JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
An explosion lights up the sky over the city during a Russian missile and drone strike, amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine June 2, 2026
Tech Bros Fail to Advance in California Elections (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #205)
Wealthy tech executives have been ratcheting up their political activism in California, sponsoring ballot measures and backing candidates up and down the ticket, often with great success. In the recent primaries, several of them tried for office themselves. Despite spending millions more than their opponents, they failed to win votes.
Protect Communities, Not Criminals (Social Justice Brief #191)
On May 15, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a new initiative titled “Protect Communities, Not Criminals,” which includes a proposal to create a statewide prosecutor with the authority to override local district attorneys in certain cases. This proposed role would allow a state-appointed prosecutor to step in when a local prosecutor has not secured an indictment within 90 days, effectively creating a “backstop” to ensure cases move forward. Supporters of the proposal frame it as a necessary response to what they describe as “rogue prosecutors” local district attorneys who decline to pursue certain categories of crimes based on policy or resource limitations. The initiative is presented to ensure consistency in enforcement across Texas counties and to prioritize victims’ rights.
Ukrainian Drones Have Changed the Rules of War (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
The geography of the war has changed. Once, the war in Ukraine was measured in miles of trenches, destroyed towns, and incremental advances across the Donbas steppe. Over the past two years, however, the conflict has expanded both vertically and territorially, carried not only by missiles and aircraft but also by relatively inexpensive drones assembled in workshops across Ukraine. The battlefield no longer ends at the front line. It now stretches hundreds—and sometimes thousands—of kilometers into Russian territory, reaching oil depots, military plants, logistics hubs, and even Moscow itself.
With his Iran war, Trump Creates Confusion and Squanders Credibility (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
Now three months into his Iran war, President Trump continues to spew so much contradictory nonsense on the conflict that anyone attempting to take the president at his word would be lost in the morass. One moment Trump is threatening to annihilate Iran’s civilization, hurling churlish curses at the country’s leadership for not doing what he wants, the next he’s saying a deal is nearly complete. One minute he’s claiming the goal of regime change, the next he’s abandoning it in favor or “winding down” the war. One hour he’s saying “you don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side,” the next he’s gladly accepting a ceasefire.
A Preview of Supreme Court June Cases (Civil Rights Policy Brief #253)
President Donald Trump may have gotten what he most wanted from the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled on July 1, 2024 – by a 6-3 vote – that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution by, essentially, being president. Trump named three justices to the high court during his first term in office – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – and all three ruled in his favor in Trump v. United States (Barrett in part). The latest raft of major SCOTUS rulings, due next month, may continue to largely meet with Trump’s approval, or at least conservative priorities, but by no means is the court’s October 2025 term, as it’s officially known, likely to be a slam dunk for the right.
Why Louisiana v. Callais Is Problematic For The Voting Rights Act (Civil Rights Policy Brief #252)
After the 2020 United States Decennial Census Louisiana was allocated six congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Accordingly the Louisiana State Legislature drew its state congressional map that had five districts with white majorities and one with a black majority.
Missouri (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #24)
Missouri, the “Show Me State,” enters the 2026 election cycle as a firmly Republican-controlled state, with all eight U.S. House seats on the ballot and no Senate race this cycle. Democrats currently hold just two congressional districts, MO-01 and MO-05, represented by Wesley Bell and Emanuel Cleaver, respectively. Both districts are anchored in the state’s urban cores of St. Louis and Kansas City and are considered safely Democratic.
When War Becomes Routine (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
The war in Ukraine, which is Europe’s largest land war since 1945, has entered the peculiar phase familiar to historians and unbearable to those living through it — the phase in which catastrophe becomes routine. Loud air raid sirens still interrupt dinners in Kyiv. Young men still disappear into the trench lines of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia. Russian drones still arrive nightly, buzzing in the dark like giant mechanical mosquitoes. As the rumble draws nearer, exhausted people rise from their beds and head into the narrow corridors of their apartments or into the basements of their houses. It happens night after night, year after year, while outside the region, the war increasingly competes with other crises for attention, just becoming a part of the atmospheric background of modern life.
Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
Foreign Policy Brief #225 | ABRAN CASTRO | June 8, 2026
Russian Strikes on Ukraine
An explosion lights up the sky over the city during a Russian missile and drone strike, amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine June 2, 2026
In recent days, following Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow and Russian oil facilities, Russian drones and missiles have pounded Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv and Dnipro killing dozens of people and wounding hundreds more. Throughout the four year war Russia has targeted Ukraine’s power supply and civilian infrastructure, but the recent strikes on Kyiv have been stronger than anything the capital city has witnessed before. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has stated that the European Union would be sending more weapons to help Ukraine reinforce its air defense systems.
A Russian drone hit a block of flats in Romania, causing large fires and injuring two people. The event in Romania, a NATO member, raised alarm at the possibility of the war escalating. NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, said the alliance “stands ready to defend every inch of allied territory”. Talks to end Russia’s war on Ukraine have stalled, and key meditator, the United States has been preoccupied with its own war on Iran. More recently on June 3rd, in a high profile attack, Ukrainian drones hit infrastructure in St Petersburg, Russia. The attack came only hours before Vladimir Putin’s glitzy annual economic forum in the city, designed to attract foreign investment. The attack signaled both that Russia and its major cities are not insulated from the war and that at least for now, more escalation will follow in the coming weeks and months.
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon
A woman searches through rubble after an Israeli strike in Beirut. Photo: Anwar Amro/AFP via Getty
As the United States and Iran continue negotiations that might put an end to the war, the Israeli-Lebanese front remains as active as ever. Israel has increased strikes and incursions deeper into Lebanon. Israeli forces have reached the outskirts of the southern Lebanese cities despite a ceasefire agreement in place since April, as analysts warn that Israel is laying the groundwork for long-term control and annexation of Lebanese territory. The incursion into the country marks Israel’s deepest push into Lebanon in more than a quarter of a century. Israeli forces now occupy about 770 square miles of Lebanese territory, or nearly one-fifth of the entire country and the death toll is at over 3,000 people.
Meanwhile, ceasefire talks between Washington and Tehran have become increasingly tied to developments in Lebanon. Iranian officials warn that an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon is a prerequisite for any meaningful progress in negotiations between the two countries to end the US-Israel war on Iran and achieve aims like the reopening of the strait of Hormuz. More recently Iran for the first time since the ceasefire, launched missiles at Israel, in what Tehran said was retaliation for Israeli strikes and invasion into Lebanon’s capital, Beirut. Israel in turn bombed sites in Iran, while President Trump, at least publicly, urged Israel against resuming the war on Iran and continues to claim a peace deal with Iran is within reach.

Ebola outbreak in the DRC
Doctors Without Borders health workers wearing personal protective equipment move through the isolated red zone to monitor patients, provide medical care and ensure sanitation at the Ebola Treatment Center in Munigi in Congo on June 2, 2026.Jospin Mwisha | AFP | Getty Images
An outbreak of the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola, a rare form of the virus for which there are currently no vaccines or targeted treatments, is spreading rapidly across eastern DRC. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the outbreak a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” which is an extraordinary designation reserved for events that require a strong and immediate international response. In the country it is estimated that 3.9 million people live in immediate emergency conditions, while 73% of the population live in extreme poverty with millions facing hunger. The DRC is facing a multitude of critical issues all at once, collapsing health services, record hunger, armed fighting and drastic aid cuts, all pushing millions of people toward the brink, making them more susceptible to the ebola virus.
