JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Tech billionaire support for Donald Trump is paying off in some of the expected ways, such as extraordinary access and deregulation. But Trump has wreaked havoc on the stock market, disappointed his crypto backers, and failed to save Mark Zuckerberg from a grilling at the Federal Trade Commission.
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Amid the current political unrest, citizens have voiced their concerns through social media. Voicing one’s differences of opinions without government interference is an American right, but that right has since been under attack.
How ICE Works (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in 2003 as a component of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws inside the United States and investigate transnational crime. Twenty‑two years later, the agency employs more than 20,000 personnel across more than 400 domestic and foreign offices.
Deporting Democracy: The Crackdown on Foreign Student Visas (Immigration Policy Brief #143)
Institutions of higher education are under attack. Since the return of the Trump administration, more than 1,500 international students and recent graduates from over 240 institutions, across at least 45 states and Washington, D.C., have had their F-1 academic and J-1 exchange visas revoked.
The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling
On April 9, 2025 the House of Representatives voted on the No Rogue Rulings Act bill. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). H.R. 1526 would prohibit a federal district court judge from issuing an injunction or prohibition regarding a case unless the injunction or prohibition only applied to the parties of the particular case before the district judge’s court. The bill passed the House by a vote of 219 – 213 in favor of the bill, almost exclusively on party lines. One Republican voted against the bill, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio.
Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, promotes student achievement, ensures equal access to education, and enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, it manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs for low-income students, and special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also oversees civil rights compliance in educational institutions.
United States v. South Africa: US Executive Order 14204
The current US administration has altered South Africa’s trajectory as a nation. On 7 February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14204 titled, “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”. It outlines two reasons for its existence, first that South Africa’s Expropriation Act (2024) dismantles “equal opportunity” and fuels “disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners”. Secondly, the Order states that South Africa’s condemnation of Israel to the International Court of Justice, “poses national security threats to the US.” The provisions of the order also set two major policies that will reverberate across the international community. One is an immediate cut to United States aid to South Africa, second is the promotion of resettling Afrikaners, Dutch-descended South Africans, in the United States as refugees from racial discrimination.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Ecuador President Daniel Noboa has been declared winner of the country’s presidential election, over Luisa González, a protégé of Ecuador’s left-wing former President Rafael Correa. Gonzalez offered an alternative model for security based on what her party described as “prevention, violence reduction and coexistence”.
How the Twenty-Second And Twelfth Amendments Prohibit a Third Trump Term
Section 1 of the Twenty – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “No person shall be elected to the Office of the President more than twice.” President Donald Trump was elected to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024 after he was defeated in his bid for re – election in 2020.
The Growing Global Battle for Rare Earth Minerals
The Growing Global Battle for Rare Earth Minerals
Where there’s oil, there’s the United States of America. It’s an old joke, fostered by a century of U.S.-backed coups and military interventions in the name of cheap access to oil reserves. But the age of oil politics may be giving way to a new age of mineral politics.
Rare earths are a group of 17 elements that are increasingly important in today’s day and age. From smartphones and wind turbines to radar systems and F-35 fighter jets, rare earths are vital to the functioning of any modern nation. Other metals, like nickel, cobalt, graphite, and lithium, are equally important for modern technology including their use in batteries. But there are only so many reserves of these resources, and the great powers of today are beginning to recognize the importance of securing access to them.
The most notable examples of this have been the U.S.’ desire to annex Greenland, which has rich, vast, and untapped (for environmental reasons) reserves, and the U.S.’ push for a minerals deal in Ukraine. The U.S. currently only has one functioning rare earth mine, and imports almost all of what it needs. What is driving this renewed push by the U.S. specifically is the knowledge that China produces upwards of 90% of the world’s rare earth metals, giving them a de facto monopoly over an industry that America has only recently begun developing.
Analysis
The Ukraine mineral deal has gone through many iterations, with the most recent giving the U.S. 50% of future revenues generated from minerals, oil, and other resources. While a draft as of April 6 only shows the American side of the deal, it emphasizes the central role minerals are playing in today’s geopolitics.
Greenland, on the other hand, has 43 of the 50 minerals deemed “critical” to American security, according to a recent study. These minerals include, graphite, uranium, nickel, and copper, and they are a large part of the reason that Donald Trump has pushed for annexing Greenland. Besides its strategic position near the Arctic and his own personal yearning to cement his legacy, those minerals attract a lot of eyes. 25 of the 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission, according to a 2023 survey, were found in Greenland. Denmark controls Greenland, and should push come to shove, the EU could hypothetically access those minerals.
But what hasn’t been attracting a lot of eyes is the third country that the U.S. has been seeking a minerals deal with. Democratic Republic of Congo has been waging a war since 2022 against the M23 paramilitary group, which is allegedly backed by neighboring Rwanda. In early April, the Trump administration acknowledged that it was open to a minerals-for-security deal with the DRC.
Whether or not this deal goes through, part of the reason this conflict began in the first place was because Rwanda wanted access to the DRC’s mineral deposits, something they’ve pushed for since the 1990s. Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, the mineral-rich battleground eastern regions of the DRC have evolved into smash-and-grab smuggling operations. While Rwanda has been seizing Coltan deposits, even neighboring Uganda has gotten involved in the conflict and begun taking over gold mines to the northeast, according to United Nations and Ugandan officials.
The U.S. is not alone in vying for rare earth access. At the moment, the EU is incredibly dependent on China’s exports of rare earth metals. With the global trade system being shaken up by President Trump, many nations like Spain are eyeing increasing trade with China. But others in the bloc are trying to invest in European endeavors. In March, the EU selected 47 rare earth projects across member states, a major step towards fully implementing its 2023 Critical Raw Materials Act, which aims to reduce dependence on China’s exports.
