JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Crony Diplomacy Is Failing U.S. Foreign Policy (Foreign Policy Brief #233)
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.”
The Value of NATO—Past, Present, and Future (Foreign Policy Brief #224)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO, has been one of the most influential political and military alliances in modern history. Formed in 1949 by 12 countries, NATO has grown into a 32-member alliance across Europe and North America, with Sweden becoming the newest member in March 2024. Its stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means, especially through the principle of collective defense: under Article 5, an attack against one member is treated as an attack against all.
California Seeks to Limit Passenger Abuse by Uber Drivers (Technology Policy Brief #167)
Uber has buried statistics on assaults and accidents on its platform for years. Journalists and advocates have dug hard and are revealing disturbing levels of both. As more customers are suing the company for its inadequate safety measures, Uber is responding with a ballot initiative in California that would limit its liability for accidents, and consumer attorneys are supporting measures that would increase Uber’s liability and accountability.
Oklahoma (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #23)
Oklahoma’s 2026 federal elections will feature one U.S. Senate race and five House contests. The state is reliably Republican across all five congressional districts, and post-redistricting maps have made each seat structurally safe for the GOP.
North Dakota (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #22)
North Dakota’s 2026 federal elections will feature a single at-large U.S. House race, the state’s only federal contest. The state remains among the most reliably Republican in the nation — no Democrat has won statewide since Heidi Heitkamp’s Senate victory in 2012 — and the at-large House seat is not considered competitive by national forecasters.
Minnesota (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #21)
Minnesota has emerged as a central battleground in the broader political and cultural conflicts shaping the country in recent years. From the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 to renewed clashes over federal immigration enforcement and ICE activity, the state, particularly the Twin Cities, has become a focal point for activism, protest, and national political attention. These developments have helped shape both voter engagement and partisan dynamics heading into the 2026 election cycle.
Massachusetts (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #20)
Massachusetts, or the Bay State, is a safe state for Democrats in 2026. While the state has a wonky history of electing a Republican Governor, all three major seats are held by Democrats- this includes the Governorship & the two Senate seats held by Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey, who are both in their 13th year in their respective seats. Moving down the ballot, the remaining congressional breakdown is 9-0 in Democrats’ favor, with 8 of the 9 incumbents running for re-election. The primary elections are set for September 9th, followed by the general election on November 3.
Flying Blind — The Economic Sabotage of the Federal Shutdown (Economic Policy Brief #92)
While the full federal government reopened in early 2026, the United States remains in a state of economic volatility due to a lingering partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), now entering its 67th day.
Generational Change
Op Ed | Ron Israel | Managing Editor, USRESIST NEWS | April 19, 2026 Look at the evolution of life in America over the last several generations. I did this recently after my daughter came and asked me how she would be able to live well during her later years, when...
The Value of NATO—Past, Present, and Future (Foreign Policy Brief #224)
Foreign Policy Brief #224 | Inijah Quadri | April 27, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO, has been one of the most influential political and military alliances in modern history. Formed in 1949 by 12 countries, NATO has grown into a 32-member alliance across Europe and North America, with Sweden becoming the newest member in March 2024. Its stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means, especially through the principle of collective defense: under Article 5, an attack against one member is treated as an attack against all.
A fair assessment of NATO must recognize both its achievements and its controversies. On one hand, NATO has often been criticized for military interventions, high defense spending, and the risk that expansion can heighten tensions with rivals such as Russia. On the other hand, it is also widely viewed as one of the most successful defensive alliances in history. For more than 75 years, NATO has helped deter aggression against its members, contributed to stability in Europe, supported democratic cooperation among allies, and adapted to new threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
One important example of NATO helping the United States came after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the alliance invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history. That moment matters because it shows NATO is not only an American security guarantee for Europe; it has also been a European and Canadian commitment to defend the United States when the United States was attacked. NATO allies later contributed to the Afghanistan mission, showing that the alliance’s collective-defense promise has worked in both directions.
The central policy issue is not whether NATO is simply “good” or “bad,” but how the alliance can preserve its defensive purpose while avoiding unnecessary escalation, wasteful spending, and overreliance on military solutions. NATO’s future value depends on whether it can balance deterrence with diplomacy, burden-sharing with social responsibility, and collective security with respect for international law.
Analysis
In the present geopolitical landscape, NATO has experienced renewed importance because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and growing uncertainty about global security. Vladimir Putin has long opposed NATO enlargement, seeing the alliance’s eastward expansion as a threat to Russian influence. However, NATO argues that enlargement is based on Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows European countries to seek membership if they can contribute to Euro-Atlantic security. The decisions by Finland and Sweden to join NATO after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine show that Russian aggression has, in practice, strengthened the alliance rather than weakened it.
NATO’s strongest argument is its record as a defensive alliance. During the Cold War, NATO helped deter direct conflict between the Soviet Union and Western Europe without a major war between the superpowers. After the Cold War, NATO also played roles in crisis management and peace-support operations, including in the Balkans. Its Kosovo Force, known as KFOR, continues to help maintain a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement in Kosovo. These examples support the view that NATO has not only projected military power, but has also helped manage instability in regions where conflict could have spread.
At the same time, NATO’s record is not perfect. Interventions in Afghanistan and Libya remain controversial and show the limits of military power. NATO’s Afghanistan mission ended in 2021 after the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces, leading the alliance to conduct a lessons-learned process. This demonstrates that NATO can organize multinational military action, but it cannot guarantee political success when deeper local, regional, and governance problems remain unresolved.
Another major concern is defense spending. Critics argue that the enormous resources devoted to military budgets could otherwise support healthcare, housing, education, climate action, and poverty reduction. This concern is real, especially as global military expenditure continues to rise. SIPRI reported that NATO members accounted for a major share of global military spending, while NATO’s own figures show that allies have sharply increased defense investment since 2014.
However, NATO supporters argue that defense spending cannot be judged only as a cost. For smaller European states, especially those near Russia, NATO membership provides security guarantees they could not realistically provide on their own. The burden-sharing debate has also become more important because U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members for not paying their “fair share” and has questioned the reliability of U.S. support for allies. This has pushed European members and Canada to spend more on their own defense, with NATO reporting that all allies met or exceeded the older 2% of GDP target in 2025.
Under Trump, the United States is pushing NATO toward a more burden-sharing model. Rather than acting as the nearly automatic lead spender and security manager for Europe, Washington is pressing allies to take primary responsibility for European defense and to meet the new Hague defense investment commitment of 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% for core defense and 1.5% for broader security-related needs. This does not make the United States irrelevant to NATO, but it changes the political bargain: Europe is being asked to provide more money, readiness, and leadership while the United States remains the alliance’s strongest military member.
