JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
California (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series #29)
In California, voters approved a mid-decade redistricting plan that replaced the state’s independent redistricting commission with a map expected to net Democrats as many as five additional House seats. The move by the Golden State came in response to a similar effort by Republicans in Texas, setting the stage for one of the most consequential redistricting battles in recent history. As it stands today, Democrats appear well-positioned to capitalize on the new map.
Florida (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series #28)
In Florida, the primary election will take place on August 18th. The former swing state has shifted firmly into Republican control over the past decade. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed a mid-decade congressional map into law that could expand the GOP’s advantage in the state from 20-8 to as much as 24-4. As President Donald J. Trump’s home state, Florida Republicans are taking every available step to protect & expand their hold over the Sunshine State.
Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #227)
Recent days have seen resumed fighting between the United States and Iran. Multiple days of US airstrikes targeting Iran, following Iran’s attacks on three ships in the strait. US and Iranian officials had agreed to a preliminary memorandum of understanding to end the costly and destructive 110 day conflict. Both the US and Iran, along with their allies, agreed to declare an end to military operations on all fronts, which includes Israel’s war on Lebanon. Including Lebanon in the deal had been a hurdle in reaching the deal as Israel has refused to end its attacks and withdraw from Lebanese territory.
Does the Protect College Sports Act Protect College Athletes? (Social Justice Brief #192)
Last month, senators Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz drafted the Protect College Sports Act in an attempt to regulate college sports at the federal level. The bipartisan bill is the latest of many such attempts to standardize the constantly fluctuating college sports industry—none of which have yet been signed into law. The Protect College Sports Act aims to regulate the NIL (name, image, and likeness) market, and it does so by drafting requirements for college athletes to report earnings of over $600 per year to athletic departments, which no other college students earning income are required to do.
World Cup of Exclusion (Social Justice Brief #193)
The 2026 FIFA World Cup was supposed to represent global unity, international sportsmanship, and the United States’ ability to welcome the world. Instead, as of June 29, 2026, the tournament is being overshadowed by growing concerns over U.S. immigration enforcement, visa delays, travel bans, airport detentions, and entry denials affecting players, referees, officials, and fans. The United States, along with Canada and Mexico, is co-hosting the largest World Cup in history, but early reports show that access to the tournament is not being experienced equally.
Texas Said ‘Fix Education’—and Gave Us Vouchers, Bibles, and Budget Cuts (Education Policy Brief #214)
Texas is undergoing one of the most sweeping public education overhauls in its modern history, with major changes to school funding, curriculum, and governance taking shape as of June 2026. At the center of this shift is the rollout of a $1 billion school voucher program, expanded state control over curriculum, and controversial revisions to what millions of students will be taught in classrooms.
United States Men’s National Team World Cup Post-Mortem (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
Obviously, the loss to Belgium is the most disappointing moment of the World Cup for the USMNT and their fans. Losing 4-1 to Belgium came as a shock to most USA fans, and clearly to the players as well; however, perhaps it should not have since the only time the USA has ever beat Belgium was in the 1930 World Cup (the very first World Cup ever). Since 1930, Belgium has won every time they have played the United States. So, though, the USMNT was riding a serious wave of fandom and support, but the historical data suggests that they may have never really stood much of a chance anyway.
United States Supreme Court Upholds Mail Ballot Receipt Grace Periods (Civil Rights Policy Brief #254)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #254 | July 5, 2026 | Rodney A. Maggay Policy Summary: In 2024 prior to the United States elections the Republican National Committee and the Trump Campaign filed numerous legal challenges that sought to invalidate mail voting ballot receipt...
Trump’s Brand of Vicious Hatred Spreads to Others, and Reveals Insecurity and Weakness (Elections & Politics Brief #206)
Followers of President Donald Trump who imitate his cruel style of spitting out hateful insults beware: the style reveals your insecurity and weakness.
California (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series #29)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Morgan Davidson | 7/10/2026
In California, voters approved a mid-decade redistricting plan that replaced the state’s independent redistricting commission with a map expected to net Democrats as many as five additional House seats. The move by the Golden State came in response to a similar effort by Republicans in Texas, setting the stage for one of the most consequential redistricting battles in recent history. As it stands today, Democrats appear well-positioned to capitalize on the new map.
The national environment also favors Democrats. The memorandum of understanding between the U.S. & Iran has collapsed, with fighting escalating again just months before the midterm elections. Inflation remains a concern as food, gas, & housing prices continue to rise. Immigration enforcement continues to dominate headlines, including another fatal encounter involving an unarmed man in Houston this past week. The President has also faced renewed scrutiny over a series of public gaffes, most recently referring to the “Islamic Republic of Japan” while discussing foreign policy. Taken together, these factors create an environment where Democrats could perform well up & down the ballot.
That said, there are still 116 days until the midterm elections. A lot can happen between now & November. Whatever one makes of California’s decision to redraw its congressional map, there is undeniable risk involved. Redistricting in the middle of a decade means shifting reliable voters out of safe districts in an effort to flip neighboring ones. If conditions remain favorable, the strategy could produce significant gains. If the political environment shifts, however, Democrats could find themselves losing seats that would otherwise have remained secure. It is a calculated gamble, but for now, one that appears to favor Democrats.
Turning to the elections themselves, California has 52 House seats up for grabs in 2026. There will be no Senate race this cycle, meaning all of the attention will be focused on the House. Of the 52 districts, 7 already know which party will control the seat, with 6 guaranteed to remain Democratic & 1 guaranteed to remain Republican. California’s top-two primary system advances the two highest vote-getters to the general election regardless of party, meaning not every November race features one Democrat & one Republican.
Districts 11, 12, 14, 29, 34, & 37 are already guaranteed to remain in Democratic hands. The remaining districts will determine just how much Democrats can expand their majority. California is already one of the nation’s bluest states, & with the current political climate combined with the new congressional map, Democrats appear well-positioned to make gains across the state. Below, I cover each Democratic candidate before turning to the key races that will likely determine the size of the party’s congressional majority.
House
CA-01: Mike McGuire (Democrat, male, 46) will face Republican incumbent James Gallagher. Gallagher finished first in the primary with 42.1%, but McGuire was right behind him with 41.8%. This is one of Democrats’ clearest pickup opportunities under the new map.
CA-02: Incumbent Jared Huffman (Democrat, male, 62) will face Republican Robin Littau. Huffman received more than half of the primary vote & should comfortably retain the district.
CA-03: Incumbent Representative Ami Bera (Democrat, male, 61) will face Republican Robb Tucker. Bera moved into the newly drawn district after previously representing CA-06 & enters the general election as the favorite.
CA-04: Incumbent Mike Thompson (Democrat, male, 75) will face fellow Democrat Eric Jones (male, 35). With two Democrats advancing, the district is guaranteed to remain in Democratic hands, though Jones is mounting a generational challenge against the longtime incumbent.
CA-05: Michael Masuda (Democrat, male) will face Republican incumbent Tom McClintock. McClintock won more than 60% of the primary vote, leaving Masuda with a difficult path in November.
CA-06: Richard Pan (Democrat, male, 60) will face incumbent Representative Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party & is running with no party preference. Pan is favored by the district’s Democratic lean, but Kiley’s incumbency & narrow first-place primary finish make this an unusual race worth following.
CA-07: Mai Vang (Democrat, female, 41) will face Democratic incumbent Doris Matsui (female, 81). Vang actually finished slightly ahead of Matsui in the primary, making this one of the state’s most notable generational contests. The district will remain Democratic regardless of the winner.
CA-08: Incumbent John Garamendi (Democrat, male, 81) will face Republican Rudy Recile. Garamendi won more than half of the primary vote & remains heavily favored.
CA-09: Incumbent Josh Harder (Democrat, male, 39) will face Republican John McBride. Harder received more than 60% of the primary vote & should continue to represent the district.
CA-10: Incumbent Mark DeSaulnier (Democrat, male, 74) will face Republican Jeff Frese. DeSaulnier enters the general election with a commanding advantage.