Finally, China’s rare earth exports are also increasingly becoming a tool for geopolitics. After Trump’s tariff “Liberation Day”, China hit back with export restrictions on its rare earths. Those restrictions also include permanent magnets and other finished products that will be difficult to replace, showing just how effective a geopolitical cudgel China has due to its mining operations.
How much and how aggressively China wields that cudgel is yet to be seen, but minerals are becoming the new oil across the board. From Greenland, to the DRC and China, the resources that make our phones and fighter jets work are beginning to become vital national security interests. And blood is already being spilt to claim them.
Engagement Resources:
- The Council on Foreign Relations’ Global Conflict Tracker provides updates for ongoing conflicts. They also have a litany of experts on foreign policy.
- The American Geosciences Institute provides information services and education about the importance of geosciences to society.
- The Payne Institute for Public Policy at Colorado School of Mines is a research institute focused on the environment and natural resources.
Strategies for the Democrats for the Democrats to Push Back
Op Ed: Strategies for the Democrats for the Democrats to Push Back
Since last year’s election, in which Republicans gained control of all three branches of government, the Democrats have seemed somewhat lost and unable to develop a pushback strategy to counter the new administrations policies. The Op Ed team at USRESIST NEWS has the following suggestions to help the Democratic party get its act together.
# 1 Fight Back Harder: Until Corey Booker’s recent record-breaking filibuster speech, Democratic voices have been mostly soft and timid. They have made some moderate suggestion but their leadership has not spoken out forcibly against the Trump administration’s seemingly chaotic policies and actions. It is time to change that approach—to speak out when a new administration policy is proposed that seems misguided and not ell thought out; to make greater use of broadcast and social media to get their message across; and to make sure the message is loud and clear, has the backing of all concerned, and is consistently promoted by all party members.
# 2 Focus on Kitchen-table Issues: The Democrats have been failing to emphasize the key “kitchen-table” issues that motivate people to vote. These issues include access to health care, education, housing, child care, jobs, and the price of basic goods and services. President Trump’s election campaign focused on these issues, but so far he has failed to deliver on them. The Democrats need to take advantage of this gap between campaign promise and reality, and emphasize their long history of support for daily challenges facing working families.
# 3 Identify Republicans as the Party of Billionaires: Keep a spotlight on the way in which the Trump administration is run by Elon Musk and other super wealthy billionaires; how Trump’s tax policies are designed to help the rich get richer and ignore the needs of the middle class; and how Trump and his family often seem to use their political positions to increase their own wealth.
# 4 Identify Democrats as Protectors of Your Benefits and Rights: Speak out loudly against efforts by the Administration to reduce/eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; point out how the Democrats were the party responsible for initiating these programs and how they have fought long and hard to preserve them.
# 5 Fight Against Isolationism: Stress the value of keeping the US connected to the world; and how we need to strengthen rather than run away from our alliances such as NATO; Point out how administration policies on tariffs and other issues are limiting America’s ability to connect with other nations. Show how collaborating with other countries helps grow our economy, combat enemies, enhance our workforce, and enrich our culture.
# 6 Build Better and Newer Constituencies; Make a special effort to connect with voters whom the Democrats have lately ignored, such as working class, rural-based and young voters: speak to these constituencies about the issues that concern them such as access to jobs and housing, broad-band Internet, and student loans.
# 7 Identify and Promote Young Leaders: It is time for the Democrats to usher in a new generation of leaders who can speak to the needs of young people, who understand and have ideas on how to maximize the use of technology, and limit its downside; and who can bring new life and energy to the Democratic party.
MAGA Against College: A Fight for America’s Minds
MAGA Against College: A Fight for America’s Minds
Education Policy Brief # 201 | Damian DeSola | April 4, 2025
Featured Photo By: MSNBC
It is no secret that the past two months of Trump’s second term have rattled both American and international societies to their core. Racing out of the gates, the administration has enacted executive orders and taken initial action against those who stand against its policy agenda; these actions are illegal and fundamentally violate the Constitution. A prime example is the administration’s crusade against higher education institutions and their students across the country. Believing in a “mandate” from the American people, Trump and his executive compatriots seek to focus not only on influencing the people’s hearts but also shaping their minds.
Two different academic targets are implicitly named by the administration, the students at Universities and the Universities themselves.
Targeted students are of international origin and are legally in the United States on student visas or, in one instance, a permanent resident via a green card. They have been the focus of the administration as their supposed mandate to fight immigration has provided political cover for action against these students.
In one currently unresolved incident, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University, Rumeysa Ozturk, was detained by plainclothes secret police officers wearing masks. Once arrested, Ms. Ozturk was flown from Massachusetts to Louisiana and is being held there. As of now, there is no official statement as to why Ms. Ozturk was arrested, as some speculate that her publication of an article arguing support for Palestine along with her non-citizen status made her a target by the administration. It is reported that outside of this article, which shows no favor for Hamas, Ms. Ozturk was not involved in mass protests or any other form of explicit activism.
Another infamous case is the much-publicized detention of Mahmoud Khalil by ICE. A graduate of Columbia University and a lawful permanent resident with a green card, Khalil participated in various pro-Palestine protests on campus and worked as a lead negotiator with the University. On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was detained by ICE without charging him with a criminal offense but under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a McCarthy era act used to deport immigrants that the Secretary of State determines threaten U.S. foreign policy. The State Department said they will remove his status as a permanent resident, and that his arrest was supposedly because he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”
University officials have also faced challenges from the Trump administration. By threatening to remove funding and grants, the administration has achieved some success in bending the operation of these schools to its will.