The war in Ukraine has also shown both NATO’s strengths and its internal challenges. NATO members have provided major political, military, and financial support to Ukraine, while avoiding a direct NATO-Russia war. Yet alliance politics can be complicated. Hungary under Viktor Orbán resisted some Ukraine-related support, but the clearest funding block was within the European Union, even as Hungary delayed major EU assistance. Within NATO, Orbán agreed in 2024 not to veto NATO support for Ukraine, while Hungary itself opted out of providing funds or military personnel for that effort.
Orbán’s defeat in Hungary also changed the Ukraine funding debate. After his government had been the main EU holdout, Hungary’s shift under Prime Minister-elect Péter Magyar helped clear the way for a €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine. Although this is EU funding rather than NATO funding, it matters for NATO because keeping Ukraine financially and militarily afloat reduces pressure on NATO’s eastern members and helps maintain a united Western front without requiring direct NATO combat involvement.
Looking toward the future, NATO’s value will depend on whether it remains a defensive alliance rather than becoming an engine of unnecessary militarization. The alliance should continue deterring aggression against its members, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, strengthening cyber and infrastructure resilience, and encouraging European allies to carry a fairer share of the security burden. At the same time, NATO should be careful not to treat every global problem as a military problem.
The importance of NATO to Europe was also highlighted by King Charles III in his recent address to the U.S. Congress, where he linked support for Ukraine, the transatlantic partnership, and NATO unity. The reference is useful because it shows that, in European diplomacy, NATO is treated not only as a military arrangement, but also as a political symbol of shared democratic security. For Europe, NATO remains the structure that connects national defense, U.S.-U.K. cooperation, and support for countries threatened by Russian aggression.
A balanced social policy approach should support NATO’s core mission of collective defense while demanding accountability, transparency, and diplomacy. Policymakers should ensure that defense spending is tied to real security needs rather than waste, corruption, or the profit motives of weapons manufacturers. They should also invest seriously in nonmilitary forms of security, including energy independence, climate resilience, democratic institutions, humanitarian aid, and conflict prevention.
Ultimately, NATO remains valuable because it gives democratic countries a shared security framework in a dangerous world. Its history includes mistakes, but also major successes. The best path forward is not to dismiss NATO as a conspiracy or to praise it uncritically, but to strengthen its defensive purpose while limiting the risks of escalation, overreach, and excessive militarization.
Take Action
- The Atlantic Council (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/): A nonpartisan organization that focuses on shaping global solutions and deeply analyzing the vital importance of the transatlantic alliance in maintaining international stability.
- The Council on Foreign Relations (https://www.cfr.org/): An independent think tank offering research on international relations, providing accessible insights into how defense alliances are adapting to modern global threats.
- The Official NATO Portal (https://www.nato.int/): The primary resource for understanding the group’s stated missions, its 75-year timeline of collective defense, and current policy updates from all 32 member states.
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (https://quincyinst.org/): A foreign policy think tank that argues for restraint, diplomacy, and caution about military overreach.
California Seeks to Limit Passenger Abuse by Uber Drivers (Technology Policy Brief #167)
Technology Policy Brief #167 | Mindy Spatt
Summary
Uber has buried statistics on assaults and accidents on its platform for years. Journalists and advocates have dug hard and are revealing disturbing levels of both. As more customers are suing the company for its inadequate safety measures, Uber is responding with a ballot initiative in California that would limit its liability for accidents, and consumer attorneys are supporting measures that would increase Uber’s liability and accountability.
Analysis
A recent expose in the New York Times revealed how frequent sexual assaults are on Uber, and exposed the company’s efforts to hide the problem, limit its liability, and silence victims. According to the Times, Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022 — far more than what the company had ever publicly disclosed. Uber executives have long been aware of the extent of sexual violence occurring through its app, but have done next to nothing to address the problem.
Shortly after that news hit, an Arizona federal jury found Uber liable for a sexual assault by a driver on a passenger, awarding $8.5 million in compensatory damages. Uber was not found negligent in its safety measures but was held responsible for the driver as an “agent” of the company. Hundreds more lawsuits are pending, many in California.
Accidents have also been difficult to track. Here in California, a months-long investigation by the San Francisco Public Press revealed that the California Public Utilities Commission — the agency charged with regulating the state’s ride-hailing companies — had failed to publicly release data on thousands of accidents involving Uber and Lyft.
Available information indicates that in just one year, 2019- 2020, there were a whopping 27,000 reported rideshare accidents, more than 14,800 of them attributable to Uber.
Could the problem be with the drivers? Uber doesn’t think so; its latest ballot initiative campaign in California, thinly disguised as an attempt to protect accident victims from unscrupulous attorneys, would limit its own financial liability for accidents. It would cap lawyers’ fees and even limit medical damages, and would apply to all car accidents in California, not just Uber crashes.
Uber has had great success with purchasing public policy in California in the past. In 2020, the company spent $50 million on a deceptive and misleading campaign to deny workers the right to be classified as employees, succeeding in getting a legislatively approved law to do so overturned.
| The company has put about $32.5 million into this recent effort to reshape California law in its own favor so far, according to campaign finance records. Its opposition, led by the Consumer Attorneys of California, has said it will spend even more to fight Uber’s proposal as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. | ” |
The conflict was on display during the Super Bowl, when Uber’s “A More Affordable California” ran a spot denouncing personal injury attorneys as ambulance chasers who simply take advantage of accident victims to line their own pockets. It declared: “The billboard lawyers make millions, while Californians are left broke and broken.”
The billboard lawyers didn’t take this lying down. Ads they ran in California during the Super Bowl referenced the NY Times articles about sexual assaults, setting the stage for a pair of ballot initiatives that would increase corporate liability for passenger injuries on ride-sharing platforms and increase liability for sexual misconduct, whether by drivers or riders.
One measure would require rideshare companies to fingerprint drivers and run background checks before hiring them, and prevent the hiring of drivers who have been convicted of violent crimes, which is now allowed in some cases. The other would increase companies’ legal liability for vehicle accidents and sexual misconduct or assault committed by its drivers.
Doctors and other medical providers are also fighting back and formed a political action committee, “Providers for Patient Care,” to oppose Uber’s initiative, which would limit recoverable medical costs. According to a report by California nonprofit Consumer Watchdog, Uber’s initiative would reduce the medical costs that injury victims can recover after a car crash by tying reimbursements to Medicare levels.