UN votes to enforce action on climate change
Image source: Wikimedia Commons, United Nations General Assembly Hall (3).jpg, by Basil D Soufi, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
The U.N. General Assembly recently voted overwhelmingly to support strong action to combat climate change despite recent diplomatic efforts by the United States to have the measure withdrawn. The 193 member General Assembly approved a nonbinding resolution endorsing the landmark advisory opinion by the U.N. ‘s top court, the International Court of Justice, in 2025, called failure by countries to protect the planet from climate change a violation of international law. The vote was 141-8 with 28 abstentions. Countries such as the U.S., Russia, Belarus, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia opposed the measure. Part of the court’s decision stated that states may be legally required to stop the wrongful conduct and make full reparations for climate damages. A major signal that the global stance on climate change is moving forward and promoting action and accountability.

Protests in Albania over Trump-Kushner land privatization
Protestors take part in a demonstration in front of the prime minister’s office in Tirana, Albania, on June 3. AFP via Getty Images
Thousands of Albanians have taken to the streets of Tirana in recent days protesting against the selling of their country’s coastline and islands to a company linked with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump. The $1.6 billion luxury resort is being built by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners on land that is on an environmentally sensitive part of the country’s coast. The Trump-Kushner project sites include Sazan island, which is just off the coast of Albania and a stretch of coastline near the Vjosa-Narta protected wetland home to flamingos, seals and sea turtle nesting sites. Albania’s Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has faced massive criticism and protest over the deal, has insisted the investment from the project would bring benefits to Albania, promising both jobs and improved infrastructure. Albania’s state anti-corruption agency has confirmed it opened an investigation related to the project but has not yet disclosed details.
Tech Bros Fail to Advance in California Elections (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #205)
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #205 | Mindy Spatt | June 7, 2026
Summary
Wealthy tech executives have been ratcheting up their political activism in California, sponsoring ballot measures and backing candidates up and down the ticket, often with great success. In the recent primaries, several of them tried for office themselves. Despite spending millions more than their opponents, they failed to win votes.
Analysis
Tech billionaire-turned-environmentalist Tom Steyer was one of several former tech executives self-funding campaigns for office in the California primary or running as proxies for the industry’s most affluent. Steyer somehow used his wealth as a calling card to woo progressives, promoting himself as the only candidate not beholden to special interests and bragging about how much fossil fuel companies and the reviled California utility company PG&E were spending to campaign against him. Irene Kao, the executive director of the progressive group Courage California, commented that the group’s endorsement of Steyer “came as a surprise to us. But a lot of our work has to do with holding corporations and the wealthy accountable.”
Steyer’s many homes around the country, previous investments in private prisons, and lack of detailed proposals to fix the states’ ills were things a swath of voters were willing to forget about, netting him 20% of primary voters. Voters were less forgiving of Katie Porter, who started the race as the more natural choice for progressives, but was permanently shunned as mean and nasty after she was caught yelling at a staffer in an unflattering video.
Steyer also picked up a high-profile endorsement from Jane Fonda, touted in his TV ads, which were ubiquitous during the campaign. Steyer’s spending, all out of his own pocket, broke all sorts of records. The total spent on the Governor’s race, $315.8 million, broke the record for the most expensive race for a state’s top office in American history. And this was only a primary. Most of that money, $201 million, was spent by Steyer.
The campaign of another former tech executive, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, was a last-minute attempt by tech billionaires to grab the Governor’s office when the race looked like it could be theirs for the taking. But Mahan failed to distinguish himself in debates, and the $35 million his backers spent did little to boost his name recognition outside the Bay Area. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings reportedly asked for his $1 million donation back when Mahan’s PAC and other campaign offices started shutting down. Other donations may also have been refunded. According to the NY Times, Mahan’s $35 million war chest was amassed with promises that the money would be returned if Mahan lost.
The crowded Democratic field had sparked worries that the two Republicans in the race could end up on the ballot. In the end, the Democrats coalesced behind former Attorney General and US Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, who is favored to win in his November race against republican Steve Hilton.
Two Congressional races also attracted the interests- and dollars- of wealthy former tech executives. Ethan Agarwal, a startup founder, challenged popular progressive incumbent Congressman Ro Khanna for supporting the proposed billionaire tax in California’s 17th Congressional district. Agarwal’s campaign was funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including venture capitalist Ron Conway and the CEO of Y Combinator, Garry Tan. Agarwal did poorly, and Khanna will face republican Ritesh Tandon in the general election, a race Khanna is sure to win.
A high-profile congressional race in San Francisco for the seat held by Nancy Pelosi for 39 years saw record spending by another former tech executive, Saikat Chakrabarti. In this case, the tech money was behind State Senator Scott Weiner, widely seen as the frontrunner. Chakrabarti, relatively unknown in San Francisco, entered the race when Weiner was facing vociferous opposition from progressives for his support of military aid to Israel. But Weiner unexpectedly issued a statement accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza and withdrew from the Jewish Legislative Caucus, which has come under criticism for its blindly pro-Israel agenda.
That left Chakrabarti to go after Connie Chan, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who wasn’t as well-known as Weiner or as well-funded. Chakrabarti hired paid canvassers, and paid those who spoke Chinese, and could work in Chan’s Chinatown home base, extra. But in addition to being unconnected locally, Chakrabarti’s key story about having cut his chops as AOC’s Chief of Staff backfired when she refused to endorse him or respond to press queries about him. In this case, it turned out that all the paid advertising, paid supporters, and paid consultants you can buy with $10 million couldn’t beat Chan’s bona fides. She was backed by important labor organizations, the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, and a slew of well-known democrats ranging from progressives to moderates. Nancy Pelosi’s late endorsement clinched the deal for Chan, who spent $690,000 to Chakrabarti’s millions, and Scott Weiner’s $3.9 million, an impressive win that means a real contest for Weiner in the general election in November.
Those were candidates from the tech industry itself. Candidates backed by tech money did well in local races, including two in San Francisco, and tech money managed to defeat a San Francisco proposal for an “Overpaid Executive Tax”, prompting journalist Tim Redmond to comment in his 48Hills.org online newspaper that the election’s “real winners are the handful of billionaire tech plutocrats who have been trying for years to take control of this city.”
- Take Action
The Corporate and Billionaire Opponents of San Francisco’s Overpaid Executive Tax, Sarah Anderson, Campaign Legal Center, April 29, 2026
https://ips-dc.org/the-corporate-and-billionaire-opponents-of-san-franciscos-overpaid-executive-tax/ - Arab Resource and Organizing Committee: AROC Joint Endorsement: Connie Chan and Saikat Chakrabarti https://arocaction.org/endorsements/
Protect Communities, Not Criminals (Social Justice Brief #191)
Social Justice Brief #191 | Valerie Henderson | June 1, 2026
Summary
On May 15, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a new initiative titled “Protect Communities, Not Criminals,” which includes a proposal to create a statewide prosecutor with the authority to override local district attorneys in certain cases. This proposed role would allow a state-appointed prosecutor to step in when a local prosecutor has not secured an indictment within 90 days, effectively creating a “backstop” to ensure cases move forward. Supporters of the proposal frame it as a necessary response to what they describe as “rogue prosecutors” local district attorneys who decline to pursue certain categories of crimes based on policy or resource limitations. The initiative is presented to ensure consistency in enforcement across Texas counties and to prioritize victims’ rights.