Most notably, is the accession to the administration’s demands by Columbia University. The administration announced that around $400 million of federal funding would be withheld unless the University agreed to their demands. In response, the University relented and declared they would be reforming campus protest rules by banning face-concealing masks and requiring ID checks, and altering the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department, including the appointment of a new department head.
There have also been demands to allow police to arrest “agitators”, change the school’s definition of antisemitism, change how the university disciplines students, and reform the admissions process. All of this is under the pretense of fighting antisemitism and DEI on campus. The accession to the demands resulted in the president of the university stepping down.
Broadly, the administration is investigating hundreds of colleges and research institutions, with sixty receiving letters from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights notifying them of their ongoing investigation; the goal is to achieve similar results as Columbia’s case by threatening to withhold federal funding at their discretion. On April 3 the administration announced a pause of $510 million in federal funding to Brown University. Other major cases have involved the pausing of grants and contracts have also developed at Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Analysis
Trump and the Republican party have long-standing grievances with higher education institutions. From their perspective, colleges and universities, and the voting alumni they produce, hold and espouse political philosophies that run counter to conservative values. University campuses are also liable for becoming the stomping grounds for disgruntled and bold students who protest national policies.
Furthermore, Universities retain curriculums and admissions processes that conservatives consider anti-American and unfair. Fields like Critical Race Theory and other critical sociological and historical fields have drawn conservative criticism for teaching points of view that consider American and European history and philosophy as less than perfect. In terms of admissions, the practice of DEIA in the selection process, which ensures a wide pool of diverse candidates that are fairly treated regardless of generally discriminated against features, has received massive scrutiny by the administration. They claim that this method of candidate selection results in choosing specific applicants based on their skin color, thereby reducing the opportunities for white applicants that have been passed over for minority candidates.
However justified the conservatives are for naming Universities as a source of political opposition, their actions that suppress free speech and bend independent institutions of study to their will is unacceptable. The value of independent educational institutions in a liberal democracy is incalculable as their capacity for promoting critical thinking skills and producing minds that create innovative solutions is an absolute necessity. Without free debate and peer review, democracy will wither in the shadow of a monolithic thought process that is incapable of providing the necessary hypotheses and frameworks for contemporary social and technological evolution.
Engagement Resources:
- A letter of support to US College and University Presidents from the ACLU
- An explanation of DEIA from the American Association of People with Disabilities
- ACLU petition to free Mahmoud Khalil
Where Democrats can aim for the 2026 midterms: House Edition
Where Democrats can aim for the 2026 midterms: House Edition
Summary
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The House of Representatives is far more flexible than the Senate because all 435 of its members are up for election every two years. Its unique duties include initiating revenue bills, impeaching federal officials, and electing the President in the case of an electoral college tie.
This flexibility may allow the Democrats to win enough seats to gain a majority and mount a resistance to Donald Trump’s agenda. The razor-thin majority the Republicans have may be more easily flipped than in the Senate for a number of reasons including how the midterms generally favor the opposition party. However, there are still factors that could moderate the advantage that Democrats might have.
Analysis
The elections in the House of Representatives are very wide-ranging, as all 435 seats are on the line. Democrats currently control 213 and Republicans control 218, with 4 vacancies. A net gain of just 3 would give the Democrats a majority. But the Cook Political Report identifies 18 seats (10 blue, 8 red) that are likely toss-ups.
Democrat-held
- CA-13 Gray
- CA-45 Tran
- ME-02 Golden
- NC-01 Davis
- NM-02 Vasquez
- NY-04 Gillen
- OH-09 Kaptur
- OH-13 Sykes
- TX-34 Gonzalez
- WA-03 Perez
Republican-held
- AZ-01 Schweikert
- AZ-06 Ciscomani
- CO-08 Evans
- IA-01 Miller-Meeks
- MI-07 Barrett
- NE-02 Bacon
- PA-07 Mackenzie
- PA-10 Perry
Most of these races are in districts where the current representative won by minute margins, sometimes as small as 788 in Rep. Miller-Meeks’ case. But instead of going race-by-race and highlighting which ones are likely to flip, it would be more worthwhile to look at the trends that may decide control of the House come 2026.
Firstly, midterm elections often favor the party who’s not represented by the president. This also applies to the Senate, but it is doubly important for the House because of the sheer number of seats up for grabs. Since the Civil War, the President’s party has lost ground in the House in 38 out of 41 elections, and with an administration as divisive as Donald Trump’s, there is a very real possibility of a blue wave. Additionally, because the opposition historically gains ground, it means that the opposition incumbentsin toss-up races generally can hold onto their seat, meaning those 10 seats mentioned above may be ever so slightly harder to flip than the 8 Republican-held seats.
But while the Democrats may enjoy increased support due to being the opposition, midterms often mean a lower voter turnout that attracts older, white, and college-educated voters. While it is unclear the extent to which having a lower-voter turnout will help or hurt Democrats, older white voters will likely skew towards Republicans like they did in the 2022 midterms, with 57% voting Republican. When it comes to college-educated voters, they tend to vote Democrat across the board, with 56% voting blue in 2022. Whether the college-educated vote will cancel out the elderly white vote will only become clear as time goes on.
Finally, there are a wide range of Democratic representatives who are eyeing higher office or running for Senate seats. As a result, once safe Democratic seats could become far more uncertain races, and battleground races could become all the more competitive. For example, in Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who narrowly won his race, is reportedly eyeing a run at a Senate seat to challenge GOP Sen. Susan Collins, or to replace the current Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who can’t run again due to a term limit.
In Michigan, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, is also considering a run for the Senate after Sen. Gary Peters announced his retirement, while in Minnesota the same story is playing out with Democratic Rep. Angie Craig gunning for outgoing Sen. Tina Smith’s seat.