The way attorney fees work in these cases is that accident victims seeking damages usually hire a lawyer on a contingency basis, which means the attorney is paid only through an award of damages- if they don’t win, the customer pays nothing. If damages are won, the attorney will usually take 30-40% of the award as their fee. Uber would limit that to 25%. Of course, Uber puts no such restrictions on its own attorneys; their top lawyer, Tony West, was paid over $12.7 million last year.
Consumer Watchdog says “that imbalance could alter settlement dynamics and tilt leverage toward corporate defendants, particularly in rideshare cases involving companies with substantial defense budgets.”
To date, none of the initiatives have qualified for the ballot, which requires a set number of voter signatures depending on the type of initiative.
Take Action
- https://ballotpedia.org/California_Establish_Personal_Injury_Lawyer_Regulations_Initiative_(2026)(Limits Attorney Fees and Medical Expenses Recovery)
- https://ballotpedia.org/California_Classify_Rideshare_Companies_as_Common_Carriers_Initiative_(2026)(Expands rideshare companies’ liability for passenger injuries. Initiative statute.)
- https://ballotpedia.org/California_Require_Background_Checks_and_Sexual_Assault_Reporting_by_Rideshare_Companies_Initiative_(2026)
- Consumer Alert Warns CA Voters Not To Sign Uber’s ‘License to Kill’ Ballot Measure: Uber Reviving Deadly Robotaxis In Conjunction With Proposal For Loss of Legal Accountability, by Jamie Court, December 23, 2025, https://consumerwatchdog.org/accountability/consumer-alert-warns-ca-voters-not-to-sign-ubers-license-to-kill-ballot-measure-uber-reviving-deadly-robotaxis-in-conjunction-with-proposal-for-loss-of-legal-accountability/
Oklahoma (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #23)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Oklahoma | Ryan Dulaney | April 21, 2026
Summary
Oklahoma’s 2026 federal elections will feature one U.S. Senate race and five House contests. The state is reliably Republican across all five congressional districts, and post-redistricting maps have made each seat structurally safe for the GOP. However, 2026 presents unusual circumstances: incumbent Sen. Markwayne Mullin vacated his seat in March 2026 after being confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security, creating an open Senate seat for the first time in years. The Republican primary to replace him is highly competitive, while Democrats are fielding a primary field of their own for the general election. Democrats hold no realistic path to winning any of the five House seats following the 2020 redistricting, but are running candidates in all districts to build infrastructure and candidate pipelines. The Senate Democratic primary is the main organizational focal point for the party in 2026.
Most Competitive Races
U.S. Senate (Open Seat)
Oklahoma’s Senate seat became open when Mullin was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security on March 23, 2026. Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed oil and gas executive Alan Armstrong as interim senator, though Armstrong is prohibited by a state law oath from running for the full term. The Republican primary to fill the seat is highly contested, with Rep. Kevin Hern, who vacated his Tulsa-area House seat to run, entering as a frontrunner alongside several other candidates. Democrats are fielding a primary of their own on June 16, with a potential runoff on August 25 if no candidate clears 50%. The general election will be November 3, 2026. No Democratic candidate is considered competitive in the general, but the open seat dynamic and the unsettled Republican field make it a higher-visibility race than typical Oklahoma Senate contests.
OK-05 (Oklahoma City Suburbs)
Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, centered on Oklahoma City and its suburbs, is the historically most competitive district in the state. Democrat Kendra Horn held the seat from 2019 to 2021, and the district has since been redrawn to a Cook PVI of R+9 — more Republican than before, but still the most reachable of the state’s five districts for Democrats in a favorable national environment. Incumbent Republican Stephanie Bice is running for a fourth term. Democrat Jena Nelson, a former educator who ran for State Superintendent in 2022, is the most publicly visible Democratic challenger. The race is rated Safely Republican by forecasters, but it remains the only district where a hypothetical Democratic wave scenario could produce a competitive outcome.
OK-01 (Tulsa Area — Open Seat)
The Tulsa-area 1st Congressional District became an open seat after Rep. Kevin Hern announced his Senate bid on March 11, 2026. The open Republican primary features a crowded field of twelve Republican candidates, including state Corporation Commission Chair Kim David, state Rep. Mark Tedford, combat veteran Dan Rooney, and country singer Ty England. One Democrat has filed. The district carries a Cook PVI well above R+15 and is not considered competitive at the general election level. However, the open-seat dynamic and multi-candidate Republican primary make the primary itself the main event. Democrats are running a candidate primarily to maintain ballot presence and conduct voter registration activity.
Most Competitive Candidates — U.S. Senate Democratic Primary
Jim Priest
Priest is a lawyer and former nonprofit executive who previously served as CEO of Sunbeam Family Services and Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma. He is running on a platform centered on economic opportunity, workforce development, and restoring institutional trust. His background in nonprofit leadership and civic engagement gives him credibility with moderate and socially-minded Democratic voters in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. He is viewed by party insiders as one of the more electable general-election profiles in the field.
Troy Green
Green is a former law enforcement officer and longtime martial arts instructor who founded Safe Haven Oklahoma, a nonprofit focused on combating human trafficking and child exploitation. He retired from teaching in 2022 after 30 years and has built a community profile around public safety and family protection. His campaign draws on grassroots networks in the nonprofit and veterans communities. He appeals to voters looking for a candidate with law enforcement credibility and a record of community service outside elected politics.
Rebekah LaVann
LaVann is running in the Democratic Senate primary and draws support from progressive and activist circles within the state party. Her candidacy reflects the grassroots organizing energy that has built within Oklahoma’s Democratic base in response to Republican governance on education, healthcare, and social policy. She is positioned to the left of Priest in the field and appeals to younger, college-educated Democratic primary voters in the Oklahoma City and Norman areas.
N’Kiyla Thomas
Thomas, who goes by ‘Jasmine,’ is running in the Democratic Senate primary and is listed as a federal candidate on the Oklahoma Democratic Party’s official candidate page. She represents the diversity-focused and community-activist wing of the primary electorate. Limited public information is currently available about her campaign platform and organizational infrastructure, though her presence in the race reflects the party’s effort to field a broad and representative primary field.
Most Competitive Candidates — U.S. House Democratic Primaries
Jena Nelson (OK-05)
Nelson is running in the Democratic primary for Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, the most visible House Democratic candidacy in the state. A former educator, she previously ran for State Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2022 against Ryan Walters, giving her statewide name recognition and experience running in a contested race. She has been active in education advocacy through the organization We’re Oklahoma Education (WOKE), which focuses on defending public education from what it views as partisan interference at the state Board of Education. She draws support from teachers, education advocates, suburban moderates, and voters energized by opposition to Walters-era education policy. She faces Republican incumbent Stephanie Bice in a district rated R+9.