However, critics argue that the proposal represents a significant shift in power, moving authority away from locally elected officials and into the hands of a centralized, state-controlled prosecutor. This raises concerns about government overreach, political interference in the justice system, and the erosion of local democracy.
Beyond structural concerns, the proposal also has potential implications for communities that are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system particularly Black and Brown communities across Texas. With expanded prosecutorial power and fewer local checks, the policy could deepen existing disparities in policing, charging decisions, and incarceration rates.
Analysis
At its core, the proposal to create a statewide prosecutor is not just about efficiency it is about who holds power in the criminal justice system. Historically, district attorneys in Texas are locally elected, meaning they are accountable to the communities they serve. They make decisions based on local priorities, resource realities, and, ideally, the needs of their constituents. This proposal disrupts that structure by introducing a top-down authority that can override those locally elected officials. Under the plan, if a district attorney does not act within 90 days, a statewide prosecutor, appointed and confirmed at the state level, can take control of the case. While this is framed as a safeguard for public safety, it also sets a precedent where state leadership can intervene in local decision-making, potentially influenced by political agendas rather than community context.
The justification for this change rests heavily on the narrative of “rogue prosecutors.” However, that framing is highly subjective. In many urban counties, prosecutors have adopted policies that focus on reducing incarceration for low-level offenses, addressing systemic inequities, and reallocating resources toward more serious crimes. These decisions are often rooted in data, and public mandates are not neglected. Labeling them as “rogue” creates a political justification for removing local control. From a racial justice perspective, this shift raises serious concerns. Research and long-standing data show that Black and Brown communities are already disproportionately impacted at every stage of the criminal justice system from arrest to sentencing. Expanding prosecutorial power without strong accountability measures risks amplifying those disparities.
As a Black woman and a mother of both sons and daughters, this is where the policy becomes deeply personal. Policies like this do not operate in a vacuum, they shape how young people are policed, charged, and sentenced. When prosecutorial power expands, it often does not expand evenly it is applied more aggressively in communities that are already over-surveilled and under-protected. Additionally, removing local discretion can erase the progress some communities have made toward reform. Local prosecutors who are attempting to implement alternatives to incarceration or address systemic bias could be overridden by a state-level authority that does not share those priorities. This creates a chilling effect on reform and reinforces a one-size-fits-all approach to justice, something Texas’s diverse population cannot afford.
The statewide prosecutor position is currently a proposed law, not an enacted law. lawmakers are not scheduled to consider the measure until the next legislative session. While the new statewide prosecutor is just a proposal, Texas lawmakers did pass a law in 2023 (Texas House Bill 17) that allows for the removal and impeachment of local district attorneys who refuse to prosecute certain crimes. T e likelihood of a statewide prosecutor law passing is moderately high, but it faces steep constitutional and procedural hurdles. creating a centralized “Chief State Prosecutor” with the power to override locally elected officials may require an amendment to the Texas Constitution.
My Opinion
This proposal raises a fundamental question: Is this truly about public safety, or is it about control? As a Black woman raising both sons and daughters, I understand firsthand how policies like this can have unequal consequences. The idea of expanding prosecutorial power without equally expanding accountability is concerning because history has shown us exactly where that imbalance tends to land. It lands hardest on communities that already experience disproportionate policing and harsher outcomes within the justice system. Local prosecutors are not perfect, but they are elected by the people they serve. That matters. It means communities have a direct voice in how justice is carried out in their neighborhoods. When that power is shifted to a centralized authority, it dilutes that voice and distances decision-making from the people most impacted by it. There is a difference between ensuring accountability and removing autonomy. And when policies begin to blur that line, especially in a state with a long history of inequitable outcomes for minority communities, it is worth asking who ultimately benefits and who bears the cost.
If the goal is truly to protect communities, then solutions should invest in those communities, not override them.
Take Action
- Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP)
- ACLU of Texas
- Texas Appleseed
Keywords
Texas statewide prosecutor; Greg Abbott policy; criminal justice reform Texas; prosecutorial power; local vs state control; racial disparities justice system; Black communities policing; systemic inequality Texas; mass incarceration; criminal justice accountability; government overreach; Texas law enforcement policy.
Ukrainian Drones Have Changed the Rules of War (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
Foreign Policy Brief #225 | Yelena Korsunov | June 7, 2026
The geography of the war has changed. Once, the war in Ukraine was measured in miles of trenches, destroyed towns, and incremental advances across the Donbas steppe. Over the past two years, however, the conflict has expanded both vertically and territorially, carried not only by missiles and aircraft but also by relatively inexpensive drones assembled in workshops across Ukraine. The battlefield no longer ends at the front line. It now stretches hundreds—and sometimes thousands—of kilometers into Russian territory, reaching oil depots, military plants, logistics hubs, and even Moscow itself.
What Ukraine has built is more than a drone industry. It is what Reuters has described as an adaptive wartime ecosystem. Despite constant bombardment, power shortages, and labor disruptions, the country has developed one of the most rapidly evolving unmanned warfare programs in modern military history. Reuters describes Ukraine’s strategy as a campaign of mid-range and long-range strikes aimed at degrading Russia’s military logistics and energy infrastructure while compensating for Kyiv’s shortage of conventional firepower.
The scale of this transformation is difficult to overstate. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s domestic drone sector was modest and heavily dependent on imported components and volunteer initiatives. Today, Ukrainian officials openly discuss mass production. Drone units operate with a software-startup mentality: rapid iteration, constant redesign, and immediate battlefield feedback. A vulnerability discovered at the front—such as signal jamming—can lead to modifications within days rather than procurement cycles lasting years.
This acceleration has altered the strategic depth of the war. Ukrainian drones now routinely strike targets deep inside Russia, including areas once considered beyond Kyiv’s reach. Reuters reported in April that Ukraine struck an oil pumping station near the Ural Mountains, approximately 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) from the Ukrainian border. The symbolic significance was as important as the physical damage. For decades, the Urals were viewed as distant, industrial, and largely insulated from war. Ukrainian drones challenged that assumption.
Other strikes have reinforced the message. Ukrainian forces have targeted facilities in Cheboksary, also roughly 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) from Ukraine, including defense infrastructure linked to Russian military production. Oil refineries in Samara, Ryazan, Perm, Tuapse, and Krasnodar regions have repeatedly been hit in campaigns designed not only to damage infrastructure but also to reduce Russia’s wartime energy revenues. Reuters estimates that Ukrainian strikes disrupted approximately 700,000 barrels per day of Russian refining capacity between January and May 2026 alone.
Moscow, long considered politically untouchable territory, has also become a regular target. Russian authorities have reported frequent drone attacks on the capital, including a large-scale assault in March involving hundreds of drones. The military impact of these attacks varies, but their psychological effect is undeniable. Airports suspend flights. Air defenses fire over residential neighborhoods. Moscow residents, long removed from the daily realities of war, increasingly experience moments of uncertainty familiar to Ukrainians since February 2022.