In some of these cases, there are Democrat candidates who are ready to step forward to the race’s starting line. But new faces on the block aren’t always loved by voters, especially in turbulent times like these when stability and experience are extra appealing.
While the Democrats likely have a better chance at gaining a majority in the House than in the Senate, it still will likely not be an easy road or even a large majority that they get. As time goes on, the picture will become clearer. But regardless of the outcome, the 2026 midterm elections will be far more consequential than normal.
Engagement Resources:
- Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics is a comprehensive, nonpartisan political analysis newsletter.
- Cook Political Report is another independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections and campaigns.
- U.S. Vote Foundation is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public charity founded in 2005 that provides voting services and election data.
The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
Education Policy Brief #200 | Valerie Henderson | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: ABC News
Summary
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, operates to promote student achievement, ensure equal access to education, and enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, the DOE controls policies related to federal financial aid, collects education data, and administers funding for education research. It notably manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs (support for low-income students), special education through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and oversees compliance with federal civil rights laws in educational institutions.
Over time, the Department’s scope has evolved, driven by landmark legislations such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, and subsequent reauthorizations, including No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).
Analysis
Historically, the DOE’s role has expanded significantly from its original mission. Initially intended as a support system for states and localities, it has increasingly influenced local education policy through conditional funding mechanisms. Federal initiatives such as Common Core standards adoption, Race to the Top grants, and the enforcement of standardized testing illustrate a shift toward increased federal involvement in local education policy.
Critics argue that excessive federal mandates may undermine local innovation and flexibility. While supporters claim the DOE’s role ensures consistency in quality and equity across states, particularly benefiting marginalized populations such as students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds.
Advocates for maintaining the DOE emphasize its pivotal role in safeguarding educational equity and civil rights. They argue that federal oversight is essential to ensure that all students, regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status, have access to quality education. The DOE’s enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and support for underfunded schools through programs like Title I are cited as critical mechanisms for promoting fairness and addressing historical disparities in the education system.
Conversely, proponents of abolishing the DOE contend that education should be primarily a state and local responsibility, free from federal intervention. They argue that the DOE imposes one-size-fits-all mandates that stifle local innovation and burden schools with bureaucratic requirements. By eliminating the department, they believe that states and local communities would have greater autonomy to tailor education policies that best fit their unique needs and priorities.
Historically, federal funding accounts for only about 8-10% of total educational expenditures, yet these funds significantly shape local and state policy due to the conditions attached. Experts frequently debate whether such leverage ultimately enhances or constrains educational quality.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the dismantling of the Department of Education. The order instructs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” While the executive order sets the framework for reducing the department’s functions, completely abolishing it would require congressional approval. The administration asserts that this move aims to empower states and local communities by reducing federal oversight and bureaucracy in education.
I do not support efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as doing so would significantly harm students who depend on federally mandated services, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds and children with disabilities. The Department plays an essential role in protecting civil rights, funding special education programs, and ensuring equitable access to education across all states. Without its oversight, local disparities in funding, quality, and inclusiveness would likely widen. While there is room for reform and improved collaboration with states, dismantling the DOE would strip away necessary protections and support systems that millions of students rely on daily.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association (NEA)
Advocates for public education policies that strengthen public schools, enhance educational opportunities, and improve educator working conditions.
https://www.nea.org - Education Trust
Engages in research and advocacy aimed at closing achievement gaps and promoting educational equity across socioeconomic and racial groups.
https://edtrust.org - Center on Education Policy (CEP)
Provides nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public education, helping policymakers understand the implications of educational policies and practices.
https://www.cep-dc.org
A Fear-based Immigration Policy (Immigration Policy Brief #142)
A Fear-based Immigration Policy
Immigration Policy Brief #142 | Morgan Davidson | 4/1/2025
Featured Photo: Oregon Live
Summary
Trump’s mass deportation efforts remain ongoing across the U.S., capturing headlines with the arrests of student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, and the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua members/Venezuelans legally here on asylum, not to Venezuela but El Salvador, including a U.S. resident misidentified as a gang member. Despite the high-profile raids and fiery rhetoric, government data shows that deportations under Trump still lag behind levels seen under the Biden administration.
What’s changed isn’t just the volume—it’s the method, the message, and the consequences.
Analysis
The Trump administration is leaning into an aggressive legal strategy, reviving obscure wartime laws and dismantling long-standing humanitarian protections. A prime example, the Alien Enemy Act, an 18th-century law allowing deportations of nationals from enemy countries during war. But Congress hasn’t declared war, Trump is simply deciding who the “enemy” is.
Beyond that, Trump has paused resettlement for tens of thousands of vetted refugees, including 15,000 Afghans. He’s ended humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, leaving more than 500,000 people in legal limbo. His administration also launched a campaign to deport those accused of violent crimes—but less than half of the 8,200 arrested between January 20 and February 2 had any criminal convictions, according to ProPublica and the Texas Tribune.
Courts have tried to intervene, but Trump has openly called for the removal of “activist judges” and encouraged defiance of legal rulings. The message is clear: due process is optional when political spectacle is the goal.
And the scope of enforcement goes far beyond those with criminal records.
Khalil, a Columbia graduate, was accused of “activities aligned with Hamas” and detained—part of what Trump called the “first arrest of many.” Two more foreign-born academics at Georgetown and Brown have since been deported under vague homeland security concerns. These individuals are now thousands of miles from their families and lawyers, with no clear path to return.
Trump has also canceled a Biden-era program offering temporary legal status to migrants from four countries, urging them to “self-deport.” Advocates warn this leaves hundreds of thousands without time or legal means to stay, stuck in limbo as courts stall enforcement.