Erica Watkins (OK-01)
Watkins is running as the Democratic candidate in Oklahoma’s newly-open 1st Congressional District (Tulsa area) following Rep. Kevin Hern’s departure to run for Senate. She served in the U.S. Army National Guard from 2007 to 2017 and was among the first groups of women to serve as combat assets. She earned degrees in Sociology and Global Affairs and is the Executive Director of We’re Oklahoma Education (WOKE). Her campaign draws on both her military background and her education advocacy work, positioning her to reach veterans, women, and education-focused Democratic voters. The district is heavily Republican and rated Safe Republican, but the open seat creates an elevated profile for her candidacy.
State Political Context
Oklahoma has not elected a Democrat to statewide federal office since 2004. The 2020 redistricting effectively ended the competitiveness of OK-05, which had been a swing seat. The state Democratic Party is in a rebuilding phase under new leadership and is focused on fielding candidates in all races to develop future infrastructure. The 2026 cycle features unusual federal volatility due to the Mullin vacancy, an open Tulsa House seat, and statewide Republican primaries that will shape the GOP brand heading into the general election. Primary date: June 16, 2026. Runoff (if needed): August 25, 2026. General election: November 3, 2026. Note: Oklahoma primaries are closed — only registered Democrats may participate in the Democratic primary in 2026, following the state election board’s December 2025 decision to close all primaries.
North Dakota (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #22)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Ryan Dulaney | April 21, 2026
Summary
North Dakota’s 2026 federal elections will feature a single at-large U.S. House race, the state’s only federal contest. The state remains among the most reliably Republican in the nation — no Democrat has won statewide since Heidi Heitkamp’s Senate victory in 2012 — and the at-large House seat is not considered competitive by national forecasters. However, the Democratic-NPL Party has consolidated behind a strong, organized candidate in Trygve Hammer, making the primary outcome largely settled. The central story for Democrats is less about a contested primary and more about whether an energized base, anti-tariff sentiment among farmers, and national backlash politics can move a deeply red state in an unusually volatile environment.
Most Competitive Races
ND At-Large (U.S. House)
North Dakota has a single at-large congressional district covering the entire state. The seat is held by Republican Julie Fedorchak, who won with nearly 70% of the vote in 2024. The district carries a Cook PVI of approximately R+20, making it a structural long-shot for Democrats. Nonetheless, the Dem-NPL convention in March 2026 demonstrated significant party energy and organizational strength, drawing a large crowd to Bismarck State College. Democrats have pointed to farm-country anxiety over Trump-era tariffs and proposed healthcare cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as potential wedge issues that could improve their margin, if not flip the seat outright. The race is rated Safe Republican by all major forecasters.
Most Competitive Candidates
Trygve Hammer (ND At-Large)
Hammer is the Dem-NPL endorsed candidate for the at-large U.S. House seat and the overwhelming favorite in the June 9 Democratic primary. A Naval Academy graduate and former Marine helicopter pilot who served a combat deployment in Iraq, Hammer has also worked in North Dakota’s oil industry and as a public school science teacher in Minot. He received the party’s endorsement by a commanding margin of 360 convention votes to 64 for Vern Thompson and 25 for Helene Neville. His campaign focuses on opposition to tariffs, defense of healthcare programs threatened by federal spending cuts, and criticism of incumbent Fedorchak for avoiding public town halls. He draws support from the full breadth of the Dem-NPL coalition, including veterans, agricultural communities concerned about trade policy, organized labor, and progressive activists. Hammer previously ran against Fedorchak in 2024, earning about 30% of the vote.
Vern Thompson (ND At-Large)
Thompson is a former state legislator and independent trucker who ran in the Democratic primary to give voice to rural and agricultural concerns. He served in the North Dakota House from 1989 to 1990 and in the Senate from 1997 to 2000, representing the Devils Lake/Minnewaukan area. Thompson drew on his personal history as a farmer during the 1980s farm crisis to argue for stronger protections against Trump tariff policies he views as devastating to North Dakota agriculture. He received 64 convention votes and did not secure the party endorsement, but will remain on the June primary ballot. His support base consists of rural populists, independent-minded voters, and farmers skeptical of both parties.
Helene Neville (ND At-Large)
Neville entered the Democratic primary race for the at-large seat and competed for the party convention endorsement, receiving 25 delegate votes. She did not secure the endorsement and has a limited public profile compared to Hammer or Thompson. Her candidacy represents the broader desire within the Dem-NPL base to field as many voices as possible in the primary and build grassroots capacity for future cycles.
State Political Context
North Dakota has not elected a Democrat to federal office since Heitkamp’s narrow 2012 Senate win. The state has experienced over three decades of Republican trifecta control at the state level. The Democratic-NPL Party — the state’s fusion of the Democratic Party with the progressive Nonpartisan League tradition — operates as a minority party with limited resources but retains pockets of organizational strength in Fargo, Grand Forks, and Bismarck. Former Sen. Heitkamp spoke at the March 2026 convention and challenged attendees to hold Republican officeholders accountable, lending credibility and visibility to the party’s 2026 effort. Primary date: June 9, 2026. General election: November 3, 2026.
Minnesota (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #21)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Morgan Davidson | April 18, 2026
Minnesota has emerged as a central battleground in the broader political and cultural conflicts shaping the country in recent years. From the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 to renewed clashes over federal immigration enforcement and ICE activity, the state, particularly the Twin Cities, has become a focal point for activism, protest, and national political attention. These developments have helped shape both voter engagement and partisan dynamics heading into the 2026 election cycle.
In 2026, Minnesota will host a full slate of major elections, including an open U.S. Senate race and all eight of its U.S. House seats. Primary elections are scheduled for August 11th, followed by the general election on November 3rd.
At the statewide level, Minnesota remains reliably Democratic. Democrats currently hold both Senate seats and the governorship, and the state has not supported a Republican presidential candidate since 1972. However, the political landscape is more competitive down ballot. The state House is effectively split, reflecting a persistent urban–rural divide: the Twin Cities metro anchors Democratic strength, while greater Minnesota continues to provide a durable Republican base.
Despite this competitiveness in certain areas, early indicators suggest Democrats enter 2026 with structural advantages. Recent polling shows Democratic candidates leading in key statewide matchups, with voters citing concerns about threats to democracy and federal policy actions as major factors shaping their preferences. Additionally, ongoing tensions between state leaders and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement have further mobilized Democratic-aligned constituencies.