Ukraine’s drone campaign reflects a broader shift in military power away from expensive centralized systems toward locally developed, low-cost technologies. A long-range drone may cost only a small part of a cruise missile while forcing a defender to deploy far more expensive air-defense assets. Russia can manufacture missiles at scale, but defending thousands of miles of infrastructure against persistent drone attacks presents a different challenge.
Experience has become Ukraine’s greatest strategic asset. No NATO military has accumulated comparable real-time knowledge of large-scale drone warfare under continuous combat conditions. Ukrainian operators combine reconnaissance drones, FPV systems (the First-Person View system that transmits a live video feed from a drone’s camera), maritime drones, electronic warfare tools, and long-range strike platforms into integrated operational networks. The result is not merely tactical innovation but the development of a new model of warfare.
Western defense analysts increasingly study Ukraine not only as a recipient of military aid but also as a laboratory of future conflict. The war has demonstrated how technological adaptation can partially offset disparities in population, industrial capacity, and ammunition reserves. It has also shown how quickly civilian expertise can be transformed into military capability. Many Ukrainian drone engineers once designed consumer electronics, software systems, or racing drones. Wartime necessity redirected their skills.
The deeper significance, however, lies elsewhere. The drone war has blurred the distinction between rear and front. A refinery in the Urals, a command facility hundreds of miles from Ukraine’s border, or a district of Moscow can no longer be considered entirely beyond reach. Distance, once central to strategic security, has become increasingly conditional.
The war is no longer confined to where soldiers meet. It now unfolds across networks, infrastructure, algorithms, and industrial geography. Ukraine’s drones have not defeated Russia. But they have changed the shape of the conflict and Russia’s military expectations, extending Ukraine’s reach far beyond what conventional military balances once suggested possible.
Take Action
- US Global Leadership Coalition. The Importance of U.S. Assistance to Ukraine, https://www.usglc.org/the-importance-of-u-s-assistance-to-ukraine/
- Syracuse University. Ukraine Crisis: Resources and Support, https://ivmf.syracuse.edu/ukraine-crisis-resources-and-support/#1-ways-to-give
- The Ukraine Oversite. The United States and its international partners provide a variety of training to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), including basic, collective, leadership, and platform-specific training, https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/Training-Advising/
- GMF (German Marshall Fund). In response to Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) established a comprehensive emergency program to support Ukrainian citizens, civic activists and civil society organizations (CSOs), and journalists and independent media, https://www.gmfus.org/democracy/ukraine-relief-resilience-recovery
With his Iran war, Trump Creates Confusion and Squanders Credibility (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
Foreign Policy Brief #226 | Nicholas Gordon | June 8, 2026
Now three months into his Iran war, President Trump continues to spew so much contradictory nonsense on the conflict that anyone attempting to take the president at his word would be lost in the morass. One moment Trump is threatening to annihilate Iran’s civilization, hurling churlish curses at the country’s leadership for not doing what he wants, the next he’s saying a deal is nearly complete. One minute he’s claiming the goal of regime change, the next he’s abandoning it in favor or “winding down” the war. One hour he’s saying “you don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side,” the next he’s gladly accepting a ceasefire.
The president’s utterly incoherent approach to the war evinces disrespect for American citizens looking for honest answers and assessments, which is exactly why we need to hold him accountable for his words. While we can’t get the truth from Trump or his administration, and while his sycophantic Republican colleagues refuse to hold him accountable, the record shows a president oozing confusion and desperate for an off-ramp to the war he started.
It’s either gaslighting or he’s ‘disconnected from reality’ himself
In late February, Trump tried to justify starting the war by claiming that Iran was mere weeks away from obtaining a nuclear weapon, an assessment disputed by nuclear experts and intelligence reports. The statement also made a mockery of Trump’s earlier claim that Operation Midnight Hammer conducted in June had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.
As the U.S. and Israel began bombing the Iranian regime, Trump casually told the people of Iran to “take back your country.” Given the regime’s well-documented brutality against its own citizens and the lack of a strong, organized opposition force, Trump’s advice was both deadly and outlandish. As noted, Trump would later claim regime change, but U.S. intelligence shows the regime is still intact.
Soon after starting the war, Trump declared, “there will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” employing his trademark juvenile-bully caps. If we take Trump at his word here, then there will be no deal, because Iran has not only made it clear that they will not surrender, but also that they have the capacity to outmaneuver Trump, mainly by leveraging control of and thereby weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz to disrupt global energy markets.
When this Iranian strategic advantage emerged, Trump went further off the rails, most notoriously with his deranged Easter Weekend Truth Social post in which he pathetically cried, “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.” The post, widely condemned by sounder political operatives, was vintage bluster and bombast from Trump. Most embarrassingly for the president, the post effectively conveyed Trump’s failure to foresee Iran’s strategic advantage and his frustrated inability to solve it.
While Trump continued to issue countless falsehoods about the war—saying that the U.S. had “already met and exceeded all military objectives,” and achieved “Total and complete victory.100%. No question about it.”—the reality of Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz posed a grave, geopolitical challenge that prompted Trump to impose a U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and shipping in the strait. The blockade, which sought to force Iran to free up passage of all global marine traffic, required 10,000 U.S. military personnel, more than a dozen warships, and over 100 fighter and surveillance aircraft.
By April, regarding Trump’s mishandling of the war, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated plainly that the U.S. is being “humiliated” by Iran. Rather than address the criticism, Trump responded with his typically petty social media posts attacking Merz and making false claims about him wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon—the same baseless and preposterous accusation Trump made about Pope Leo. Merz’s comments, however, echoed the assessments of diplomats and global political analysts who lament how Trump got Iran wrong.Moreover, by failing to build a coalition of support before heading into the war, Trump has resorted to attacking European allies for not joining in his war of choice after the fact.
Conclusion
In their attempt to justify Trump’s starting of the war and evade holding him accountable for his words or actions, Republicans have collectively decided to hide behind a truism which no one anywhere has ever argued against, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Ironic, their claim, given that in 2018 Trump backed out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-negotiated deal co-signed by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom that had significantly curtailed Iran’s nuclear program.
Today, however, Trump has had to relent on his de-nuking demands, seeking instead a deal wherein Iran will simply reopen the Strait of Hormuz—that is, return the strait to the state it was in before Trump started his war and empowered Iran with control of the strait.
While the U.S. and Iran continue to trade strikes, Trump continues to give conflicting comments on the state of the ongoing negotiations, debasing himself, depriving American citizens of honest assessments, and lending credibility to the enemy’s assertion that the American president is “disconnected from reality.”
But Trump’s confused stew of words on the war do make it painfully clear that his lack of strategy, leadership, and coherent messaging have emboldened the Iranians and revealed how hard it will be to end his festering conflict.