While deporting violent criminals enjoys broad bipartisan support, 97% of Americans back it, Trump’s approach is reckless and error-prone. The crackdown on alleged members of Tren de Aragua highlights how cases with public support are used to justify broader sweeps. Many deportees have been identified by tattoos with no gang affiliation—like “Family” or the autism awareness ribbon.
One case stands out: Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia, a Maryland resident with legal status, was mistakenly deported to CECOT, El Salvador’s notorious prison. ICE admitted the error but said the U.S. can no longer act, because Abrego-Garcia is no longer in custody. Meaning deportation can erase rights entirely.
This is not an isolated incident. Deportees are often dropped into unfamiliar countries with no safety net, no legal follow-up, and no recourse. NGOs like the American Immigration Council and Human Rights Watch report rising cases of abuse, extortion, and persecution, especially for those sent to unstable or hostile regimes.
This is no longer about immigration policy—it’s about power, ideology, and control.
We are watching a system that:
- Deports students for their politics.
- Sends refugees to prisons in countries they’ve never known.
- Abandons due process in favor of executive discretion.
- Ignores court orders to score political points.
So the question isn’t just what happens to immigrants when they’re deported. It’s- What kind of country are we becoming when we stop caring what happens to them at all? And more urgently, what kind of immigration system are we building when legal status, citizenship, and even human rights are conditional, temporary, and disposable?
Engagement resources–
- American Immigration Council: Explore how immigration policies affect families, the economy, and communities across the U.S. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
- Bipartisan Policy Center’s Immigration Reform Proposals: Explore balanced approaches to immigration policy that prioritize security, economic growth, and humanitarian concerns. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/topics/immigration/
- Texas Tribune’s Border Coverage: Follow in-depth reporting on Operation Lone Star and its implications for Texas taxpayers and National Guard members. https://www.texastribune.org/topics/border/
- Know Your Rights: The ACLU provides guidance for immigrants who have encounters with ICE here- https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders
A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Rights Policy Brief No. 239 | Rodney Maggay | March 26, 2025
Summary:
Under Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” a lawyer has a number of duties when dealing with a court of law. Rule 3.3(a)(1) states “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. Additionally, Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. While these are model rules, each state has a version of these rules, including the section on “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” that all lawyers must abide by when dealing with a tribunal or court.
One of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises for his 2024 presidential election campaign was to deal with aspects of the United States’ immigration system. President Trump promised to deport illegal immigrants who had committed violent crimes while in the U.S. After members of a violent Venezuelan based gang were rounded up, the Trump Administration set up flights to send them to a special prison in El Salvador under an agreement with the country’s President. On March 15th, 2025 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelans who were taken into custody because of the belief that the five were not members of the gang and that they would be irreparably labeled members of the group and unlawfully deported.
On Saturday, March 15th, 2025 at 9:40 AM, Judge James Boasberg issues a temporary restraining order preventing the government from deporting the five plaintiffs represented by the ACLU and Democracy Forward. At 4 PM, President Trump issues his order to deport the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act which contradicted Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order issued earlier that morning. Additionally, at a hearing at 5 PM Judge Boasberg questioned the government’s lawyer whether the Trump Administration planned to deport anyone in the next 24 to 48 hours. At 5:26 PM and 5:45 PM two planes believed to be carrying deportees take off from Texas. Around 6:45 PM, Judge Boasberg informs the government attorneys that “any plane preparing to take off with deportees or that is already in the air needs to turn around and return to the U.S.” No plane turns around and two planes eventually arrive, one in El Salvador and one in Honduras. The deportees sent to El Salvador will be housed in that country’s prisons. Those sent to Honduras were sent there first before being sent to Venezuela as the Venezuelan government has refused to accept direct flights from the United States.
On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 5 PM a hearing is held in Judge Boasberg’s courtroom to determine “possible defiance” of the court orders he issued over the weekend regarding the deportation flights that arrived in Honduras. However, the hearing has taken an unexpected turn as Trump Administration attorneys have now tried to have Judge Boasberg removed from the case. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While the deportation of immigrants that may or may not have criminal records is a policy issue that offers competing arguments, the deportation flights to Honduras and El Salvador has gained national attention for technical reasons of a legal nature. Specifically, the incidents pose the question whether the Trump Administration and his lawyers that appeared in Judge Boasberg’s court openly defied the Judge’s orders regarding the departure of the planes.
As mentioned above in Rule 3.3 in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct lawyers cannot make a false statement to the court or offer evidence that the lawyer knows is false. Because of the timeline as compiled by the Associated Press (AP) it is not clear if the Trump Administration government lawyer has run afoul of this rule of professional conduct. But knowing that members of the Trump Administration had brought up the idea of not complying with a judge’s lawful order, discussion has centered around what recourse a judge may have to enforce their orders in the face of outright defiance by officials in this administration.
Courts and judges have a variety of options that they often use to enforce their orders when a party refuses to comply. The only problem is that many of those options become more complicated because the party that might not be complying are high – ranking officials of the Trump Administration and their attorneys which comes close to violating the separation of powers doctrine. In general, courts can use their contempt power, which is either criminal or civil in nature. A ruling holding a party in civil contempt allows a court to impose fines on a party, sometimes daily, in order to ensure ongoing compliance with a judge’s order. While this is common in ordinary civil cases, it might not mean much when a party like the Federal Government can afford to pay a daily fine and thus continue their disobediance of the court. A ruling of criminal contempt is a more punitive measure that is levied on a party. However, this option can become complicated because a ruling of criminal contempt would lead to a referral to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the party for the criminal contempt order. Because the referral would go to DOJ, they likely would not prosecute an attorney representing the Trump Administration. President Trump and/or Attorney General Pam Bondi would simply direct the department to not prosecute a criminal contempt order. This would be the likely scenario if a Trump Administration attorney openly defies a court order and what Judge Boasberg is grappling with at this moment regarding how to proceed in a possible defiance of his orders in the deportation flights cases.