Taken together, Minnesota’s recent political climate, marked by high levels of civic engagement, national attention, and sustained partisan polarization, positions Democrats favorably heading into 2026. While Republicans retain strength in rural regions and could remain competitive in select districts, the broader environment suggests Democratic candidates are well-positioned to maintain, and potentially expand, their influence across the state.
Senate
Minnesota Senator Tina Smith (68) announced she will not seek re-election in 2026, citing personal reasons and a desire to spend more time with her family. Her retirement creates an open seat, an uncommon development in a state where Democratic incumbents typically hold a structural advantage.
Despite the absence of an incumbent, the seat is still expected to remain in Democratic hands. While an open seat can, under the right conditions, create a pickup opportunity for Republicans, Minnesota’s underlying partisan lean and recent electoral trends suggest Democrats remain favored in both the primary and general election.
On the Democratic side, the primary has largely consolidated around two major candidates: Peggy Flanagan and Angie Craig. Flanagan, the state’s current Lieutenant Governor, has consistently held an advantage in available polling. Early surveys in 2025 showed her with a substantial lead, at times exceeding 30 points, though more recent data suggests the race has tightened.
Recent polling presents a mixed but directionally consistent picture. Some surveys show Flanagan leading by double digits, including margins in the low teens, while others, particularly internal polls from the Craig campaign, indicate a narrower gap in the low single digits. Flanagan-aligned polling similarly reinforces her advantage, though with margins comparable to independent estimates. Taken together, the data suggests a race that has become more competitive over time but still leans clearly in Flanagan’s favor.
At this stage, the primary appears to be Flanagan’s to lose. While Craig has demonstrated viability and the ability to narrow the gap, she has not yet established consistent parity across polling. In the general election context, both candidates appear well-positioned. Available data indicates either Democrat would enter the race with a measurable advantage over a Republican challenger, reinforcing the broader expectation that the seat is likely to remain under Democratic control.
Peggy Flanagan enters the race as one of the most prominent Democratic figures in Minnesota, currently serving as the state’s Lieutenant Governor alongside Governor Tim Walz. First elected to the role in 2018, Flanagan has built a profile rooted in both executive governance and long-standing ties to progressive grassroots movements.
Flanagan’s background is central to her political identity. Raised by a single mother and relying on public assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, she frequently frames her career as a product of government investment in working families. Before entering statewide office, she served in the Minnesota House of Representatives and worked as a community organizer, giving her both legislative and on-the-ground political experience.
Ideologically, Flanagan aligns with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Her campaign messaging emphasizes economic equity, expanding access to healthcare, and confronting systemic barriers facing working-class communities. She has also positioned herself as a strong critic of former President Donald Trump, framing the 2026 election as part of a broader fight over democratic institutions and federal policy direction.
In terms of political positioning, Flanagan benefits from a combination of statewide name recognition, executive experience, and support from key Democratic constituencies, particularly within the Democratic–Farmer–Labor (DFL) coalition. Her profile as a historic figure, she is the first Native American woman elected statewide in Minnesota, also contributes to her appeal among progressive and identity-based voting blocs.
Taken together, Flanagan’s candidacy is defined by a blend of personal narrative, progressive policy priorities, and institutional backing, making her a formidable contender in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
House
Turning to the House, Minnesota’s Democratic-held districts appear largely stable heading into 2026. Incumbents Kelly Morrison (MN-03), Betty McCollum (MN-04), and Ilhan Omar (MN-05) are all expected to retain their seats, with each representing safely Democratic districts anchored in the Twin Cities metro area.
Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District (MN-02), currently held by Angie Craig, presents a more nuanced situation. Craig’s decision to run for Senate creates an open seat in a district that has trended competitive in recent cycles. While Craig built her profile by flipping and holding a historically Republican-leaning district, her departure introduces some risk for Democrats. That said, given recent performance and the broader political environment, Democrats are still positioned as slight favorites to hold the seat, though it is likely to attract significant attention from both parties.
The most competitive and politically consequential districts remain in greater Minnesota. Minnesota’s 1st (MN-01), 6th (MN-06), 7th (MN-07), and 8th (MN-08) Congressional Districts,currently held by Republicans, represent the clearest opportunities for partisan competition. However, each presents structural challenges for Democrats, as these districts are anchored in more rural and conservative regions of the state.
Among Republican-held districts, Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District (MN-01) stands out as the most viable pickup opportunity for Democrats. While still leaning Republican, the district’s mix of rural and mid-sized population centers creates a more competitive environment than other GOP-held seats in the state. If national conditions break strongly in Democrats’ favor, MN-01 could emerge as a secondary battleground worth watching.
Jake Johnson (D) has emerged as the party’s only declared candidate, effectively clearing the primary field and allowing him to focus early on building name recognition and consolidating Democratic support. While Johnson does not yet enter the race with the same level of institutional backing or visibility as more established candidates, his uncontested path to the nomination provides a structural advantage in organizing and fundraising ahead of the general election.
Jake Johnson (Democrat) is a first-time candidate running to represent Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District. A high school math teacher in Rochester for nearly two decades, Johnson has built his career in public education, teaching a wide range of students from remedial math to advanced coursework.
Raised in southern Minnesota in a working-class family, Johnson frequently emphasizes his upbringing as the son of a garbage worker and a meter reader, as well as his reliance on public programs growing up. His background, combined with his experience as a teacher and union member, forms the foundation of a campaign focused on affordability, rural investment, and opposition to corporate influence in politics.
Johnson has also gained early institutional support within the Democratic–Farmer–Labor (DFL) Party, including a provisional endorsement that has helped consolidate the Democratic field behind his candidacy. As the only declared Democrat in the race, he enters the general election phase without a contested primary, allowing him to focus on organizing and fundraising earlier than a typical challenger.
For Johnson to mount a credible challenge, Democrats will need a favorable national environment, strong turnout in population centers within the district, and the ability to cut into Republican margins in more rural areas. While MN-01 remains Republican-leaning, it stands apart from other GOP-held districts in Minnesota as the most realistic pathway for a Democratic flip under the right conditions.
Taken together, Minnesota enters the 2026 cycle as a state where Democrats hold clear structural advantages but still face meaningful contests that will test the depth of that strength. From a Senate primary that appears to be consolidating around a frontrunner, to a House map defined more by defense than expansion, the overall landscape favors Democrats maintaining control across the ballot. That said, open seats and competitive districts, particularly in southern Minnesota, ensure that outcomes are not predetermined. In a midterm environment shaped by national dynamics and heightened political engagement within the state, Minnesota will serve less as a battleground for partisan control and more as a proving ground for how effectively Democrats can translate favorable conditions into sustained electoral success.