Take Action
- Institute for the Study of War
- aims to provide ‘real-time intelligence to help leaders make informed decisions in conflict zones around the world and educate the next generation of national security leaders’
- The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- a bipartisan, nonprofit research organization ‘dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges’
- The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
- an independent, nonpartisan U.S. think tank ‘dedicated to helping policymakers, business leaders, and the general public better understand international affairs and U.S. foreign policy’
A Preview of Supreme Court June Cases (Civil Rights Policy Brief #253)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #253 | Todd Hill | May 5, 2026
President Donald Trump may have gotten what he most wanted from the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled on July 1, 2024 – by a 6-3 vote – that former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution by, essentially, being president. Trump named three justices to the high court during his first term in office – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – and all three ruled in his favor in Trump v. United States (Barrett in part). The latest raft of major SCOTUS rulings, due next month, may continue to largely meet with Trump’s approval, or at least conservative priorities, but by no means is the court’s October 2025 term, as it’s officially known, likely to be a slam dunk for the right.
Here is a rundown of what we can expect from the U.S. Supreme Court by late June:
Gun rights (Wolford v. Lopez)
The court is reviewing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting a Hawaiian law that made it illegal for Christopher Wolford, a private citizen, to take a gun onto private property without the property owner’s consent.
Hawaii has a history and tradition of restrictive laws concerning weapons, dating to the reign of King Kamehameha III in the 1830s. In keeping with that, the state in 2023 decided that gun owners there must acquire permission to take a gun onto private property, a law that last year was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Christopher Wolford, a Hawaiian gun owner and private citizen, argued the state’s law flies in the face of the Second Amendment. In 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Buren, the Supreme Court came down on the side of gun owners, creating the so-called Bruen test, intended to measure if gun laws are in keeping with the country’s “history and tradition.” That test will likely be relevant in the court’s review of this appeal.
Transgender athletes (Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., consolidated)
The court has been asked to consider whether the states of Idaho and West Virginia can ban transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports without violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
Two cases are giving the court the opportunity to decide whether banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports is unconstitutional, expanding the issue into the realm of civil rights law. During arguments earlier this year, a majority of justices seemed inclined to support these bans, which would also narrow the scope of the Title IX ban on discrimination in schools. Even the court’s liberal justices noted that the plaintiffs may be better off pursuing individual legal challenges at this point, although one of them has since stopped trying to participate in sports at her school.
Campaign finance (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission)
The court is debating the limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates; a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could once again significantly expand the role of money in elections.
The court fundamentally changed the elections landscape in 2010 with its Citizens United decision, ruling that corporate mega-spending on elections was free speech. The court is now considering the Republican Party’s wish to allow political parties to spend more in coordination with candidates, although that could, ironically, dilute the impact of Citizens United. But ultimately, a decision in favor of the NRSC is still likely to benefit Republican candidates, largely because super PACs would have access to the lower rates for broadcast advertising time that have long benefited Democrats. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled for FEC, following precedent, which the appellant is asking the SCOTUS to reconsider.
Immigration (Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe, consolidated)
The court is reviewing whether a decision by President Trump to end Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Haiti and Syria constitutes a discretionary executive act.
Does the court even have the right to review refugees’ Temporary Protected Status (TPS)? Should the justices decide it doesn’t, Trump’s desire to remove TPS for scores of Haitians and Syrians in this country could ultimately impact 1.3 million people living here, from dozens of countries. His administration argues that TPS has essentially become permanent for refugees from places like Haiti and Syria, long wracked by various humanitarian crises. He has already shut down virtually all asylum cases. But if the SCOTUS gives Trump what he wants on TPS, the U.S. cities that have taken in most of these refugees would see their populations plummet.
Birthright citizenship (review of presidential executive order)
Multiple lawsuits were filed after Trump declared birthright citizenship unconstitutional, and several federal courts blocked the order; the president is appealing those rulings.
This case may be the most vital of the term to Trump, who actually showed up for the court’s arguments, which was unprecedented. It’s also the case he’s least likely to win. At stake here is the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that virtually anyone born in the U.S. is an American citizen. A ruling in Trump’s favor would strip millions of people living here of that status. The president’s lawyers described today’s America as a new world because of something they called “birth tourism.” The skeptical chief justice responded, “New world, same constitution.” In this case and previous ones, federal district courts and appellate courts have relied on the 1898 SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the foundational case on birthright citizenship. The high court is likely to do the same.
Take Action
- Everytown for Gun Safety is one of the nation’s largest gun-control advocacy organizations – www.everytown.org; 3 Columbus Circle, New York, NY 10019, or info@everytown.org.
- The American Civil Liberties Union is a major legal advocacy group that’s actively involved in transgender athlete cases and broader LGBTQ rights – www.aclu.org; 125 Broad St., 18th floor, New York, NY 10004; 212-549-2500; info@aclu.org.
- The Brennan Center for Justice is highly influential in campaign reform and election law – www.brennancenter.org; 120 Broadway, Suite 1750, New York, NY 10271; 646-292-8310; info@brennancenter.org.
- The American Immigration Council focuses on immigration policy, legal advocacy and public education – www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org; 1331 G St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005; 202-507-7500; info@immcouncil.org.
- The National Immigration Law Center is tasked with providing legal protections for immigrants, including those involving citizenship issues – www.nilc.org; 3450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 108-62, Los Angeles, CA 90010; 213-639-3900; nilc@nilc.org
Why Louisiana v. Callais Is Problematic For The Voting Rights Act (Civil Rights Policy Brief #252)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #252 | Rodney Maggay | May 6, 2026
Policy Summary: On April 29, 2026 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Louisiana v. Callais.
After the 2020 United States Decennial Census Louisiana was allocated six congressional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Accordingly the Louisiana State Legislature drew its state congressional map that had five districts with white majorities and one with a black majority.
Subsequently, these maps were challenged in court where the plaintiffs alleged the maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. After a trial, the Louisiana state congressional map was ruled to be in violation of the VRA and new maps to be drawn and in addition to draw a second black majority district to be more reflective of the demographics of the state after the 2020 census.Louisiana sought a stay of the order from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but was denied by theappeals court. An appeal was made to the U.S. Supreme Court which stayed the trial court order to drawnew maps. After a ruling in a separate Supreme Court case in 2023, the stay in the Louisiana case was lifted and returned to the Fifth Circuit. The appeals court ordered a new congressional district map be drawn and the Louisiana state legislature drew and approved a new map in 2024 that now included a second black majority district among Louisiana’s six total congressional districts.
These new maps from 2024 were again challenged in court. The case was heard by a three judge panel in the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They ruled the map unconstitutional. Anotherappeal to the U.S. Supreme Court followed which ordered the map to be used for the 2024 elections due to the 2024 elections being so close in time. However, the
U.S. Supreme Court allowed for a future appeal on the district court’s ruling that the map is unconstitutional. An appeal to the high court was approved in November 2025.
On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court in a 6 – 3 decision held that the drawing of the 2024 Louisianacongressional district map with the second black majority district unconstitutional. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: In the aftermath of the Louisiana v. Callais decision, words and phrases such as abomination, the Voting Rights Act is dead and the Voting Rights has been gutted have been used to describe the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Why?
Many legal scholars have reached back to try to give a history of the Voting Rights of 1965 and its sections and subsequent amendments in order to try and understand why the Callais decision is such adisastrous case. Specifically, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. In 1980 aSupreme Court case interpreted the section to require proof of intentional racial discrimination.However, this standard was seen as impossibly high to meet since no public election official would admit to implementing a practice or procedure that intentionally discriminated against a group of people. So two years later Congress passed an amendment that changed the standard from “intent” to discriminate to an “effects” test – meaning, a practice, procedure or map could be invalidated if the results show discrimination based on race. This is the legal framework of Section 2 that had been in place since 1982.