CA-11: Scott Wiener (Democrat, male, 56) will face Connie Chan (Democrat, female, 47) in the race to replace retiring Representative Nancy Pelosi. Wiener finished first in the primary, but Chan advanced in second place, guaranteeing that San Francisco will continue to be represented by a Democrat.
CA-12: Incumbent Lateefah Simon (Democrat, female, 49) will face fellow Democrat Jamie Joyce. Simon received more than 80% of the primary vote & should have little trouble securing another term.
CA-13: Incumbent Adam Gray (Democrat, male, 48) will face Republican Kevin Lincoln. Gray enters as the favorite under the new map, though the Central Valley district is more competitive than California’s urban Democratic strongholds.
CA-14: Aisha Wahab (Democrat, female, 39) will face Melissa Hernandez (Democrat, female). The open East Bay seat is guaranteed to remain Democratic, with Wahab entering November after comfortably leading the primary.
CA-15: Incumbent Kevin Mullin (Democrat, male, 56) will face Republican Charles Hoelter. Mullin won nearly two-thirds of the primary vote & should comfortably retain the seat.
CA-16: Incumbent Sam Liccardo (Democrat, male, 56) will face Republican Peter Sundin Soulé. Liccardo received more than 75% of the primary vote & is one of the safest Democrats on the ballot.
CA-17: Incumbent Ro Khanna (Democrat, male, 49) will face Republican Ritesh Tandon. Khanna remains heavily favored in the Silicon Valley district.
CA-18: Incumbent Zoe Lofgren (Democrat, female, 78) will face Republican Shane Lewis. Lofgren won a majority of the primary vote & should retain the district.
CA-19: Incumbent Jimmy Panetta (Democrat, male, 56) will face Republican Peter Coe Verbica. Panetta remains the clear favorite in the Central Coast district.
CA-20: Sandra Van Scotter (Democrat, female) will face Republican incumbent Vince Fong. Fong received more than two-thirds of the primary vote, making Van Scotter one of the Democratic Party’s longest-shot candidates.
CA-21: Incumbent Jim Costa (Democrat, male, 74) will face Republican Kyle Kirkland. Costa remains favored, but the primary results & Central Valley makeup make the district worth monitoring more closely than most Democratic-held seats.
CA-22: Randy Villegas (Democrat, male, 31) will face Republican incumbent David Valadao. Valadao finished first in the primary, but Democrats collectively received a majority of the vote. Villegas represents one of the party’s strongest pickup opportunities in California.
CA-23: Tessa Lynn Hodge (Democrat, female) will face Republican incumbent Jay Obernolte. The district remains strongly Republican & Obernolte enters November with a considerable advantage.
CA-24: Incumbent Salud Carbajal (Democrat, male, 61) will face Republican Bob Smith. Carbajal won a majority of the primary vote & remains favored to retain the district.
CA-25: Incumbent Raul Ruiz (Democrat, male, 53) will face Republican Joe Males. Ruiz received 60% of the primary vote & should comfortably return to Washington.
CA-26: Jacqui Irwin (Democrat, female, 64) will face Republican Sam Gallucci in the open-seat race created by Julia Brownley’s retirement. Irwin led the primary by a wide margin & enters the general election as the favorite.
CA-27: Incumbent George Whitesides (Democrat, male, 52) will face Republican Jason Gibbs. Gibbs finished first by less than half a percentage point, making this one of California’s most competitive Democratic defenses.
CA-28: Incumbent Judy Chu (Democrat, female, 73) will face Republican April Verlato. Chu received more than 60% of the primary vote & remains heavily favored.
CA-29: Incumbent Luz Maria Rivas (Democrat, female, 52) will face fellow Democrat Angélica María Dueñas. Rivas led the primary with 51%, & the district is guaranteed to remain Democratic.
CA-30: Incumbent Laura Friedman (Democrat, female, 59) will face Republican Scott Alan Meyers. Friedman won more than half of the primary vote despite a crowded field & should retain the seat.
CA-31: Incumbent Gil Cisneros (Democrat, male, 55) will face Republican Eric Ching. Cisneros received more than 60% of the primary vote & remains comfortably favored.
CA-32: Incumbent Brad Sherman (Democrat, male, 71) will face Republican Larry Thompson. Sherman finished first in a crowded primary & should remain favored despite Thompson’s relatively strong showing.
CA-33: Incumbent Pete Aguilar (Democrat, male, 47) will face Republican Stephanie Vargas. Aguilar won a majority of the primary vote & should comfortably retain his seat.
CA-34: Incumbent Jimmy Gomez (Democrat, male, 51) will face fellow Democrat Angela Gonzales-Torres. Gomez enters as the favorite, but Gonzales-Torres’ advancement gives progressive voters another opportunity to challenge the incumbent from within the party.
CA-35: Incumbent Norma Torres (Democrat, female, 61) will face Republican Mike Cargile. Torres won nearly 60% of the primary vote & remains favored.
CA-36: Incumbent Ted Lieu (Democrat, male, 57) will face Republican Houston Brignano. Lieu received more than 60% of the primary vote & should win another term.
CA-37: Incumbent Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Democrat, female, 53) will face fellow Democrat Samantha Mota. The district is guaranteed to remain in Democratic hands, with Kamlager-Dove entering as the overwhelming favorite.
CA-38: Hilda Solis (Democrat, female, 68) will face Republican Pedro Antonio Casas. The former U.S. Secretary of Labor & current Los Angeles County supervisor enters the open-seat race as the favorite.
CA-39: Incumbent Mark Takano (Democrat, male, 65) will face Republican Steve Manos. Takano received 61% of the primary vote & should retain the district.
CA-40: No Democrat advanced to the general election. Republican incumbents Ken Calvert & Young Kim will face one another in November, guaranteeing Republican control of the seat.
CA-41: Incumbent Linda Sánchez (Democrat, female, 57) will face Republican Mitch Clemmons. The two finished within 2 points of each other, but other Democratic candidates received a sizable share of the primary vote, leaving Sánchez favored in November.
CA-42: Incumbent Robert Garcia (Democrat, male, 48) will face Republican Brian Burley. Garcia received more than half of the primary vote & should comfortably retain the district.
CA-43: Incumbent Maxine Waters (Democrat, female, 87) will face Republican Cristian Morales. Waters received nearly two-thirds of the primary vote & remains heavily favored.
CA-44: Incumbent Nanette Barragán (Democrat, female, 49) will face Republican Genevieve Angel. Barragán received 77% of the primary vote & should easily win another term.
CA-45: Incumbent Derek Tran (Democrat, male, 46) will face Republican Chuong Vo. Tran received a majority of the primary vote & enters November in a much stronger position than he did when first winning the seat.
CA-46: Incumbent Lou Correa (Democrat, male, 68) will face Republican David Pan. Correa won a majority of the primary vote & remains favored.
CA-47: Incumbent Dave Min (Democrat, male, 50) will face Republican Jenny Rae Le Roux. Min led the primary comfortably & should remain favored in the Orange County district.
CA-48: Marni von Wilpert (Democrat, female) will face Republican Jim Desmond in the open race created by Darrell Issa’s retirement. The new map gives Democrats a real opportunity to flip the district, though Desmond led the primary & remains a formidable opponent. This is likely to be one of California’s most closely watched House races.
CA-49: Incumbent Mike Levin (Democrat, male, 47) will face Republican Armen Kurdian. Levin received more than half of the primary vote & remains favored in the coastal district.
CA-50: Incumbent Scott Peters (Democrat, male, 68) will face Republican Steve Cohen. Peters led the primary, but Cohen approached 40%, making this a district Democrats should continue to take seriously.
CA-51: Incumbent Sara Jacobs (Democrat, female, 37) will face Republican Ricardo Cabrera. Jacobs received nearly 58% of the primary vote & remains favored.
CA-52: Incumbent Juan Vargas (Democrat, male, 65) will face Republican Jeff Belle. Vargas received a clear majority of the primary vote & should comfortably retain the district.