Recent Interviews:
- Peggy Flanagan at DNC- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b67b6KreswE
- Peggy Flanagan No Kings! Speech- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gZOVkpn1e0
- Angie Craig On The Record Interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaJ2bgVKefo
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates and races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/Minnesota
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
- Minnesota Public Radio covers the political happenings within the state- https://www.mprnews.org/politics
Massachusetts (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #20)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Morgan Davidson
3/29/2026
Massachusetts, or the Bay State, is a safe state for Democrats in 2026. While the state has a wonky history of electing a Republican Governor, all three major seats are held by Democrats- this includes the Governorship & the two Senate seats held by Elizabeth Warren & Ed Markey, who are both in their 13th year in their respective seats. Moving down the ballot, the remaining congressional breakdown is 9-0 in Democrats’ favor, with 8 of the 9 incumbents running for re-election. The primary elections are set for September 9th, followed by the general election on November 3.
Massachusetts remains one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country, both in federal elections and across much of its political infrastructure. Rooted in a long tradition of liberal governance, strong public institutions, and highly engaged voters, the state has consistently favored Democratic candidates at the national level for decades.
At the federal level, Massachusetts has not supported a Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. The state’s electorate is heavily concentrated in urban and suburban regions such as Boston, Cambridge, and Worcester, where Democratic support is both deep and reliable. Several structural factors reinforce this advantage. Massachusetts has one of the highest levels of educational attainment in the country, a strong union presence in key sectors, and an economy anchored by healthcare, education, and technology; all of which tend to correlate with Democratic voting patterns. In addition, the state’s political culture places a premium on government competence, public investment, and social services, aligning closely with mainstream Democratic policy priorities.
That said, Massachusetts politics are not without internal competition. While Republicans are largely noncompetitive at the federal level, the Democratic Party itself encompasses a wide ideological range; from establishment incumbents to progressive challengers, as reflected in the state’s Senate race. As a result, the most meaningful electoral contests in Massachusetts often occur in Democratic primaries rather than general elections.
In short, Massachusetts is not a battleground state; it is a Democratic stronghold. The question in 2026 is not whether Democrats will win, but which Democrats will.
Senate
Ed Markey is up for re-election but is facing a challenge from Seth Moulton, the lone House incumbent not running for re-election. Markey, who is 80, has faced calls to retire & turn over the reins to a young upstart, Moulton, 47. Aside from age, Markey has done little to upset voters in the Bay State. The anxieties from prominent liberal figures staying in office for too long, including Biden & Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, resonate with democratic voters broadly, yet the polling shows Markey with a solid lead over Moulton.
While elder moments could lead voters to question Markey’s ability before September, the incumbent Senator has a firm grip on his seat heading into 2026. Senator Ed Markey has built a decades-long career rooted in progressive policy, consumer protection, and technological innovation. After serving 37 years in the U.S. House before his election to the Senate in 2013, Markey has established himself as a leading voice on climate change, clean energy, and telecommunications policy. He has authored or co-authored major legislation on fuel efficiency standards, net neutrality, and online privacy protections, while also playing a key role in landmark efforts such as the Waxman-Markey climate bill. His work consistently emphasizes both economic growth and consumer safeguards, particularly in emerging industries and energy markets.
Markey’s longevity in Massachusetts politics stems from his ability to align with the state’s priorities: strong environmental protections, investment in innovation, and a commitment to government oversight in the public interest. His reputation as a policy-driven legislator, combined with a deep connection to Massachusetts’ political identity, has made him a durable and trusted figure among voters. In a state that values both progressive leadership and institutional experience, Markey continues to represent a blend of forward-looking policy and established credibility that resonates with the electorate.
Representative Seth Moulton could emerge as a viable alternative if concerns about Senator Markey’s longevity begin to surface before the primary. A Marine Corps veteran and established member of Congress, Moulton brings a younger profile and a record that blends national security credentials with pragmatic Democratic policy positions. While Markey remains firmly ahead in polling and retains strong support across the state, Moulton’s appeal would likely rest on generational contrast and his ability to position himself as a next-generation leader for Massachusetts Democrats. That said, absent a significant shift in the race, his path remains narrow given Markey’s entrenched advantages.
House
Turning to the House, none of Massachusetts’ nine districts are expected to be competitive in the general election. However, the 6th Congressional District stands out as an open-seat contest, with Representative Seth Moulton pursuing a Senate bid.
In a crowded Democratic primary field, Dan Koh (41) has emerged as the early frontrunner, followed by John Beccia. With limited polling available, fundraising serves as one of the few measurable indicators of candidate strength. Koh and Beccia are the only candidates to surpass the seven-figure mark, giving them a clear advantage in terms of campaign infrastructure and visibility.
Koh’s profile is built on a combination of federal, local, and private-sector experience. During the Biden administration, he served in senior roles at the White House and as Chief of Staff at the Department of Labor, where he helped implement major initiatives related to infrastructure, clean energy, and worker protections. Earlier, as Chief of Staff to former Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Koh was part of a period marked by economic growth, expanded housing access, and improved educational outcomes.
That breadth of experience, spanning Washington, Boston, and the private sector, gives Koh a well-rounded résumé that appeals to both establishment Democrats and voters focused on governance and delivery. Combined with strong fundraising networks and institutional backing, he enters the race with clear structural advantages. In a district where Democratic voters tend to prioritize competence, policy experience, and coalition-building, Koh is well positioned to consolidate support and secure the nomination.
His main primary opponent, Beccia, presents a contrasting profile centered on private-sector experience and a reform-oriented message. With a background in finance and entrepreneurship, Beccia has emphasized issues such as housing affordability, economic inequality, and government accountability. While that outsider framing may resonate with voters seeking a different approach, Massachusetts Democratic primaries have historically favored candidates with established public-sector experience and institutional ties. In that context, Beccia’s candidacy highlights a clear ideological and experiential contrast, but one that may ultimately reinforce Koh’s advantage as the more traditionally positioned contender.
While Koh is the early favorite, there remains significant time before the primary. Given the field’s size, the race could become more competitive as candidates consolidate support, making it a contest worth watching as it develops.