However, under the Roberts Court, the court began to chip away at the protections the VRA provided to minority voting groups. The 2013 Shelby decision required a new formula to determine which statesrequired pre – clearance prior to implementing a voting procedure; a new formula seemed unlikely topass in Congress which effectively rendered parts of the VRA unenforceable.
But for the Callais decision, the Court called the redrawn map with the second black majority district unconstitutional. While that was a likely outcome, what makes the decision by Justice Samuel Alito worse is his reasoning and how states that want to favor Republican candidates can do about it. While those districts drawn to give a minority community a majority in a selected district, e.g., black majority districts like in Louisiana, Justice Alito calls these districts unconstitutional because it is based on race. Justice Alito does not seem to understand that these minority – majority districts came about in the first place because minority communities had historically been prohibited from voting in significant numbers in the first place because of their race! But the key point from the opinion is that Justice Alito actually writes that to get around being accused of suppressing voters based on race, the easiest thing to do nowis simply draw a district that weakens minority voting power and simply say the district is being drawn based for partisan reasons and not for race since partisan gerrymanders are constitutionally permissible. What Justice Alito did is tell state election officials to say publicly one thing – that districts are drawn togive a political party an advantage. Even if privately their reason to draw it that way is to suppress the voting power of minority groups. Justice Alito basically just allowed racist efforts at re – districting as long as election officials don’t say it out loud.
In one fell swoop, the majority opinion in the Callais case weakened the protection the VRA provides to minority communities by changing the legal standard to be met to prove a violation and then toldelection officials how to suppress the voting power of racial groups by calling their actions drawing districts and state maps something else. Simply a terrible Supreme Court decision. LEARN MORE
Take Action
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s take on the Callais decision and what to do moving forward.
- Fair Elections Center – statement from non – profit group on Callais decision and resources to fight back and encourage fair elections.
Missouri (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #24)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Morgan Davidson | April 29, 2026
Missouri, the “Show Me State,” enters the 2026 election cycle as a firmly Republican-controlled state, with all eight U.S. House seats on the ballot and no Senate race this cycle. Democrats currently hold just two congressional districts, MO-01 and MO-05, represented by Wesley Bell and Emanuel Cleaver, respectively. Both districts are anchored in the state’s urban cores of St. Louis and Kansas City and are considered safely Democratic.
Missouri’s congressional delegation reflects a broader partisan shift that has taken place over the past decade. The last time Democrats held more than two House seats in the state was in 2012, when the party maintained a more competitive statewide presence. Since then, Republican gains, particularly in rural and suburban areas, have solidified the GOP’s dominance across much of the state.
Looking ahead to 2026, there is little indication that this trend will reverse. According to ratings from Cook Political Report, the remaining six districts are considered safely Republican, leaving Democrats with limited offensive opportunities. Absent a significant shift in the national political environment or unexpected candidate dynamics, Republicans are well-positioned to maintain their advantage, while Democrats are likely to remain concentrated in their established urban strongholds.
While Missouri remains firmly Republican at the statewide level, several issue areas present potential openings for Democrats, particularly when paired with the right candidates and targeted geographic strategies.
One of the most salient issues in Missouri politics continues to be healthcare access, especially in rural communities. Hospital closures and limited provider availability have created persistent gaps in care, even as Medicaid expansion has helped broaden coverage. Democrats have an opportunity to frame healthcare as a quality-of-life and economic issue, particularly in regions where access remains inconsistent.
Economic concerns and cost of living also remain central for Missouri voters. Rising costs for housing, groceries, and energy have affected both urban and rural populations, creating space for candidates who can effectively connect economic messaging to everyday experiences. Democrats who emphasize wage growth, infrastructure investment, and support for working families may find traction, particularly in suburban districts.
Another key area is reproductive rights, which has emerged as a mobilizing issue following recent policy changes at the state level. Ballot initiatives and public opinion trends suggest that Missouri voters are not uniformly aligned with Republican leadership on this issue, offering Democrats a potential wedge, especially among suburban voters and younger demographics.
From a geographic standpoint, Democratic opportunities are limited but not nonexistent. The most viable path remains in suburban regions, particularly in districts like Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District, where shifting demographics and education levels have created a more competitive environment. While rural Missouri has trended decisively Republican, Democrats may still find marginal gains by focusing on economic messaging and local issues that cut across partisan lines.
Ultimately, Democratic success in Missouri will depend less on broad statewide appeal and more on targeted strategies that align issue priorities with specific voter blocs. While the overall map favors Republicans, these issue areas represent the clearest avenues for Democrats to remain competitive in an otherwise challenging political landscape. At the same time, the party’s long-term strategy should focus on expanding engagement beyond its urban base, reaching disaffected voters, increasing visibility in traditionally Republican areas, and investing in the organizational infrastructure needed to rebuild competitiveness over time. Voters can cast their ballots in the primary on August 4th followed by the general on November 3rd.
House
Wesley Bell is a Democratic freshman representing Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, which covers much of the St. Louis metropolitan area. A male in his 50s, Bell built his political career as a prosecutor and local official, most notably serving as St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney prior to his election to Congress. His background in criminal justice reform and public safety has been central to his political identity, particularly during his tenure handling high-profile cases tied to police accountability and community relations in the region.
Bell’s seat is considered safely Democratic in the general election due to the district’s strong partisan lean and urban composition, anchored by a reliable Democratic base in St. Louis. However, his primary outlook is more complex. Bell unseated incumbent Cori Bush in 2024 in a race shaped in part by significant outside spending, including support from pro-Israel groups. That dynamic could carry into a potential 2026 rematch, though the political environment has shifted. Public opinion toward Israel has declined sharply, particularly among Democrats and younger voters, introducing new uncertainty into how salient the issue will be in a primary context. At the same time, available evidence suggests that foreign policy issues may not rank among the top priorities for voters in MO-01, a majority-Black district where local economic and community concerns have historically been more decisive.
As a result, while Israel-related spending and positioning may again play a role in shaping the race, the outcome is more likely to be determined by turnout, coalition composition, and intra-party dynamics. Bell remains well-positioned overall, though his most meaningful challenge is likely to come from within his own party rather than from Republicans in the general election.
Emanuel Cleaver is a veteran Democratic congressman representing Missouri’s 5th Congressional District, which is centered in Kansas City. Cleaver, a male (81), has had a long career in public service, including serving as Mayor of Kansas City before being elected to Congress in 2004. Ordained as a United Methodist pastor, he has built a reputation as a pragmatic and community-oriented leader, with a legislative focus on economic development, housing, and urban investment.
Cleaver’s seat is considered safely Democratic due to the district’s strong partisan alignment and urban base. Missouri’s 5th District consistently delivers large Democratic margins, driven by Kansas City’s population and voting patterns. While Cleaver’s tenure and incumbency provide additional stability, the underlying partisan structure of the district makes a Republican challenge highly unlikely to succeed, positioning him as a secure incumbent heading into 2026.
Democrat’s Best Chance to Flip
If any district in Missouri were to come into play in 2026, it would be Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District (MO-02), currently represented by Ann Wagner. Anchored in the St. Louis suburbs, MO-02 is structurally different from the rest of the state’s Republican-held districts, with higher levels of educational attainment, suburban growth, and a history of closer electoral margins. While it still leans Republican, these characteristics make it the most electorally elastic district in the state.