Democrats’ Best Chance to Flip
Democrats’ best opportunity to flip a California House seat appears to be CA-01, where Mike McGuire will face Republican incumbent James Gallagher. The two finished virtually tied in the primary, but the newly drawn district favors Democrats & gives McGuire a much clearer path in November. McGuire’s experience in state government, political network, & strong name recognition make him the Democratic candidate most likely to turn a Republican-held seat blue.
The most important race to watch, however, may be CA-22. Democrat Randy Villegas will challenge Republican incumbent David Valadao in a Central Valley district that Democrats have targeted for years. Valadao has repeatedly survived difficult elections, including in districts that appear favorable to Democrats on paper, making him one of the strongest Republican incumbents in California. Villegas has a path through the district’s Democratic lean & his focus on working-class economic issues, but he will have to reconnect with Latino & working-class voters who have recently moved toward Republicans.
CA-06 also provides one of the most unusual races in the state. Democrat Richard Pan will face incumbent Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party earlier in 2026 & is now running as a no-party-preference candidate. Kiley’s decision allows him to distance himself from the Republican Party & the Trump administration while still benefiting from incumbency, name recognition, & support from many conservative voters. The new district favors Democrats, giving Pan a strong chance to win, but Kiley’s independent label could make him harder to defeat than a traditional Republican nominee.
CA-48 should also receive significant attention. Democrat Marni von Wilpert is running against Republican Jim Desmond for the open seat left behind by Darrell Issa. The new district slightly favors Democrats, but Desmond’s experience in San Diego County & strong primary performance make the race far from guaranteed. CA-01 may be Democrats’ easiest pickup, but CA-22, CA-06, & CA-48 are more likely to provide the genuine election-night drama.
Recent Interviews
- Mike McGuire, CA-01: North State Public Radio interview, May 5- https://www.mynspr.org/news/2026-05-05/mike-mcguire-interview-california-1st-congressional-district-2026
- Randy Villegas, CA-22: “Hard Work” campaign ad– https://www.facebook.com/VillegasforCongress/videos/hard-work_digitalmp4/1276961757274578/
- Richard Pan vs. Kevin Kiley, CA-06: ABC10 segment, June 19– https://www.abc10.com/article/entertainment/television/programs/to-the-point/pan-kiley-trade-attacks-as-race-for-californias-6th-district-heats-up/103-00250407-e04c-4446-b7e0-2720ff28000f
- Marni von Wilpert, CA-48: KPBS interview, May 28– https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/kpbs-midday-edition/californias-48th-congressional-district-race-marni-von-wilpert
- Mai Vang vs. Doris Matsui, CA-07: candidate forum– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa2u9duzqHM
Take Action
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates and races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/California
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
- CalMatters is a nonprofit outlet known for tracking political happenings in the Golden State. https://calmatters.org/
Florida (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series #28)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Morgan Davidson | 5/14/2026
In Florida, the primary election will take place on August 18th. The former swing state has shifted firmly into Republican control over the past decade. Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed a mid-decade congressional map into law that could expand the GOP’s advantage in the state from 20-8 to as much as 24-4. As President Donald J. Trump’s home state, Florida Republicans are taking every available step to protect & expand their hold over the Sunshine State.
That said, redistricting like this can be a gamble. In a political climate where Trump & Republicans more broadly are viewed unfavorably, moving Republican voters out of safe districts & into more competitive ones could create openings for Democrats. Trump’s war with Iran, aggressive ICE enforcement, rising costs, & growing tensions involving Cuba could all produce changes on the ground in Florida. Still, the Senate race is rated Solid Republican by the Cook Political Report, meaning that any Democratic progress is more likely to come in individual districts or localized areas than through a major statewide shift.
While Democrats may not see immediate success statewide, it is vital for the party to continue organizing across Florida, especially as voters adjust to the new map & the districts undergo demographic changes. Under the previous map, Democrats held more districts that were considered safely in their column. In 2026, only 4 districts are rated Solid Democratic, while one Democratic-held seat is a Toss Up & several others fall into the Lean or Likely Republican categories.
The new map may have reduced the number of seats Democrats control without question, but it has also increased the number of districts where the outcome could depend on the broader national environment. There are now roughly 7 competitive races worth watching, though some are Democratic defenses rather than true pickup opportunities. Winning most of them would be a long shot, but the possibility highlights the gamble created by aggressive redistricting during a potential Democratic wave election. If Democrats could sweep, they would gain 4 seats compared to 2024 map.
Sunshine State voters can cast their primary ballots on August 18th, followed by the general election on November 3rd.
Senate
With Marco Rubio now serving as Secretary of State, Florida will hold a special election to fill the remainder of his Senate term. Alex Vindman (male, 51) & Angie Nixon (female, 42) are the two Democrats vying for the seat. Vindman was born in Kyiv, Ukraine, & is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who served as Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council. He rose to national prominence after testifying during Trump’s first impeachment over the President’s pressure on Ukraine while military aid was being withheld.
Nixon, a Jacksonville native, has served in the Florida House since 2020. She has built her political profile around affordable housing, public education, fair wages, healthcare, & support for working-class families. While Nixon brings experience in elected office, Vindman’s national name recognition, fundraising advantage, & role in Trump’s first impeachment have made him the favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
The winner will likely face appointed Republican Senator Ashley Moody. Most polling gives Moody an advantage, reflecting both her incumbency & the GOP’s structural strength in Florida. However, the most recently fielded poll from Freedom Project USA & Change Research found that Moody & Vindman were tied at 46% among likely voters. The poll came from a Democratic-aligned group, while another June poll from a business group that endorsed Moody placed her ahead by 7 points. The difference between the polls shows why the race should be viewed cautiously, but a tie in any statewide Florida survey is still notable given how far the state has shifted toward Republicans.
Democrats remain long shots to take the seat, but the race is worth watching as November approaches. If Trump’s approval continues to struggle & the national environment moves further toward Democrats, Vindman could at least force Republicans to spend time & money defending a seat that would normally be considered safe if not outright win.
House
Over in the House, Democrats face a difficult environment created largely by Florida’s new congressional map. While national conditions may favor the party in 2026, Republicans redrew the state in a way that places several Democratic incumbents in districts that now lean toward the GOP. Democrats will have opportunities to compete in Republican-held districts, but their first priority will be protecting the seats they already control.
The most important Democratic defenses are FL-09, FL-14, & FL-25. Incumbent Darren Soto is running unopposed in the Democratic primary in FL-09, but the new district heavily favors Republicans. Soto has shown an ability to outperform the top of the Democratic ticket in the past, giving him at least an outside chance to survive, though he enters as an underdog.
In FL-14, incumbent Kathy Castor is also running unopposed in the Democratic primary. Castor has represented the Tampa area for nearly two decades, but the redrawn district now leans Republican. Her incumbency, fundraising network, & deep ties to the region give Democrats a real chance to hold the seat, making this one of the most important races in Florida.
FL-25 may be the closest race in the state. Incumbent Jared Moskowitz faces Oliver Larkin in the Democratic primary, though Moskowitz enters with the advantages of incumbency, fundraising, & name recognition. The newly drawn district stretches along the Atlantic Coast from portions of Palm Beach County into Miami-Dade & is expected to be highly competitive in November. A Moskowitz victory would prevent Republicans from fully realizing the gains they intended to create through redistricting.
Democrats should remain safe in districts such as FL-10, represented by Maxwell Frost, along with the heavily Democratic districts centered in South Florida. However, some of those seats feature crowded Democratic primaries that could determine the next generation of party leadership. FL-20 includes Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Luther Campbell, Elijah Manley, & several other Democrats, while FL-24 has a large field competing for the open seat after Frederica Wilson failed to qualify for the ballot.
On offense, Democrats have several Republican-held districts worth watching. FL-07 has drawn a crowded Democratic field seeking to challenge Cory Mills, including Jennifer Adams, former Congressman Alan Grayson, Marialana Kinter, & Noah Widmann. Mills remains favored, but questions surrounding the incumbent & the broader political environment make the district more interesting than a typical Republican seat.