One modest proposal that has not been mentioned much in the media is a possible personal sanctioning of the attorneys representing the Trump Administration. A court could punish an attorney by taking the drastic step of suspending the bar license of an attorney for ignoring a judge’s lawful order. This is considered an extreme option as attorneys are given wide latitude to make sometimes outrageous arguments. But if a judge senses that attorneys are not being honest and forthright with a court in order to intentionally delay or mislead a court then this option should certainly be considered. A lawyer who has his license suspended can no longer appear in court and would certainly affect a lawyer’s opportunity to make a living and affect his or her future job opportunities. No lawyer wants to have to explain to a future employer why he or she openly defied a judge’s orders. This option would have a deterrent effect on attorneys and could cause attorneys to be more cautious in their dealings with a court and maybe even be more forceful in counseling Trump Administration officials. As an example, lawyers who brought lawsuits on behalf of Trump regarding unsupported fraudulent 2020 elections claims – Rudolph Giulani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman – have all been disciplined with Giulani eventually losing his license and Eastman’s case still pending whether he should be disbarred. These lawyers have been punished but it has also deterred other lawyers from bringing any more 2020 election fraud claims to the courts. If disbarment can deter attorneys from disobeying court orders on behalf of Mr. Trump, then courts should seriously consider this option as Trump attorneys continue to make their case in various cases in tribunals around the country. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice – explanation of what courts have at their disposal to enforce their orders.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – background of the deportation flights lawsuit.
- This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Brief # 181 Elections & Politics | By Inijah Quadri | March 29, 2025
Summary
The United States federal civil service stands as the backbone of our nation’s governance, ensuring the implementation of public policies and the delivery of essential services. In recent years, however, this institution has faced unprecedented challenges, with political maneuvers threatening its foundational principles. Understanding the intricacies of civil service employment—including hiring and firing procedures, reporting hierarchies, rights, responsibilities, benefits, and the distinction between civil servants and political appointees—is crucial, especially as these issues have come to the forefront in today’s political climate.
Analysis
Hiring Process
Federal civil service positions are traditionally filled through a competitive process designed to uphold merit-based principles, a cornerstone of democratic governance. Vacancies are announced on USAJOBS.gov, the official federal employment portal, where applicants must meet specific qualification standards and often undergo rigorous examinations or assessments. This process is governed by Title 5 of the United States Code, which outlines the rules and regulations for federal employment. However, recent political interventions have sought to undermine this system. The Trump administration’s (during his first term) introduction of “Schedule F,” a classification that would strip certain federal positions of civil service protections, exemplifies such attempts to erode the merit-based hiring process.
Schedule F is a job classification within the excepted service designated for positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Established by Executive Order 13957 in October 2020, Schedule F removed civil service protections from selected positions, allowing political appointees greater authority over hiring and firing. Although initially revoked by President Biden in January 2021, President Trump reinstated Schedule F upon returning to office in January 2025. Critics warn this threatens to further politicize the federal workforce by reducing impartiality and increasing vulnerability to politically motivated dismissals.
Termination Procedures
Terminating a federal employee has historically involved adherence to due process, ensuring protection against arbitrary dismissal. Supervisors are required to provide written notice detailing the reasons for termination, allow the employee to respond, and, in many cases, offer an opportunity for appeal. These procedures are rooted in reforms designed to prevent the patronage systems of the past. Disturbingly, the current administration has launched an aggressive campaign targeting probationary federal employees, those with less than two years of service who typically have fewer protections. While many of them have since been rehired, reports indicate that approximately 25,000 such employees were terminated within the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, under the guise of reducing government size.
Major agencies affected include the Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs. These dismissals were primarily carried out under directives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), led by Acting Director Charles Ezell, instructing agencies to terminate probationary employees without extensive performance justification. Following legal challenges, federal courts ruled many of these firings unlawful due to insufficient notice and lack of proper authority, resulting in the ordered reinstatement of over 20,000 federal workers, who are currently on paid leave pending final appeals. These actions have led to significant disruptions in public services and have raised serious legal and ethical concerns about the administration’s commitment to fair labor practices.
Reporting Structure
Federal agencies operate under hierarchical structures where civil servants report to supervisors, who in turn report to higher-level officials. This chain of command ensures accountability and efficient decision-making within the agency. However, the recent politicization of the civil service threatens this structure. The administration’s push to convert career positions into political appointments undermines the stability and impartiality of reporting lines, leading to a workforce more susceptible to political pressures rather than dedicated to public service.
Determining Civil Service Staffing Levels
The allocation of civil servant positions within each federal agency is primarily influenced by Congress through the federal budget and appropriations process. While Congress does not typically dictate exact staffing levels, the funding provided in annual appropriations bills sets the financial parameters within which agencies operate. Agency leaders use this funding to determine staffing levels based on operational needs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversees federal hiring practices, ensuring adherence to merit system principles and uniform staffing policies across agencies.
Rights and Responsibilities
Federal employees are entitled to various rights, including protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information, as enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They also have the right to due process in disciplinary actions and the freedom to join or not join unions. Responsibilities include adhering to ethical standards, performing duties efficiently, and upholding the public trust. Alarmingly, these rights are under siege. The administration’s attempts to bypass due process and target employees based on perceived political affiliations threaten the very fabric of our merit-based system, paving the way for a return to discriminatory practices and a culture of fear among public servants.