For Democrats, MO-02 represents the clearest, though still challenging, path to competitiveness. Success in the district would likely depend on strong performance among suburban voters, particularly college-educated constituencies, as well as the ability to nationalize the race around issues that resonate beyond Missouri’s broader partisan divide. While the district does not currently rate as a top-tier battleground, it remains the most important to watch as the cycle develops and the best opportunity for Democrats to make inroads in Missouri at the congressional level in 2026.
On the Democratic side, Frederick Wellman has emerged as the apparent frontrunner in the primary. Wellman has led the field in fundraising, maintains the strongest cash-on-hand position, and has secured key endorsements, giving him a clear organizational advantage. In contrast, Joan Vondrass has relied heavily on self-funding, contributing over $200,000 of her own resources to her campaign. While self-financing can provide early viability, it may present limitations in a political environment where Democratic voters have shown increasing skepticism toward wealth-driven campaigns. Taken together, the available indicators suggest Wellman is well-positioned to secure the nomination, though the race is not entirely settled.
Frederick Wellman is a political newcomer and former U.S. Army officer running in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District. A male in his 50s, Wellman is a combat veteran who later transitioned into political communications and advocacy, becoming known for his commentary on national security and Democratic politics. He has built a public profile through media appearances and digital platforms, and has been associated with political advocacy networks including MeidasTouch and The Lincoln Project, which have helped amplify his messaging and visibility within Democratic and anti-Trump circles.
In the 2026 cycle, Wellman has emerged as the leading Democratic contender in MO-02, backed by strong fundraising, early endorsements, and a consolidated position within the party field. His campaign blends a traditional candidate profile, veteran, Midwestern background, with a more modern, media-driven approach to political engagement, positioning him to compete in a district where visibility and messaging to suburban voters will be critical.
In the general election, Democrats face a more difficult path. Incumbent Ann Wagner has shown some vulnerability, including trailing a generic Democrat in early public polling. However, structural factors continue to favor Republicans in the district. Historically, partisan reversion, where voters ultimately return to their party alignment, has played a significant role in districts like MO-02 as elections approach. While external indicators such as betting markets suggest this race is among the most competitive in the state, they still consistently reflect a clear Republican advantage. As a result, while Democrats may be able to narrow the margin, flipping the seat would likely require a favorable national environment and sustained crossover appeal among suburban voters.
Recent Interviews
- Wesley Bell C-SPAN profile interview- https://www.c-span.org/program/interview/representative-wesley-bell-profile-interview/655626
- Wesley Bell Interrogation of Pete Hegseth- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4pH2gpx06Q
- Cori Bush Announcement Video- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRfv9gSEoA5/
- Cori Bush Breakfast Club Interview/Running Against Wesley Bell- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVYlfb6gd5n/
- Emanuel Cleaver on Ceasefire Podcast- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVTozXh4yeI
- Fred Wellman- https://www.instagram.com/p/DXfOGVbvirk/?__d=1%E5%BE%AE%E5%8D%9A%E7%A7%81%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%B7%E4%BA%A4%E6%98%93%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%2B-%2B%E5%92%8C%E5%B9%B3%E7%B2%BE%E8%8B%B1%E5%B0%8F%E5%8F%B7%E7%BD%91%2B%E2%9C%94%EF%B8%8Fhaoba.cyou-%E5%BE%AE%E5%8D%9A%E5%B0%8F%E5%8F%B7%E5%B7%B2%E5%AE%9E%E5%90%8D%E8%B4%A6%E5%8F%B7%E5%87%BA%E5%94%AE
Engagement Resources
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates and races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_elections,_2026
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
- The Missouri Independent is a nonprofit outlet known for tracking political happenings in the Show Me State. https://missouriindependent.com/
When War Becomes Routine (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
Foreign Policy Brief #225 | Yelena Korshunov | May 4, 2026
The war in Ukraine, which is Europe’s largest land war since 1945, has entered the peculiar phase familiar to historians and unbearable to those living through it — the phase in which catastrophe becomes routine. Loud air raid sirens still interrupt dinners in Kyiv. Young men still disappear into the trench lines of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia. Russian drones still arrive nightly, buzzing in the dark like giant mechanical mosquitoes. As the rumble draws nearer, exhausted people rise from their beds and head into the narrow corridors of their apartments or into the basements of their houses. It happens night after night, year after year, while outside the region, the war increasingly competes with other crises for attention, just becoming a part of the atmospheric background of modern life.
By the fifth year of the war, the conflict had altered the very structure of ordinary life — not only in Ukraine, but in Russia as well. What once felt exceptional has become ambient. People check news alerts between work calls, distinguish drones by sound, and live their routine life while air defense systems operate somewhere beyond the edge of the city.
Russia continues to strike Ukrainian cities. Residential buildings, energy infrastructure, schools, and hospitals regularly come under attack. After each strike, nearly identical photographs emerge: shattered windows, rescue workers coated in dust, children’s toys lying among broken concrete. The repetition of these images creates a psychological weight. War no longer appears as a sequence of separate tragedies, but as a permanent condition of life and death.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has increasingly targeted oil depots, refineries, and fuel infrastructure inside Russia. These attacks are strategic as much as symbolic. Modern warfare depends on fuel almost as much as it does on weapons. At the same time, long-range drone strikes have begun to erode the traditional sense of distance within Russia itself. A war that for many Russians existed largely as a TV reality is becoming physically tangible. The defining feature of this stage is that both sides are now attempting to exhaust each other not only militarily, but psychologically. Russia continues to rely on pressure against civilian infrastructure and the slow fatigue of society. Ukraine relies on technological adaptability, strikes against logistics, and its ability to maintain the attention and support of its allies.
According to The Guardian, this spring, Ukrainian officials have cautiously described their battlefield position as the strongest it has been in more than a year, thanks largely to the expanding use of domestically produced drones and localized counteroffensives in the south.The war no longer resembles the sweeping armored advances of 2022. Instead, it has evolved into something more technological, more dispersed, and in many ways more psychologically exhausting through screens, algorithms, and industrial endurance.
The front itself stretches more than seven hundred miles. Villages captured at staggering human cost are sometimes little more than piles of brick. What matters increasingly is not symbolic territory but logistics such as rail nodes, fuel depots, drone manufacturing sites, and the electronic warfare systems that now determine whether soldiers live or die. A correspondent of The Washington Post wrote on April 30th that Ukraine’s expanding drone campaign has altered the emotional geography of the war. Russia, long accustomed to fighting at a distance from its urban centers, now confronts increasingly regular strikes deep inside its territory. It looks symbolic that Moscow has reportedly scaled back portions of its annual Victory Day military parade on May 9th out of concern that Ukrainian long-range drones could target the capital.
At the same time, Ukraine faces the deeper problem common to all prolonged wars — exhaustion. President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned repeatedly that the coming months will bring intense military and diplomatic pressure, – points out Reuters. Recruitment remains politically sensitive. Casualty numbers are guarded with near-religious secrecy. And this week, Ukraine’s army chief introduced mandatory troop rotation limits after public outrage over reports of frontline soldiers being left in impossible conditions for extended periods.