FL-13 also features a crowded Democratic primary, with Fatima Aguerjout, Leela Gray, John Liccione, Reggie Paros, & Brandt Robinson seeking the opportunity to challenge Anna Paulina Luna. The district still favors Republicans, but its location in Pinellas County & history of political competition make it another race Democrats should continue to organize around.
In South Florida, FL-27 may offer Democrats another opportunity to improve on recent results. Mike Davey, Lev Parnas, Robin Peguero, & Eliott Rodriguez are competing for the Democratic nomination against Republican incumbent Maria Elvira Salazar. The district remains Republican-leaning, but changing political conditions in South Florida & the emergence of several candidates with established public profiles make it a race worth following.
Overall, Democrats are more likely to spend 2026 defending vulnerable incumbents than making major gains in Florida. Still, the number of competitive districts created by the new map means Republicans cannot take their expanded advantage for granted. If Democrats can protect Soto, Castor, & Moskowitz while making one or two Republican-held districts genuinely competitive, they could limit the damage of redistricting & begin rebuilding a stronger statewide organization.
Democrats’ Best Chance to Flip
Democrats’ best chance to flip a seat in Florida appears to be FL-27, where Republican incumbent Maria Elvira Salazar faces a growing challenge in South Florida. The district still leans Republican, but recent local election results, concerns over rising costs, & backlash toward the Trump administration’s immigration policies have created an opening for Democrats. Salazar has even warned that aggressive deportation policies could hurt Republicans with Cuban & Venezuelan voters who have helped drive the region’s shift toward the GOP.
The Democratic primary remains unsettled. Former television anchor Eliott Rodriguez has led available primary polling, while former prosecutor Robin Peguero has shown an ability to raise money & build grassroots support. Regardless of who advances, the nominee will need to reconnect with Latino voters who moved toward Republicans in recent elections without assuming dissatisfaction with Trump will automatically bring them back. Salazar remains favored, but FL-27 has moved from a safe Republican seat into one that deserves serious attention.
FL-07 may be Democrats’ most unpredictable opportunity. Republican incumbent Cory Mills represents a district that still favors the GOP, but allegations & controversies surrounding him have created an opening that would not exist against a stronger incumbent. Democrats have a crowded primary field, so the party’s chances may depend heavily on whether voters select a candidate capable of raising money, avoiding a damaging primary, & keeping the general election focused on Mills’ record.
FL-13 also provides a longer-shot opportunity against Republican Anna Paulina Luna. An internal Democratic poll found Luna in a statistical tie with Leela Gray, a retired Army brigadier general, though results from campaign-sponsored polling should be viewed cautiously. The district still favors Republicans, but Luna’s negative ratings in that survey & Gray’s military background make it another race worth watching if the national environment continues moving toward Democrats.
The Senate special election may receive more national attention, but Cook continues to rate that contest Solid Republican. Democrats’ more realistic chances to gain ground may come in these individual House districts. FL-27 currently provides the clearest path, FL-07 offers the most volatile incumbent, & FL-13 stands out as a possible surprise if Democratic momentum turns into a genuine wave.
Recent Interviews
- Alex Vindman – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uv_XbiFuLw
- Angie Nixon – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3CkNQBYJRU
- Jared Moskowitz– https://www.nbcmiami.com/video/video/nbc6-impact-rep-jared-moskowitz-declares-he-will-run-in-new-25th-district/3820647/
- Eliott Rodriguez -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_dXP6IwR08
- Robin Peguero – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP4F1Q9DZ5E
- Jennifer Adams – https://www.facebook.com/JenniferAdamsFL/videos/my-name-is-jennifer-adams-im-a-mom-survivor-of-domestic-violence-policy-educator/1706332196814585/
- Leela Gray – https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leelajgray_service-over-self-still-guides-me-im-running-activity-7424801945581903872-ATlM
Take Action
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates and races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_elections,_2026
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
- Donate to Florida through candidates’ websites or to the Party here- https://floridadems.org/
Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #227)
Foreign Policy Brief #227 | Abran Castro | July 13, 2026
US- Iran Ceasefire deal breakdown
Commercial vessels and oil tankers preparing to transit through the strait of Hormuz on 17 June 2026. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images
Recent days have seen resumed fighting between the United States and Iran. Multiple days of US airstrikes targeting Iran, following Iran’s attacks on three ships in the strait. US and Iranian officials had agreed to a preliminary memorandum of understanding to end the costly and destructive 110 day conflict. Both the US and Iran, along with their allies, agreed to declare an end to military operations on all fronts, which includes Israel’s war on Lebanon. Including Lebanon in the deal had been a hurdle in reaching the deal as Israel has refused to end its attacks and withdraw from Lebanese territory.
The 14-point agreement was signed by Trump while attending the G7 summit in France. Though the agreement was not a final peace deal, it stated that the US and Iran would commit to negotiating and achieving a final deal in a “maximum” of 60 days. The straight of Hormuz would once again be opened, though now with Iranian control over the passage of ships. This has been a main sticking point in the implementation of the deal with the US unwilling to accept Iranian control over the strait and Iran unwilling to return to the pre-war status quo. Markets and multiple countries had welcomed the deal as months of war have left the global economy and energy supplies in shambles. However, with the resumption of hostilities and fears of a resumption of a broader war, markets and oil prices have again become volatile.
China’s Ethnic Unity Law
Getty Images, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/06/china-new-ethnic-unity-law-set-to-entrench-assimilation-of-minority-groups/
China has brought into effect a new ethnic unity law that seeks to create a “shared” national identity among the country’s 56 ethnic groups. The ethnic groups in China consist of the Han Chinese majority and 55 other minority groups. The law promotes Han Chinese culture and language as the official standard for all ethnic groups to assimilate to or risk being charged with separatism. Outside of the majority Han Chinese population, the country recognizes 55 other ethnic minority groups, which together account for 8.9% of mainland China’s population. The law includes a clause which states that even people and groups beyond the borders of the People’s Republic of China can be held legally accountable for undermining “ethnic unity and progress or inciting ethnic separatism.” The passage of the law caused alarm in self-governed Taiwan due to the fear that it could give Beijing another legal basis to go after people in Taiwan whom it views as separatists. Rights groups have raised concerns that the new law would compromise the cultural and social rights of ethnic minorities.
Aftermath of Earthquakes in Venezuela
Venezuelan citizens search destroyed buildings in La Guaira, Venezuela June 28, 2026. Credit:U.S. Marine Corps/public domain.
The death toll from Venezuela’s devastating two earthquakes on June 24 has passed 4,330 people, with another 16,740 injured. Back to back quakes, and the biggest in the country in over a century, a 7.5 magnitude quake, struck only 39 seconds after the initial 7.2 magnitude shock. Before June 24, Venezuela was already facing one of the most complex economic challenges. In a single evening, the earthquakes pushed the solutions to that challenge further out of reach. Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, has called for the release of frozen assets held abroad to be used towards the recovery. The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has estimated direct physical damage to housing and infrastructure at about $37 billion.
US intervention in Cuba Next?
A worker points to the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Nimitz docking in the Gulf of Panama, March 30, 2026. | Matias Delacroix/AP
Cuba has reported its second nationwide blackout in less than a week, plunging the island into complete darkness once again. It follows similar outages that bring the total number of island-wide outages to four since the start of the year. Outages are not uncommon in Cuba, where much of the system dates to the Cold War period, between 1960 and 1980. The problem has intensified since January, when United States President Donald Trump blockaded Cuba’s supply of foreign oil. The US military has also spent months positioning the troops and weapons needed to launch a military attack of some kind on Cuba. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of an invasion of Cuba and even annexing the country and making it a part of the United States.