Benefits
Civil servants traditionally receive a comprehensive benefits package, including health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, and life insurance. These benefits are designed to attract and retain a competent workforce dedicated to public service. However, the current climate of uncertainty, marked by arbitrary terminations and attacks on job security, jeopardizes these benefits. The erosion of protections not only demoralizes the existing workforce but also deters potential talent from considering public service careers, thereby weakening the government’s ability to serve its citizens effectively.
Distinction Between Civil Service Employees and Political Appointees
Civil service employees are career officials selected through a merit-based system, ensuring continuity and impartiality in government operations. They retain their positions across different administrations, providing stability and institutional memory. In contrast, political appointees are selected by the president or agency heads to implement the current administration’s agenda, with their tenure typically ending with the appointing authority’s term. This system is designed to balance the need for both stable governance and the implementation of elected officials’ policies. However, the current administration’s blatant disregard for this balance, through efforts to blur the lines between career civil servants and political appointees, threatens to politicize the bureaucracy and erode public trust in government institutions.
Policy Suggestion
In light of these troubling developments, it is imperative to enact robust legislative measures that fortify the merit-based principles of our civil service. Congress must pass laws that unequivocally protect federal employees from politically motivated dismissals and ensure that any attempts to reclassify positions, such as “Schedule F,” are subject to stringent oversight and approval processes. Additionally, strengthening the independence and authority of oversight bodies like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is crucial to safeguard the rights of civil servants and maintain the integrity of public administration. Only through such decisive actions can we preserve a nonpartisan, effective, and just civil service that truly serves the interests of all citizens.
Engagement Resources
- USAJOBS (https://www.usajobs.gov/): The federal government’s official employment site.
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (https://www.opm.gov/) : Oversees federal human resources and provides policy guidance.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (https://www.eeoc.gov/): Enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
- Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund (FEEA) (https://feea.org/): Provides scholarships and emergency assistance to federal employees.
- National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) (https://www.narfe.org/): Advocates for federal employee benefits and provides resources.
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Foreign Policy Brief # 196 | By Yelena Korshunov | March 31,2025
Featured Photo:
Many Ukrainians closely followed President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington, where Ukraine and the United States planned to sign an agreement on rare earth metals. According to the American side, this deal was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine. However, a verbal spat between President Donald Trump, Vice President James Vance, and President Zelensky turned everything upside down. The conflict appeared to be premeditated by President Trump’s team. Millions of stunned and embarrassed viewers in the U.S., Ukraine, and around the world watched the broadcast as the meeting devolved into mockery, with ridiculing Zelensky’s lack of a suit followed by Vance’s rough abruption of Ukrainian President’s speech blaming him in a lack of saying “thank you”. Consequently, the agreement was not signed, and Zelensky left the White House early. Ukrainians’ opinions on the controversial meeting were divided; some criticized Zelensky’s behavior, while others fully supported him.
Zelensky’s closest allies—head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko, and head of the Servant of the People parliamentary faction David Arakhamia—commented on the visit and voiced their support for the president. They emphasized the importance of real security guarantees for Ukraine.
Andriy Yermak expressed gratitude to the American people for their support, writing on Telegram, “Security is not just a word. It is life. It is a future without sirens, without losses, without fear for those we love. Without real guarantees, war will return. It always returns to where there is a chance for a new attack.” He added, “We are grateful to those who stand with us, to those who understand that Ukraine is not just a point on the map. It is Minas Tirith [‘Tower of Guard’ or ‘Tower of Watch’ from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth], standing against evil.”
David Arakhamia echoed Yermak’s sentiments, thanking American people for their support and stating, “Our president is a rock, and few leaders in the world can match his fortitude. He genuinely wants to end this war, not settle for a temporary pause that may seem convenient to some.”
Ukrainian journalist Sergey Rudenko pointed out that Trump’s actions stemmed from his inability to fulfill promises to end the war in Ukraine. He said, “Trump lacks the strength to stand up to Putin or to deliver on his promise to end the war. What we witnessed on the evening of February 28 was a performance orchestrated by Trump and Vance. They didn’t want an agreement on mineral resources; they wanted a scapegoat for their failures. They chose Zelensky.”
Despite the failed negotiations, Ukrainian Prism Foreign Policy Council expert Sergey Gerasimchuk noted that Ukraine’s participation in talks provided leverage. “Ukraine can now reject any proposal, whether from Putin or Trump. Europe will undoubtedly be present at the negotiating table, as European leaders have consistently backed Zelensky’s stance on leadership and security. Neither the Kremlin nor the White House can ignore this support,” he told Deutsche Welle[a Germany’s international broadcaster and a news portal].
Maria Berlinskaya, head of the Center for the Support of Aerial Intelligence, acknowledged that many Ukrainians are weary of the war and might support any resolution, but she warned against this mindset. On Facebook, she cited Winston Churchill, saying, “He who chooses shame over war will ultimately face both.” She added, “It seems we refused to accept shame.”
Volodymyr Viatrovych, a member of Ukraine’s opposition faction ‘European Solidarity,’ praised Zelensky for defending the truth about the war. According to him, the White House preferred not to hear it. “Trump and Vance spread lies about the war, hoping Zelensky would publicly accept them. Fortunately, he did not. Truth is one of our most valuable resources,” Viatrovych posted on Facebook.
A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 50% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions under any circumstances, even if it prolongs the war. Conversely, 39% are willing to cede some territories to achieve peace and preserve independence.
Here are statements from Ukrainian survey participants:
- Anton from western Ukraine: “I am 30 years old and originally from a small town in the Kherson region, now under Russian occupation. My parents and brother escaped to Germany, but my grandparents refused to leave. I moved to western Ukraine after the invasion. I see a contradiction among people who want Ukraine to reclaim its territories but are unwilling to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones. I believe territorial concessions are inevitable. War devastates society, the economy, and institutions. Even in the best-case scenario, a hollow victory with a shattered nation would be no victory at all.”