That decision revealed something important about the current stage of the conflict. In earlier years, Ukraine’s greatest strategic asset was morale — the electrifying sense that national survival depended on collective sacrifice. Sadly, four years into the full-scale invasion, sacrifice remains abundant. Diplomatically, the war has entered an equally ambiguous chapter. Al Jazeera reported that a brief Easter ceasefire earlier this month collapsed almost immediately amid mutual accusations of violations. Behind the scenes, various rounds of international talks continue in places like Abu Dhabi and Geneva, but expectations remain low. Even some European leaders have begun quietly discussing territorial compromise as a possible component of eventual negotiations — language that would once have been politically unthinkable.
Russia too appears trapped inside the war it began. Western sanctions have not produced economic collapse, but the cumulative strain is visible. Ukraine continues targeting Russian oil infrastructure with increasingly sophisticated drone operations. Meanwhile, Russia’s military machine consumes extraordinary amounts of manpower and material simply to maintain incremental gains.
While countless domestic and international political developments compete for Americans’ attention, on another continent across the ocean Ukrainian soldiers continue, for a fifth year, to give their lives in cold, rain-soaked trenches for the independence of Europe’s largest country by territory — a country where people, including young children, die every day in Russia’s attacks. The danger for the outside world is not merely geopolitical fatigue. It is moral adaptation — the slow acceptance that devastation, if sufficiently prolonged, begins to seem inevitable. Ukraine’s future remains uncertain. Russia’s ambitions remain dangerous. But perhaps the most consequential question now is whether democracies can maintain attention spans longer than authoritarian regimes can sustain destruction.
Take Action
- Ukraine war briefing: Kyiv hails frontline position as ‘strongest in a year’, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/ukraine-war-briefing-kyiv-hails-frontline-position-as-strongest-in-a-year?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- Ukraine and Russia accuse each other of breaching Easter ceasefire, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/12/ukraine-and-russia-accuse-each-other-of-breaching-easter-ceasefire?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- Ukraine war latest: German chancellor suggests Ukraine may cede territory to secure peace, EU path, https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-war-latest-german-chancellor-suggests-ukraine-may-cede-territory-for-peace-eu-path/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Crony Diplomacy Is Failing U.S. Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy Brief #233)
Foreign Policy Brief #233 | Nicholas Gordon | May 4, 2026
At a recent press conference, U.S. Defense Secretary and Christian nationalist Pete Hegseth justified the Trump administration’s unconstitutional act of starting the war with Iran by saying that before launching missiles, “We sent our best people to negotiate — Steve and Jared.” But that duo, Trump’s billionaire real estate buddy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, were unsuccessful in negotiating with Iran. Trump then started the war that has so far killed thirteen U.S. service members and wounded more than 300.
As the war drags on into its third month with no deal in sight and another round of botched negotiations in the rearview, many analysts and foreign policy experts have identified Witkoff and Kushner not as “the best people” serving U.S. diplomacy, but rather as dangerously inept and inexperienced envoys with serious conflicts of interest who risk prolonging the war.
Analysis
Witkoff and Kushner are symbolic of Trump’s cronyism, that is, his favoring of personal allies and business associates over qualified professionals for government roles. Whereas for decades professional diplomats from the State Department and the National Security Council have handled negotiations in global crises, Kushner and Witkoff come to the negotiating table with zero diplomatic expertise. Moreover, because they’re not formal U.S. government employees, they’re not subject to the guardrails of public financial disclosure laws or ethics laws, not to mention Senate confirmation.
The pair’s lack of accountability is reflected in their loosely defined titles. While engaging in crucial negotiations in the last year with heads of state from Russia, Ukraine, Iran, and Israel, Witkoff was called a special envoy, and Kushner deemed a volunteer. More recently, each of them has been designated by Trump as a Special Envoy of Peace Missions, set to continue high-level negotiations on behalf of the U.S. government. Further plaguing their lack of foreign policy experience, both Witkoff and Kushner bring serious conflicts of interest to their government work, in keeping with their boss’s well-documented self-dealing.
Witkoff’s Conflicts of Interest
In a public letter to the White House and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Christopher Murphy document Witkoff’s numerous conflicts of interest and the inaccuracies of his financial disclosure form. For example, the senators cite how in 2024 Witkoff partnered with the Trump family to launch the cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial. Later that year, after Witkoff was appointed U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, a UAE government-backed firm invested $2 billion in World Liberty Financial.
The senators point out that no agency ethics officials have signed Witkoff’s financial disclosure forms or stated that he is in compliance with ethics laws and regulations. They also show that the form lists June 30, 2025 as the appointment date of Witkoff’s government role, stating that he held no prior federal positions. However, records show that by January 2025 he was working in an official capacity, representing the Trump administration in high-level meetings in Saudi Arabia and Gaza, and participating in diplomatic negotiations concerning Israel and Gaza.
Kushner’s Conflicts of Interest
During his tenure as special advisor in Trump’s first term, Kushner exploited his government role to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profit. When the role ended, he continued to capitalize on his government job by securing billions of dollars for his investment firm, Affinity Partners, from the very governments he had worked with in his official capacity.
This month, House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin opened a sweeping investigation of Kushner’s “staggering conflicts of interest,” warning that Kushner’s “dual role as Middle East negotiator and financier funded by Middle Eastern governments poses grave national security risks and likely violates federal law.” Raskin notes that Kushner’s firm has received more than $6 billion in assets and investments from foreign states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, during Kushner’s time as a government operative. With such flagrant opportunism on display, it’s not shocking that Kushner misled the public about his intention of staying out of government service ahead of Trump’s return to office.
Their Diplomatic Efforts
While the pair did help broker a ceasefire in Gaza and secure the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, critics argue that isolated successes do not offset a broader pattern of inconsistency and inexperience in foreign policy, such as Witkoff’s and Kushner’s failed negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Regarding their mishandling of the Iran negotiations, Aaron David Miller, who served in the State Department as an advisor for Middle East negotiations from 1978 to 2003, recently gave Kushner and Wikoff “an F in diplomacy.”
Conclusion
Iranian political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi asserted that as a negotiator Kushner “represents the pragmatic and softer side of Trump.” But what Kushner—and Witkoff—mostly represent is Trump’s right-wing populist disdain for subject matter expertise and professional ethics in favor of, well, favoritism, and opportunities for personal financial gain.
American citizens—who continue to suffer the exorbitant costs of rising fuel prices spurred by the war and a wartime president who alienates foreign allies, threatens armageddon on Iran’s civilization, and sows confusion and doubt over the status of and goals for the war—deserve competent, uncompromised diplomats leading negotiations in an effort to end the Iran conflict.
Take Action
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
- “Fights for the democracy Americans deserve and aims to build a government that is accountable, transparent and ethical”
- Brennan Center for Justice
- A nonpartisan law and policy organization working to reform, revitalize, and defend the U.S. systems of democracy and justice
- House Judiciary Committee
- Established in 1813, the Committee strives “to protect U.S. Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, oversight of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, legal and regulatory reform, innovation, competition and anti-trust laws, terrorism and crime, and immigration reform. The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over all proposed amendments to the Constitution, and usually sends the greatest number of substantive bills to the House floor each year.”