The remaining districts are held by incumbents who are expected to secure reelection barring any major political shift:
- District 1: Richard Neal
- District 2: Jim McGovern
- District 3: Lori Trahan
- District 4: Jake Auchincloss
- District 5: Katherine Clark
- District 7: Ayanna Pressley
- District 8: Stephen Lynch
- District 9: Bill Keating
Taken together, Massachusetts is unlikely to see any meaningful partisan competition in 2026, with Democrats positioned to retain full control of both the Senate and the House. National political conditions may further reinforce that advantage. Recent polling shows Donald Trump’s approval rating falling into the low 30s amid concerns over the Iran conflict, rising costs linked to tariffs, immigration enforcement controversies, and ongoing backlash surrounding the Epstein files. In a midterm environment where the president’s party often faces electoral headwinds, those dynamics could contribute to a broader Democratic overperformance. In a state as reliably blue as Massachusetts, that would likely translate into not competitive races but comfortable victories for Democratic candidates across the board.
Recent Interviews:
- Ed Markey at a No Kings! Rally- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/k49sITKLruA
- Seth Moulton on the Iran War- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0wCDAcerc0
- Dan Koh announcment video- https://www.facebook.com/danarriggkoh/videos/launching-our-campaign/1505134484025680/
- John Beccia announcement video- https://www.instagram.com/becciaforcongress/reel/DUUYWwVjtCH/?__d=1
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates and races at all levels:
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness:
- The CommonWealth Beacon is a nonprofit outlet known for tracking political happenings in the Bay State.
Flying Blind — The Economic Sabotage of the Federal Shutdown (Economic Policy Brief #92)
Economic Policy Brief #92 | Valerie Henderson | April 6, 2026
Summary
While the full federal government reopened in early 2026, the United States remains in a state of economic volatility due to a lingering partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), now entering its 67th day. The broader 40-day shutdown earlier this year reduced real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 percentage points on an annualized basis, resulting in a permanent loss of activity between $7 billion and $14 billion. Although most agencies have resumed operations, the “data blackout” from late 2025 which included the cancellation of the full October jobs report continues to hamper year-over-year economic forecasting. Today, the crisis has shifted to our borders and airports, where the DHS funding lapse has forced the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and ICE to operate with severe staffing shortages and delayed pay.
Analysis
The economic damage of these consecutive fiscal crises is compounding. While the Labor Department has resumed most regular reporting, the loss of critical 2025 data sets means that the Federal Reserve and global investors are still working with “incomplete maps.” The Fed’s reliance on data-dependent decision-making is compromised when historical benchmarks from the shutdown period are simply missing or statistically “noisy.”
From a social justice perspective, the current DHS-specific shutdown is particularly localized but intense. While most federal employees received backpay after the general reopening, TSA officers and DHS contractors are currently missing paychecks or receiving them in arrears. At major hubs like George Bush Intercontinental (IAH), wait times peaked at four hours this month as nearly 55% of staff called out due to financial hardship. This forces a reliance on untrained “supplemental” staffing, which advocacy groups argue compromises both worker rights and public safety. Furthermore, the 5.2 million federal contractors impacted by the previous full shutdown remain the “invisible victims,” as they are not legally guaranteed the backpay provided to direct federal hires.
My Opinion
It is ethically unconscionable for the political class to use the stability of the global economy and the livelihoods of civil servants as leverage. The “data blackout” of late 2025 was an act of economic sabotage that we are still paying for today through market uncertainty. Even as the rest of the government functions, leaving the men and women who secure our airports and borders without reliable pay is a failure of leadership.
We are watching a pattern of “economic policing” where the most vulnerable contractors who can’t recover lost wages and frontline officers who can’t pay rent are the ones bearing the cost of partisan ego. We must move toward a system where essential data and essential workers are protected from the theater of budget negotiations. The current strategy of “flying blind” isn’t just a political stalemate; it’s a direct threat to the credibility of U.S. institutions.
Engagement Resources
- Congressional Budget Office (CBO): https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59902
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP): https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/federal-shutdown-social-impact
- Federal Reserve Board (Data Releases): https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm
Generational Change
Op Ed | Ron Israel | Managing Editor, USRESIST NEWS | April 19, 2026
Look at the evolution of life in America over the last several generations. I did this recently after my daughter came and asked me how she would be able to live well during her later years, when she gets to be as old as I am now. I wanted to be encouraging and optimistic that she would be able to access the same sort of benefits and support as people of my generation; but I wasn’t able to do that.
My generation, those of us born in the period from World War 2 to the mid-sixties, were fortunate enough to live at a time when social security and Medicare benefits were taken for granted, when the cost of housing and health care were reasonable; when companies would offer well financed pension plans, and unions took care of their members after retirement.
Most of us were the sons and daughters of second or third generation immigrants, whose grandparents had come to America from other countries. They started with little in their pockets, then scrimped and saved enough money to perhaps buy a home, or live a reasonably lengthy and well supported life. Their children often became the first in their family’s lineage to go to college, get a good education and a reasonably well paying job.
Our generation also lived at a time of cultural optimism and looking forward. The country had survived World War II and was among the victorious nations. The American dream (of having enough money to own a home and raise a family )was still very possible. The ideal of a democratic society, where all men would be treated equally and achieve “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” was still very much alive, supported by the writings and actions of our political and spiritual leaders. The civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the movement to end poverty and create a great society were part of the culture in which we grew up. We had a sense that we were part of a society that was building something great; that our individual lives were tied up with the lives of our countrymen and women. We had a sense of a world to which we were all connected; that our well-being was tied to the well-being of other countries and the whole planet.
That culture, dream, sense of social purpose and belonging have pretty much ended. We now look more inward and focus on our own Individual development. The ideal of democracy, while still talked about by some, is not fully understood or grasped by many people. Political leaders seem more interested in clinging to their own power than building a great society. We have become fixated on technology and the so-called benefits it can bring us; engaged on social media with people we don’t interact with in real time
Companies and unions with pension plans are rare. People openly challenge the value and cost of social security and health care for all. Machines are taking away jobs. The cost of housing continues to skyrocket. We no longer are on a common journey but seem to be divided between those in so-called red and blue states. Other countries are now looked upon as competitors or even enemies rather than allies.
So how did we get here? What went wrong? In part we have ourselves to blame. Our generation supported civil rights and the building of a great society. However we also were focused on building the value of our own nest egg to the detriment of caring for the well-being of those in different parts of the country.
All of us were caught up in the seemingly eternal cycle of generational change, when it becomes difficult to sustain the culture, economy, and lifestyle of one generation. My generation barely knew the generation of my grandparents. We inherited their names and vestiges of how they saw life but not their experience. We heard the stories of their coming to America and building a life from scratch. But we never experienced that kind of life; and my grandchildren have little idea of their parents’ parents and even less of who their parents grandparents were; no idea of what life was like before social media, computers, and TV.