- Katya from Kherson: “Giving up territories means abandoning hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting and believing in liberation.”
- Yana from Crimea: “I have lived under occupation for 11 years. Although I cannot leave, Crimea is my home. I hope it will be Ukrainian again, but I understand if the government makes concessions to save lives.”
- Irina from Odessa: “I hope America helps Ukraine end the war at any cost. Everyone is exhausted. There are barely any men on the streets, and missile strikes are constant. It’s terrifying.”
- Tatyana from Kyiv region: “Conceding territories is unacceptable. Russia is a terrorist state. Today it’s four regions; tomorrow it could be the whole country. The world’s passive response emboldens them.”
Meanwhile, on March 20, Russia’s government-run company Dom.RF published a list of cities where Russians could purchase homes under a preferential mortgage program. The list included Ukrainian cities like Kherson, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk—locations not even under Russian control.
While the American President weakens alliances with Canada and Europe and removes sanctions on Russia, Moscow’s relentless shelling continues to destroy Ukrainian cities and claim lives.
Engagement Resources
- Zelensky describes Oval Office meeting as ‘regrettable,’ says he is ready to negotiate peace, https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/europe/zelensky-trump-argument-comment-ukraine-intl/index.html
- Read TIME’s Latest Interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskym https://time.com/7271480/zelensky-transcript-trump-white-house/
Zelensky ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership”, https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c981p3dxnent
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Brief # 180 Elections & Politics | Nate Iglehart | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: Wisconsin Examiner
Summary
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Senate in particular plays a very important role in checking the executive branch’s power. Between confirming appointments of federal judges, ratifying treaties negotiated by the president, and conducting impeachment trials, it plays a vital role in government.
On each of these fronts, President Donald Trump has been on the offensive; attacking federal judges, calling for their impeachments, and signing treaties with various foreign powers. If Democrats can retake control of the Senate in 2026, they will have a viable avenue to oppose Trump’s agenda outside of litigation.
Analysis
The Democrats currently control 45 seats, with 2 independent seats who often vote alongside them, to Republicans’ 53. They would need to control 51 seats, a net gain of essentially 4, for a majority due to JD Vance’s tie-breaking power.
Now, of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are 33 up for election this cycle, with 2 open due to special elections in Florida and Ohio. 13 of those seats are held by Democrats, with 9 in firmly blue areas. Of the remaining 4, Minnesota and New Hampshire lean blue, while Georgia and Michigan are considered complete toss-ups.
In Michigan, Democrat Gary Peters said he would not seek reelection in 2026, setting the stage for a tight race. Democrat Elissa Slotkin won the other Senate seat in 2024 by less than four-tenths of a percentage point, and Republican Mike Rogers, the runner-up who’s teased another run in 2026, represented the best showing in a Senate race by Republicans in Michigan since 1994. While the battleground state voted red in 2024, the race will still likely be exceedingly close in lieu of an incumbent who’s track record can speak for itself, especially as Pete Buttigieg and Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer have both passed on running.
Georgia’s seat is particularly interesting. Democrat Jon Ossoff won his very first term there last year by 1.4%, a mere 55,000 votes. Georgia has been a battleground state for the last two elections, voting blue in 2020 and then red by 2.2% in 2024. While Sen. Ossoff’s ability to win in a Trump-leaning state is impressive, his campaign seems to be taking a combative stance against the president. Billing himself as a bipartisan public servant the first time around, he has called Trump corrupt and said he is poisoning democracy more recently. His approach may galvanize disillusioned Republican voters to help secure Georgia, but it is too soon to tell.
In terms of offensive chances, most of the Republican seats up for grabs are in strongly red areas. But the Democrats are eyeing Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio.
While Maine voted blue in 2024, analysts say that Republican Susan Collins, who is seeking her sixth term and has been a perennial “white whale” of the Democrats, has a decent chance to retain her seat against two main challengers. Phillip Rench, a 37-year-old former engineer at Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is running as an independent, while Democrat Natasha Alcala is running on a platform focused on infrastructure, programs for veterans and the disabled, and elderly care. But between a possible blue wave and Sen. Collins’ sometimes tumultuous relationship with the GOP (she frequently crosses party lines and voted for Trump’s second impeachment), even Republican analysts have cited it as one of the 3 seats to defend in 2026.
North Carolina’s race showcases a wide range of challengers to Republican Thom Tillis, including Lara Trump, former Democratic governor Roy Cooper, and former Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. Cooper is a popular challenger, having won the governorship in 2016 and 2020 while Trump was on the ballot, and is an accomplished fundraiser in a state that is losing faith in Sen. Tillis, who has a 25% approval rating.
Finally, in Ohio, Democrats are apparently lobbying former Sen. Sherrod Brown to run against Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to the seat after JD Vance left for D.C. to become Vice President. Last year, Brown lost his seat by 3 points to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, a strong candidate in a slowly red-shifting state. Tim Ryan, a former Ohio representative, also has expressed interest in the Senate seat.
But at the end of the day, it is simply too far down the road to make any accurate predictions in any races. Even polls right before the elections can be off, as seen in the 2024 elections with the president, but also with the predictions of a “red wave” that never materialized in 2022. While only time will tell who gets the Senate in 2026, the races are shaping up to be wildly expensive and more important than ever.”
Engagement Resources:
- Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics is a comprehensive, nonpartisan political analysis newsletter.
- Cook Political Report is another independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections and campaigns.
- S. Vote Foundation is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public charity founded in 2005 that provides voting services and election data.