The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has also been open about his long standing ambition for the fall of the island’s government. Rubio stated, while professing a preference for a negotiated settlement with Cuba, also said that the chances of a deal were “not high”. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, also warned the government of Cuba against seeking weapons that could strike the US mainland or the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, saying it would invite a confrontation Havana could not withstand. The administration has been open about the next stated regime change project, and it increasingly is likely we may see some kind of US intervention in Cuba in the near future.
Does the Protect College Sports Act Protect College Athletes? (Social Justice Brief #192)
Social Justice Brief #192 | Katie Lever | June 7, 2026
Last month, senators Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz drafted the Protect College Sports Act in an attempt to regulate college sports at the federal level. The bipartisan bill is the latest of many such attempts to standardize the constantly fluctuating college sports industry—none of which have yet been signed into law. The Protect College Sports Act aims to regulate the NIL (name, image, and likeness) market, and it does so by drafting requirements for college athletes to report earnings of over $600 per year to athletic departments, which no other college students earning income are required to do.
In college sports, NIL refers to the rights of college athletes to earn money from business ventures like endorsements using their name, image, and likeness. Prior to 2021, the NCAA explicitly banned college athletes from earning money outside of financial aid and limited educationally-related expenses on the basis of its amateurism policies. College sports policy is nothing new both at the state and federal level. In 2019, the state of California introduced the Fair Pay to Play Act, which established NIL rights to college athletes for California college athletes, initially set to take effect in 2025. Today, NIL rights apply to college athletes in all 50 states.
However, when NIL-centric policy was first introduced, it was assumed that universities in NIL-friendly states would have a recruiting advantage, since NIL was not initially accessible to all college athletes, so after the initial California bill was introduced, a cascade of similar state-level NIL-focused policies followed. Months later, Florida introduced a similar bill with an expedited deadline of 2021 for NIL rights to take effect for athletes attending universities in Florida. The Florida bill forced the NCAA to get involved more quickly than the California bill, and the NCAA eventually handed over the responsibility of drafting NIL policies to 1.) states with NIL laws, and 2.) individual universities that were located outside of the handful of states that drafted their own legislation.
Fast forward to 2026, and the college sports industry is still grappling with the monumental changes that NIL brought to college athletic departments.
Because of the spotlight NIL brought to other restrictions on athlete rights, college sports policy has now expanded to account for other issues within the industry, like employee rights for college athletes. This happened over a decade ago when the Northwestern University football team attempted to unionize, but the 2020s have been the first consistent period of state and federal legislative focus on college sports policy. The Cantwell/Cruz bill is the latest iteration of such policy.
The bill also codifies updates to the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act, a federal law enacted in 2004 that regulates the activity of sports agents, to include federal regulations to apply to agents representing college athletes. The bill would require agent registration, limit agent fees to five percent, and provide college athletes with a private right of action against agents who are deceptive, fraudulent, and abusive. Notably, the bill also continues the revenue sharing cap established by the House v. NCAA settlement past its expiration date of 2035, or the termination of the settlement.
The House settlement is an important piece of the Protect College Sports Act’s framework, as it ended the NCAA’s longstanding prohibition on athlete compensation and established a revenue sharing cap. The settlement, which was approved in July 2025 by Judge Claudia Wilkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, differs from the Protect College Sports Act, but still impacts it. Specifically, the House settlement stipulated that universities could share up to $20.5 million of revenue with their athletes during the 2025-26 season, a figure that is expected to rise by 4% per year to keep up with inflation. This differs from NIL because NIL is payment from third parties, whereas revenue sharing is payment that comes directly from the universities themselves.
The Protect College Sports Act has several features that set it aside from previously drafted policies. First, it would establish a limited antitrust exemption in regards to athlete transfers and eligibility limits. Antitrust laws are designed to preserve competition in the free market, by prohibiting monopolies and other practices that limit fair trade. The NCAA has long been under scrutiny of antitrust violations due to the extensive levels of control it exercises over schools, conferences, and athletes. Thus, it has been seeking exemptions for some time now.
Antitrust exemptions are not new in the realm of sports law. Major League Baseball, for instance, operates under a full antitrust exemption regarding interstate commerce and player trades, and the National Football League has limited exemptions stemming from the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which allows it to negotiate broadcast contracts collectively, and another that allows freer negotiation between the NFLPA and the league. Generally speaking, antitrust exemptions on behalf of sports leagues benefit the leagues themselves, not the athletes, and, thus, are periodically challenged in court, often by players. The exemption proposed in the Protect College Sports Act would likely follow a similar path if signed into law. This was not an issue in bills that only addressed NIL, but has come to light in federal-level bills.
The bill also touches on another controversial area in collegiate sports: athlete employee status. The debate over whether or not college athletes count as employees dates back to the 1950s when the NCAA first coined the term “student-athlete” to argue that college athletes were students rather than employees to deny them workplace rights like workplace compensation, disability coverage, and death gratuity. The latter benefit came to a head when Billie Dennison, widow of Fort Lewis A&M football player Ray Dennison, applied for death gratuity after her late husband died of a football-related injury. She was denied because Ray Dennison was not an employee by legal standards.
Although many link employee status to salaries for college athletes, there are many employee benefits that would be helpful to college athletes, like overtime pay and maternity rights. The Protect College Sports Act likely opts for neutrality on the topic because it would almost certainly face legal challenges if it included prohibitory verbiage. Even so, like its predecessors, it faces a steep uphill battle to make it through a divided Congress, though its provisions of scholarship guarantees and improved healthcare for college athletes helps its chances. In spite of its perks, however, the bill looks a lot like former college sports policy that failed to pass the House, let alone be signed into law, and offers limited protections and benefits to college athletes.
World Cup of Exclusion (Social Justice Brief #193)
Social Justice Brief #193 | Valerie Henderson | June 29, 2026
Summary
The 2026 FIFA World Cup was supposed to represent global unity, international sportsmanship, and the United States’ ability to welcome the world. Instead, as of June 29, 2026, the tournament is being overshadowed by growing concerns over U.S. immigration enforcement, visa delays, travel bans, airport detentions, and entry denials affecting players, referees, officials, and fans. The United States, along with Canada and Mexico, is co-hosting the largest World Cup in history, but early reports show that access to the tournament is not being experienced equally.
One of the most visible examples is Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan, who was reportedly denied entry into the United States at Miami International Airport despite having a valid U.S. visa and being selected by FIFA as one of the tournament referees. U.S. officials cited “vetting concerns,” while Artan reportedly said he believed officials had “a problem with my country.” Iraq’s forward Aymen Hussein was also reportedly detained and questioned for several hours at Chicago O’Hare, while an Iraqi team photographer was denied entry.
Fans have also been affected. Supporters from countries including Morocco, Scotland, Iran, Haiti, Senegal, and Côte d’Ivoire have reportedly faced visa denials, revoked travel authorizations, or broader travel restrictions that make attending U.S.-based matches difficult or impossible. Human rights advocates, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, have warned that racial profiling, surveillance, and aggressive immigration enforcement risk undermining the spirit of the World Cup.
Analysis
The contradiction at the center of this issue is glaring: the United States helped bid for and win the opportunity to host one of the world’s most inclusive sporting events, yet current immigration and border enforcement practices are creating barriers for the very international community the tournament depends on. FIFA’s World Cup is designed around global access. Teams, referees, staff, journalists, and fans travel across borders to participate in something larger than national politics. However, the U.S. portion of the 2026 tournament is now being shaped by restrictive immigration policies that are unevenly affecting people from African, Middle Eastern, Muslim-majority, and Global South countries.
As of June 29, reported incidents include denied entry for Somali referee Omar Artan, prolonged airport questioning of Iraqi forward Aymen Hussein, the denial of entry for an Iraqi team photographer, visa complications for Iranian officials, and added scrutiny or travel barriers for fans from several countries. These cases are not isolated inconveniences; they highlight a structural conflict between a mega-event built on international participation and a host-country immigration system operating through suspicion, exclusion, and broad discretionary power. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has emphasized that all travelers, including athletes and officials, are subject to inspection and vetting, but advocates argue that the practical impact falls disproportionately on people from certain regions and backgrounds.