We are living in a political era dominated by President Trump and the MAGA Republicans. This era has been made possible by the inability of previous generations to continue their ways of life. If you look back at the history of our country you will see the social, cultural and economic changes that have challenged each new generation to sustain its identity. Perhaps, as Hegel might argue, as our identities continue to evolve, there is some greater good involved in this process of generational change. But I don’t know.
And I don’t know exactly what to tell my daughter when she asks about the future. She won’t have the same old-age support environment as I have had; and certainly not the same as my parents and their parents before them. She will be part of her own generation’s change and response to the world they have been given.
One thing I can say is that it is important for her and her friends to not just think about themselves, but engage with the life challenges and times in which they live; to find social and political ideals like (but not necessarily) democracy that they can get excited about; and actions they can take to make their own lives more meaningful and their country and the world a better place.
Grindr Hosts Networking Event Ahead of WH Correspondents’ Dinner to Advocate for LGBT Policy Change (Social Justice Policy Brief #190)
Social Justice Policy Brief #190 | By Katie Lever | April 21, 2026
LGBT hookup app, Grindr, will host its inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party on April 24, one day before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The dinner party is set to be a networking event that will bring journalists, policymakers, and members of the LGBT community together at a critical time in LGBT policymaking. It’s a move that many are questioning, given the Trump administration’s hostility toward LGBT populations (even though Grindr regularly sees spikes in usage and even crashes from overuse surrounding republican-centric events). However, given today’s political climate, Grindr’s presence in Washington makes sense.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington,” said Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs. “The issues being debated here—HIV funding, privacy and online safety, LGBTQ+ family rights—are daily life for our community.”
They are also policy issues that the Trump administration has sought to defund or slow research for. Since January 2025, LGBT-centric policies from DEI initiatives to LGBT healthcare have been under fierce scrutiny by the Trump administration. Executive orders and presidential memos have been effective in targeting policies that impact access to gender-affirming healthcare, define sex as binary, and negatively impact HIV service delivery to LGBT communities. Trump’s targeting of NGOs has also impacted funding and research for LGBT health issues, which negatively impacts the community.
Policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum, either, and impacts other policymaking agencies. For instance, although the International Olympic Committee’s new sex testing policy, which requires all female athletes to undergo sex testing via gene screening prior to competing, didn’t go through Washington, it was undeniably affected by anti-trans policy that republicans at the state and federal level have been pushing for years. The normalization of LGBT discrimination in policy can be traced back to policies proposed decades ago, and in 2026 alone, there are 669 active anti-trans bills, with 30 state-level anti-trans laws being passed so far this year.
So, while Grindr’s presence in Washington this week might look puzzling on the outside, it makes sense from a policy perspective–and that is the angle Grindr is going for.
“Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them,” Hack said of Grindr’s presence in Washington next week. “We figured it was time to host.”
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #232)
Foreign Policy Brief #232 | By Abran C.
The Iranian-flagged cargo ship Touska is seen as USS Spruance conducts its interception in the north Arabian Sea on April 19, 2026. © Centcom, via Reuters
US & Israel – Iran War Updates
Iran has vowed retaliation after a US destroyer fired on an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman late last week. The cargo ship was attempting to evade a US naval blockade. Tehran condemned the incident as “armed piracy” and warned its forces would respond soon. Oil prices rose and stock futures fell as the markets received conflicting messages about the Iran war and news that the Strait of Hormuz was closed again. As deliberations on ending the war are underway in Islamabad Pakistan, Iran has stated it is not planning to participate in new peace talks with the United States. US President Donald Trump has said the US was sending envoys to Pakistan for talks and would strike Iran unless it unconditionally accepted his terms. The setback in diplomatic talks and increased threats will prolong the war now in its eighth week, which has resulted in thousands of lost lives and created one of the most severe shocks to global energy supplies in history.
A screengrab of a video posted by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on October 29, 2025, shows the aftermath of a strike on a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean [Screengrab/US Defense Department] Al Jazeera
US Strikes in the Pacific
Last week four more people were killed in a US airstrike in the Eastern Pacific, in growing attacks on vessels over the past few months. SOUTHCOM, which is responsible for US military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, claimed that the four people killed were “narco-terrorists”, but provided no evidence to support the claims. The latest killing of people on board vessels in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean brings the overall death toll to at least 175. The attacks began in early September 2025, when US President Donald Trump ordered attacks to stop what was claimed to be Latin American drugboats transporting drugs to the US. International law experts, human rights groups and regional governments have accused the US administration of carrying out extrajudicial killings in international waters, which have likely targeted civilians, often fishing crews, who do not pose an immediate threat to the US.
Displaced people have been crossing into Burundi at the Kavimvira border to escape the M23 advance Image: Jospin Mwisha/AFP/Getty Images
DRC – M23 rebels humanitarian truce
The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and M23 rebels have agreed to ease aid deliveries and release prisoners, as a push to resolve the years-long conflict that has persisted despite multiple peace deals continues in Switzerland. While the two sides signed a United States-brokered peace agreement in December 2025, fighting has continued. Both sides pledged not to target civilians and to facilitate medical care for the wounded and sick as they noted progress on a protocol for humanitarian access and judicial protections.
The agreement establishes a body to track humanitarian and security developments and monitor potential ceasefire violations. It will include representatives from both the DRC government and the armed group, with support from the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The conflict has seen thousands killed, over a million people seeking refuge abroad and twenty-one million people with-in the country in need of urgent medical, food, and other aid, representing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.
Commuters walk on a platform after disembarking from a suburban train at a railway station in Mumbai, India [File: Niharika Kulkarni/Reuters]
India begins world’s largest census
With an estimated population of 1.4 billion, India, now the world’s most populous nation, is launching what is set to be the largest census ever conducted. More than three million officials will be involved in documenting the country’s huge and still growing population. The exercise will be conducted across 36 states and federally-administered territories, more than 7,000 sub-districts, over 9,700 towns and nearly 640,000 villages, Enumerators will gather data on amenities such as drinking water, lighting, sanitation, wastewater outlets, bathing and kitchen facilities, and cooking fuel. In addition, details of accessibility to the internet, television, mobile phones, vehicles and computers will be recorded. The last census in India was held 15 years ago in 2011 since the 2021 Census was delayed because of the outbreak of Covid-19. The process this time around will also include caste enumeration, allowing the counting and categorizing individuals based on their caste affiliation, a politically sensitive issue that has long been debated and absent from census taking since 1931.