters most is the replacement rate, generally put at about 2.1 births per woman. That is the level at which a generation exactly replaces itself, keeping the population stable over the long run without immigration. The slight margin above two accounts for children who do not survive to adulthood.

The global fertility rate today is about 2.2, barely above replacement and down from approximately five in the 1960s. The United Nations expects it to reach the replacement level around the middle of this century and to keep falling after that. More than half of all countries are already below replacement, including China, the United States, India, Japan and most of Europe.

In practical terms, a fertility rate below replacement means that, over time, each generation is smaller than the one before it. Fewer babies today means fewer working-age adults tomorrow, and a growing share of retirees supported by a shrinking workforce. That is the pressure now facing pension systems, health services and labour markets from Italy to South Korea. It is why population ageing, more than raw numbers, is becoming the defining demographic story of the century.

President Trump on Thursday announced that grocery stories and air conditioning companies will be allowed to keep using high-polluting refrigerants for longer than they would have under a law he signed during his first administration.

“This was a tremendous burden, a tremendous cost,” said Trump, surrounded in the Oval Office by executives from supermarket chains including Kroger, Fairway, Neimann Foods and Piggly Wiggly. “It was making the equipment unaffordable, and the actual benefit was nothing.”

The move loosens rules meant to restrict hydroflourocarbons, a class of climate-damaging chemicals used in cooling equipment. HFCs are known as “super pollutants” because their impact on climate change can be tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide during their shorter lifespans.

In the move Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency extends the deadline for companies to comply with a 2023 rule transitioning refrigerators and air conditioners off HFCs and onto new cooling technologies. Reducing these chemicals and moving to cleaner refrigerants has long been a bipartisan issue.

Trump is also proposing exemptions from a rule requiring leak repairs on large-scale refrigeration systems.

The administration framed the changes as part of its effort to bring down high grocery costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the actions will save $2.4 billion for Americans and safeguard 350,000 jobs.

“Americans who wanted to be able to fix their equipment were instead being required to buy far more costly new equipment and that just doesn’t make any sense,” said Zeldin.

David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the move will not only harm the climate, but U.S. competitiveness in global refrigerant markets as well.

“The EPA is catering to a small group of straggling companies by derailing the shift away from these climate super-pollutants,” he said. “The industry at large supports the HFC phasedown and has already invested in making new refrigerants and equipment, currently installed in thousands of stores.”

Danielle Wright, executive director of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council, an environmental nonprofit, said any perceived near-term savings from the rollbacks will be outweighed by the future costs.

“Business owners are far more worried about the escalating cost of keeping aging, high‑global-warming-potential equipment running than they are about the cost of installing new, compliant systems,” she said.

Trump dismissed the climate concerns, saying his changes “are not going to have any impact on the environment.”

He said he wants to get rid of the technology transition rule entirely in the future.