The issue is also bigger than players. Some athletes may eventually receive visas or exemptions because they are essential to the event’s commercial success, but support staff, referees, journalists, families, and fans may not receive the same treatment. This creates an unequal system where the most visible and profitable participants are more likely to be accommodated, while everyone else is left vulnerable to delays, detentions, denials, or fear. That distinction matters because a World Cup is not only made up of star athletes. It is built by entire communities’ coaches, trainers, photographers, federation staff, volunteers, families, and supporters who create the atmosphere and cultural exchange the tournament promises.
The racial and political implications are impossible to ignore. The UN’s top human rights official called for a “massive rethink” of U.S. immigration and security policies ahead of the World Cup, specifically warning about racial profiling, surveillance, and immigration enforcement affecting teams and supporters. Amnesty International USA and partner organizations issued a travel advisory warning that immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, journalists, and non-U.S. nationals may face heightened risks when traveling to or within the United States during the tournament.
This is where the story becomes a mirror of domestic U.S. realities. Many Black and Brown communities in the United States already understand what it means to be treated as suspicious before being treated as human. The same logic that drives over-policing, surveillance, and disproportionate enforcement inside American neighborhoods is now being projected outward at airports, borders, and visa offices. The World Cup is simply making that reality visible to a global audience.
There is also a reputational cost. Hosting the World Cup is a chance for a country to present itself as open, safe, organized, and welcoming. Instead, reports of referees being turned away, fans losing money after denied travel authorization, and teams relocating operations to Mexico because of visa issues risk making the U.S. look exclusionary and unstable as a host. The question is no longer just whether the games will happen. The question is whether the United States can host a global event without allowing immigration politics to determine who is welcome in the stands, on the field, or at the border.
My Opinion
The United States wanted the World Cup, but what we are seeing raises a painful question: did America want the world or only certain parts of it?
As a Black woman watching this unfold, I cannot separate these immigration stories from the broader patterns of racialized suspicion that many communities already experience in this country. When a Somali referee with FIFA credentials and a valid visa can still be denied entry, when Iraqi players and staff can be detained or turned away, and when fans from African, Middle Eastern, and Muslim-majority countries face barriers that others may not, this stops being only a sports story. It becomes a story about who is automatically viewed as a threat.
The World Cup is supposed to be one of the few global spaces where nationality, language, race, and politics briefly give way to shared joy. But U.S. policy is turning that promise into a checkpoint. Security matters, but security cannot become a blanket excuse for humiliation, exclusion, or selective access. A nation cannot celebrate hosting the world while building systems that tell certain people they are too risky to enter.
What concerns me most is the normalization of this treatment. If fans, athletes, and officials accept this as simply “how things are,” then exclusion becomes part of the event’s infrastructure. The World Cup should not become another example of America benefiting from global culture while policing the bodies and borders of the people who create it.
If the U.S. is going to host the world, it must be willing to welcome the world—not just the profitable, familiar, or politically convenient parts of it.
Take Action
- Amnesty International USA
Amnesty International USA has issued a 2026 World Cup travel advisory warning fans, players, journalists, and visitors about risks tied to immigration enforcement, racial and ethnic profiling, LGBTQ+ discrimination, arbitrary denial of entry, detention, and deportation. - American Immigration Council
The American Immigration Council conducts research and advocacy on U.S. immigration policy, including how travel bans and immigration enforcement affect World Cup access, host-city economies, and international visitors. - United Nations Human Rights Office / UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
UN High Commissioner Volker Türk has called for a “massive rethink” of U.S. immigration policies ahead of the World Cup, warning that racial profiling, surveillance, and aggressive enforcement could undermine the safety and dignity of teams, supporters, and society at large.
Texas Said ‘Fix Education’—and Gave Us Vouchers, Bibles, and Budget Cuts (Education Policy Brief #214)
Education Policy Brief #214 | Valerie Henderson | June 29, 2026
Summary
Texas is undergoing one of the most sweeping public education overhauls in its modern history, with major changes to school funding, curriculum, and governance taking shape as of June 2026. At the center of this shift is the rollout of a $1 billion school voucher program, expanded state control over curriculum, and controversial revisions to what millions of students will be taught in classrooms.
The voucher program, signed into law and now actively rolling out, allows families to use public taxpayer dollars up to $10,000 per student to pay for private school tuition or other education-related expenses. As of June 2026, more than 100,000 Texas students have already been awarded vouchers, signaling a major shift in how public education funding is distributed. Supporters argue this gives families “school choice,” while critics say it diverts critical funding away from already struggling public school systems.
At the same time, the Texas State Board of Education has approved a massive rewrite of social studies standards and required reading lists, including the addition of mandatory Bible stories and a stronger emphasis on Christianity and Texas identity in classrooms. The updated curriculum reduces emphasis on world history, diversity, and the contributions of marginalized groups, sparking major backlash from educators, parents, and civil rights advocates.
Despite significant state investments in education funding, school districts across Texas continue to report budget crises, layoffs, and campus closures, raising questions about whether these reforms are strengthening public education or destabilizing it further.
Analysis
The Texas public education overhaul is not one single policy it is a multi-layered transformation that touches nearly every aspect of how education is funded, taught, and governed. When you look at the full picture, three major shifts stand out: funding redirection, curriculum control, and systemic pressure on public schools.
The most immediate and measurable change is the school voucher program, which is now moving from theory to reality. With over 100,000 students already receiving vouchers, Texas is effectively redirecting public funds into private education at an unprecedented scale. While the policy is framed as empowering parents, the structural impact is clear: when students leave public schools, the funding tied to them often leaves as well. For already under-resourced districts, especially in urban and rural areas this creates a compounding problem. Schools are expected to operate with fewer students, fewer resources, but the same or greater needs.
Even more concerning is that financial strain in public schools is already evident. Despite an $8.5 billion funding effort through House Bill 2, districts across the state report layoffs, campus closures, and severe budget shortfalls. This suggests that increased funding is not translating into sustainable support, in part because of how funding is structured spread across targeted programs instead of strengthening core operational budgets.
At the same time, the state is tightening its grip on what students learn. The newly approved curriculum changes represent a dramatic shift toward a more state-centered educational framework. The inclusion of mandatory Bible readings and the increased emphasis on Christianity and patriotic themes mark a significant cultural and political turn in public education. Critics argue that this approach sidelines diverse perspectives and risks violating the principle of separation between church and state, while also limiting exposure to global history and multicultural experiences.
For a state as large and diverse as Texas with more than 5.5 million public school students this narrowing of perspective has real implications. Curriculum is not neutral; it shapes how students understand history, identity, and their place in the world. By reducing the visibility of race, diversity, and global context, the state risks producing a generation of students with a less complete understanding of both their country and the world.
What makes this moment particularly significant is how these policies intersect. Funding is being redirected away from public schools while those same schools are being asked to implement new, politically driven curriculum changes under increasing financial strain. Meanwhile, parents are encouraged to leave the system altogether through vouchers. The result is a dual-track system, one where public education is weakened structurally while alternative options are expanded, but not necessarily equally accessible to all families.
My Opinion
What’s happening in Texas public education right now doesn’t feel like reform, it feels like a restructuring of who education is for and who it serves.
As a Black woman and a parent, I can’t look at these changes without thinking about how they will land in communities that are already navigating inequities in education. Public schools have historically been both a lifeline and a battleground for Black and Brown families. They are where access to opportunity either expands or is denied. When funding is redirected away from those schools, the impact is not evenly distributed. It hits the hardest where the need is already greatest.
The curriculum changes are just as concerning. Education is supposed to broaden perspective, not narrow it. When you remove or minimize conversations around race, diversity, and global history, you are not protecting students, you are limiting them. And when you elevate one religious or cultural perspective above others in public schools, you are making a statement about who belongs and whose story matters.
What stands out most is the contradiction. On one hand, the state is saying it wants to “empower families.” On the other, it is centralizing decisions about what students learn while weakening the very system that serves many Texas children.
If this is the direction Texas is heading, then the question becomes: who benefits from this version of education and who is being left behind?
Take Action
- Texas Appleseed: Focuses on improving public school systems and addressing inequities in Texas education through research and policy advocacy, especially around funding and access.
- IDRA (Intercultural Development Research Association): Advocates for equitable education policies and provides research on how funding changes and curriculum decisions impact marginalized and underrepresented students.
- Every Texan (formerly Center for Public Policy Priorities): Works on public policy research and advocacy, including how state budgets and education reforms affect low-income students, public schools, and community outcomes.
United States Men’s National Team World Cup Post-Mortem (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
Foreign Policy Brief #226 | Reilly Fitzgerald | 7/8/2025
Policy Summary
The United States Men’s National Team’s (USMNT)World Cup quest is over as of Monday, July 6th, in a Round of 16 match against Belgium. This World Cup for the US Men’s National Team has had a lot of positives, some negatives, and some question marks for the future and where to go from here.
Analysis
The USMNT came crashing out of the World Cup, somewhat unexpectedly, after losing to Belgium in a 4-1 thumping of a match. Naturally, there will be lots of thoughts, and opinions, about what happened and where to go from this point. So, let’s start this post-mortem analysis with the negative side of the USMNT’s World Cup.
Obviously, the loss to Belgium is the most disappointing moment of the World Cup for the USMNT and their fans. Losing 4-1 to Belgium came as a shock to most USA fans, and clearly to the players as well; however, perhaps it should not have since the only time the USA has ever beat Belgium was in the 1930 World Cup (the very first World Cup ever). Since 1930, Belgium has won every time they have played the United States. So, though, the USMNT was riding a serious wave of fandom and support, but the historical data suggests that they may have never really stood much of a chance anyway.
Also, a negative impact on the USMNT leading into the match against Belgium was the Folarin Balogun red card situation and President Trump’s insertion of himself into the World Cup. Folarin “Flo” Balogun was given a red card in the match before Belgium (against Bosnia and Herzegovina) for accidentally stepping onto the ankle of an opponent. The red card was given which meant that he was ejected from the Bosnia match, and then supposed to be given a one-match suspension which was supposed to keep him out of the Belgium match. President Trump asked the FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, to re-examine the red card and the suspension. This led to FIFA altering the one-match ban on Folarin Balogun by giving the suspension a one-year delay; meaning, he would be available to play against Belgium and would serve the one-match ban at a later date (and in a match that lacks any of the weight of the World Cup knockout round). This decision could have massive implications regarding fairness for the rest of the World Cup, and beyond. It begs the question, can FIFA interfere with these very normal rules and referee decisions when they feel like it (or are urged by political figures like Donald Trump)?
There are a few positive takeaways from this World Cup for the USMNT, namely viewership. Soccer, or football as the rest of the world calls it, is rapidly rising in popularity according to the viewership numbers that the USMNT achieved in this World Cup. Their first match, against Paraguay, had about 27.5 million viewers, according to the New York Times. Their final match against Belgium had 42 million viewers, according to the Wall Street Journal. This makes their final match the most watched USMNT match in history. Comparing these numbers to other sports major games/matches shows just how popular this team was, and how popular soccer is becoming. The 2025 SuperBowl had about 137.7 million viewers; the 2026 NBA Finals had an average of 20.6 million viewers; the 2026 Stanley Cup had about 5.2 million viewers; and the 2025 World Series had 33 million viewers at its peak during Game 7. Clearly, American Football and the SuperBowl continue to be the most dominant sporting match in America, but the Belgium match puts soccer firmly in the #2 spot, based on viewership. And for the record, the US Women’s National Team (USWNT) had a record viewership of 23 million viewers when they won the 2015 Women’s World Cup ( higher numbers than the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup).
The other positives are based on the actual performance of the USMNT. For the first time in World Cup history, the USA won three matches (they played 5 total). They won a knockout round match in the Round of 32, which is the first time the Round of 32 has ever existed as this World Cup had an expansion of teams involved from 32 to 48 teams. Also, they had a variety of goal-scorers with players like Folarin Balogun (3), Malik Tillman (2), Sebastian Berhalter (1), Alex Freeman (1), Auston Trusty (1), and Giovanni Reyna (1). It is not uncommon for some teams to have just one or two main goal scorers; the USA had goals scored from six players.
Going forward, beyond the 2026 World Cup, the U.S. Soccer will have to address some major questions to ensure that the USMNT is able to go further into the next World Cup in 2030. Some of the major questions that ought to be asked are:
- Is having American players playing in European club teams, outside of the World Cup, truly the difference maker?
- How can the United States change their youth systems and programs to ensure that they are going after the most talented players out there, and not just becoming an out-of-touch and out-of-reach over-priced sport?
I plan to write more on both of these topics in the future, but the United States has to address these two questions before going forward.
Engagement Resources
- FIFA World Rankings (FIFA) – https://inside.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men
- World Cup in graphics and charts (Reuters) – https://www.reuters.com/graphics/SOCCER-WORLDCUP/zgvolqqoypd/
Project Play (Aspen Institute) – https://projectplay.org/news/2025/2/24/project-play-survey-family-spending-on-youth-sports-rises-46-over-five-years - Let Kids Play Act (US Congress) – https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4522
United States Supreme Court Upholds Mail Ballot Receipt Grace Periods (Civil Rights Policy Brief #254)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #254 | July 5, 2026 | Rodney A. Maggay
Policy Summary: In 2024 prior to the United States elections the Republican National Committee and the Trump Campaign filed numerous legal challenges that sought to invalidate mail voting ballot receipt grace periods.
A mailed voting ballot receipt grace period is when a state permits a certain number of days after Election Day for receipt of a mail ballot in order for the mail ballot to be counted. Many states have different grace periods, ranging from three days to as many as seven days. One condition for the grace period is that the mailed ballot be postmarked by Election Day at the latest even though it ends up being received a number of days after Election Day.
Many of the legal challenges brought by the Trump Campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the various states were dismissed. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the Trump Campaign and the RNC. The appeals court overturned a lower court ruling and found that “acceptance of ballots ends on the ‘Election Day’ designated by Congress.” The case was then sent back to the lower court but the case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In the case Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 that states are permitted to count mail in ballots postmarked by Election Day yet received afterward. The majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee is a ruling that helps preserve a state’s authority over the conduct of elections although the case does have bigger implications for nationwide federal elections.
This decision turned on the definition of Election Day and the word “election.” Justice Barrett wrote that an election is when the electorate chooses their preferred candidate. This means that voting and an election is “made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.” So when ballots are postmarked before Election Day that means their voting is complete. And since no federal laws mention any limitation or deadline as to when mail – in ballots are to be received then states are free to count mail in ballots postmarked before Election Day but are received afterward.
Justice Samuel Alito tried to argue that election and Election Day mean that the collective choice of the electorate must be done all on Election Day because this was how ballots were received and counted when voting was done in person. However, Justice Barrett pushed back on this perspective by stating that even though we have 19th century voting laws does not mean that we should follow 19th century voting practices since polls were only open on Election Day in the nineteenth century. Historical practice should not control modern day voting realities, e.g. the use of mailed and absentee ballots.
While the Justices were debating how to interpret words such as Election Day and election, the case was significant because of the effect it could have on upcoming future national elections. Many Republicans, including the Trump Administration, have always bemoaned the counting of mailed ballots received after Election Day. Ballots counted after that day have traditionally favored Democratic candidates and has led to numerous conspiracy theories that mailed ballots are being manipulated to favor Democratic candidates. Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, it is conceivable that election officials could disqualify a significant number of votes for the simple reason they were received after Election Day. A voter could have followed every rule or procedure to vote and mail their ballot and have it postmarked by Election Day but then have it disqualified for reasons beyond their control. An opposite ruling here could have been a significant boon to Republican candidates. In Washington state, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs stated that as many as 250,000 mailed ballots were postmarked by Election Day but received afterwards and could have been disqualified for the 2024 election. The receipt of mail in ballots has also been one that the Trump Administration has championed because of their embrace of election conspiracy theories. But with the decision from Watson v. Republican Committee the case will help to hopefully counter the conspiracy theory that counting mailed ballots after Election Day is somehow wrong or nefarious when it is not. LEARN MORE
Take Action
- SCOTUSblog – blog analyzing the Watson v. Republican National Committee decision.
- American Civil Liberties Union – advocacy group’s press release on Watson case.
Trump’s Brand of Vicious Hatred Spreads to Others, and Reveals Insecurity and Weakness (Elections & Politics Brief #206)
Elections & Politics Brief #206 | Nicholas Gordon | July 7, 2026
Summary
Followers of President Donald Trump who imitate his cruel style of spitting out hateful insults beware: the style reveals your insecurity and weakness. While Trump routinely undermines his desperate desire to be seen as a strongman leader by insulting others and thereby highlighting his own insecurity, he also provides a platform for his supporters to follow suit and debase themselves publicly. From Marco Rubio, who adopted Trump’s nasty insults during the 2016 campaign before groveling for his current role as Secretary of State, to Senator Ted Cruz, who accepted Trump’s attacks on his wife and family before ‘enthusiastically’ backing him and echoing his insulting rhetoric, Trump’s copycats routinely humiliate themselves, revealing a lack of both confidence and character.
Analysis
The latest display of insecurity from the Trump camp came, ironically, at a White House UFC event in June. This time, Trump sunk into his weakness alongside one of his obsequious supporters, the UFC fighter Josh Hokit. In his post-fight speech, Hokit made a vicious, false comment about former first lady Michelle Obama. After praising Trump for hosting the fight, Hokit added, out of nowhere, “And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”
A mixed chorus of boos and cheers rang from the crowd as Trump smiled at Hokit’s hateful remark, basking in the fighter’s show of insecurity that Trump constantly succumbs to himself and encourages his bootlickers to stoop to as well.
It’s fair to ask why an athlete would celebrate victory by attacking a person he’s never met and goading an audience into ridiculing someone who has nothing to do with the event. Instead of highlighting his win with a show of dignified sportsmanship, Hokit chose to follow Trump’s mean lead down to the bottom, revealing a weakness of character that he can’t punch or choke his way out of.
Under normal circumstances, no comment by Hokit would warrant consideration of any sort. His cruel words directed at Ms. Obama are nothing more than a troll’s throwaway inanities in an online comments section. But because Hokit was given this platform to spout his malice by the President of the United States, who refused to condemn the remark afterwards, the comment serves as a reminder of how we got to such a low point in public behavior, staged on the White House lawn no less: Donald Trump dropped the decorum bar into the gutter with his incessant cruelty, chronic dishonesty, childish insults, and hateful attacks.
What a confident leader does
In a 2008 town hall meeting, Republican presidential candidate John McCain corrected a woman who said she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because ‘he’s an Arab,’ stating, “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not an Arab.” When the crowd jeered him, McCain maintained his composure, saying, “We want to fight, and I will fight. But I will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.” Where McCain showed respect for himself and his opponent, Trump, the ‘sniveling coward’ as Cruz called him, spurred the regretful Rubio and the ‘obeisant’ Cruz into copying his vulgar, bullying behavior, effectively bringing out the worst in two former rivals and belittling them into being his followers.
Conclusion
While Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO and Trump sycophant Dana White did denounce Hokit’s comment—stating, “I understand that the Obamas are public figures but I’m completely against saying nasty and false things about people’s families. Everyone knows my position on free speech but I hate that kind of nonsense.”—White’s words would carry more impact if he could actually bring himself to condemn Trump’s hateful attacks on others, and stop providing a stage for fighters to say ‘nasty and false things about people’s families.’
Trump can’t condemn Hokit’s remark—nor can he apologize for his own racist and hateful actions such as posting a video depicting the Obamas as apes—because he’s not strong enough to do so. His insecurity demands that he denigrate others to try to feel good about himself. A strong, self-respecting person doesn’t need to publicly humiliate others to compensate for his insecurity, nor does he need to kowtow before a corrupt conman, as Hokit does before Trump.
Take Action:
- Brookings Institute
- Pew Research Center
- The Prindle Post
- ‘dedicated to examining the significant ethical issues raised by current events and present in our culture’
Wyoming (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series #27)
2026 Democratic Primary Series #27 | Ryan Dulaney | 6/30/26
Overview
Wyoming is the most Republican state in the country at the presidential level, having gone for Donald Trump by more than 45 points in 2024, and Democrats have not won a statewide race since 2006 or a U.S. Senate seat in the state since 1970. Both chambers of the state legislature carry large GOP supermajorities, and every statewide office and the state’s lone congressional seat are held by Republicans. Still, 2026 is an unusually active cycle because both of Wyoming’s federal seats are open at once: Senator Cynthia Lummis chose not to seek a second term, and Representative Harriet Hageman left her U.S. House seat to run for that open Senate seat. The resulting scramble pulled in a wave of Republican candidates and a small but real Democratic field in both races. The primary serves mostly to determine which Democrat carries the party’s banner into an uphill general election, but it is still the only contest where Wyoming Democrats get to make their case to their own voters.
Primary date: August 18, 2026. Filing deadline: May 29, 2026. General election: November 3, 2026. Wyoming uses a closed primary, meaning only voters registered with a party may vote in that party’s primary.
U.S. Senate Democratic Primary
Lummis’s retirement opened a seat Republicans have held continuously since 1977. Five Republicans filed, led by Hageman, who gave up a safe House seat to run. Two Democrats filed: James Byrd and Billy Benavidez.
James Byrd
Byrd is a former state representative from Cheyenne who served Wyoming House District 44 from 2009 to 2019, including stints as minority whip and minority caucus leader. He is the son of Liz Byrd, the first Black woman to serve in the Wyoming Legislature, and has framed his campaign in part around that family history of public service. He announced his Senate bid in February 2026, becoming the first Democrat to enter the race, and has positioned his campaign less as a partisan fight than as a push to elect someone who represents what he calls Wyoming values rather than Washington’s. He criticized the state’s Republican delegation for supporting the sale of public lands and tariffs that he said damaged the state’s agricultural exports. On energy, he describes himself as supportive of the existing fossil fuel industry while pushing for greater investment in nuclear, wind, and solar development, arguing Wyoming missed a chance to own emerging energy technologies rather than just extract resources. He has also criticized growing support for school choice and homeschooling in the state and opposed efforts to dismantle the federal Department of Education. Byrd lost a 2020 state Senate race to Republican Affie Ellis and lost a 2022 Democratic primary for a state House seat, so this Senate run comes after a stretch out of office; he has continued showing up at local Democratic events, including Pride gatherings, through the spring of 2026.
Billy Benavidez
Benavidez, of Sheridan, is the second Democrat in the Senate race, having filed by the May 29 deadline. He has run on a platform centered on personal freedom and limiting the federal surveillance state, including opposition to use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Americans, paired with a pledge to serve only one term and support congressional term limits more broadly.
U.S. House At-Large Democratic Primary
Hageman’s move to the Senate race opened Wyoming’s single U.S. House seat for the first time since she won it in 2022. Ten Republicans filed, headed by Secretary of State Chuck Gray, making it the most expensive and closely watched primary in the state this cycle. Two Democrats filed: Elena Del Real and Lisa Kinney.
Elena Del Real
Del Real, of Lander, is one of two Democrats who qualified for the House primary ballot. As with most of the Democratic field this cycle, her campaign has drawn far less statewide media attention than the crowded Republican primary, which has been dominated by infighting between Gray and self-funding rival Reid Rasner.
Lisa Kinney
Kinney, of Laramie, is the second Democrat in the House race. Laramie sits in Albany County, one of the few pockets of the state with a meaningful Democratic presence, and is home to the University of Wyoming.