JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed
The Trump administration has revived a policy of entering into Asylum Cooperative Agreements with secretive terms that violate the right of a person physically present in the US to seek asylum. The policy isn’t a new one; Trump did it in his first term, but it’s being used much more extensively now, alarming judges and advocates and frightening asylum seekers.
Along with carbon emissions, U.S. climate accords go up in smoke
A year ago, at the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as President, he signed Executive Order 14199, requesting a “government‑wide review” of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States formally supports. That review resulted in a signed a memorandum on January 6th of this year that specifies that the U.S. formally withdraw from 66 “organizations, conventions, and treaties.” Included in the 66 are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other important climate treaties. In all, the U.S. withdrew from 31 UN bodies.
Trump’s Policies to Increase Pronatalism in the U.S.
Pronatalism is the belief that our society’s duty is to encourage people to have more children (National Women’s Law Center). This belief is rooted in boosting the economy, embracing eugenics, and increasing white nationalism. Elon Musk is echoing this belief by stating that the answer to saving civilization is by having more children. Except that sentiment does not ring true for everyone. And it is not reflective in the Trump Administration’s policies and actions.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Idaho (Brief #11)
The Democratic Party in Idaho is implementing an expanded strategy aimed at competitive races in 2026. The Idaho Democratic Party recently launched its “All In for Idaho” campaign to recruit local candidates and grow voter registration, especially in rural and traditionally conservative communities that have often been overlooked.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Kansas (Brief #10)
Kansas has one Democratic member of the house up for re-election Sharice Davids of the 3rd Congressional District.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Iowa (Brief #9)
In 2026, Iowa will see one Senate race & four House races in its congressional elections. The Hawkeye state has been a Republican stronghold since Trump came on the scene in 2016, but the Cook Political Report currently has two of Iowa’s House seats as toss-ups. In a year where Democrats should be expected to overperform, we could see Hawkeye voters change the distribution of the state’s legislative power in Washington. Currently, all 6 of Iowa’s congressional seats are held by Republicans, but 2026 could see one, if not more, of these change. Voters will be able to cast their ballots in the primary on June 2, 2026 & in the general election on November 3, 2026.
US Incursion in Venezuela: Review, Reactions, and What Happens Next (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
In the early hours of Jan. 3, 2026 the United States carried out an attack in Venezuela that saw the removal and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The incursion followed months of military operations in the Caribbean Sea, targeting small boats and oil tankers along the Venezuelan coast. The operation dubbed, Operation Absolute Resolve, saw US forces enter Venezuelan territory, carry out strikes on military sites around the country and in the capital Caracas. Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken by US forces from Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s largest military complex. Maduro was first flown to a US military base and then transported aboard the USS Iwo Jima, which brought Maduro and his wife to a detention centre in New York, where he is being held and indicted on charges of narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States.
Democracy on the Brink: Structural Suppression and the Fight for the 2026 Midterms (Elections & Politics Brief #202)
The concept of a free and fair election in the United States has always been more of an aspiration than a reality, but as we approach the 2026 midterms, the gap between that ideal and the ground truth is widening at an alarming rate. By definition, a “free and fair” election in the U.S. context requires three non-negotiable pillars: universal access for all eligible citizens without coercion, a transparent and secret balloting process, and an impartial tabulation and certification that reflects the genuine will of the people
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Hawaii (Brief #8)
The Aloha state will feature two House races but will be absent a headlining Senate race. Senior Senator Brian Schatz will be back up for re-election in 2028 & the Junior Senator Mazie Hirono will be back up in 2030. Overall, the state is solidly Democratic, with all four members of Congress under the Democratic banner. Further, at the state level, of the 51 state house members, only 9 are Republicans. That means the remaining 42 are Democrats since no Independent has a seat in the Hawaii State House. In the Hawaiian Senate, the breakdown is 3 Republicans to 22 Dems. Hawaii is a solidly blue state, & the real campaign or battle will be in the Democratic primaries.
Trump’s Policies to Increase Pronatalism in the U.S.
Health & Gender Policy Brief #185 | Naja Barnes | February 4th, 2026
Pronatalism is the belief that our society’s duty is to encourage people to have more children (National Women’s Law Center). This belief is rooted in boosting the economy, embracing eugenics, and increasing white nationalism. Elon Musk is echoing this belief by stating that the answer to saving civilization is by having more children. Except that sentiment does not ring true for everyone. And it is not reflective in the Trump Administration’s policies and actions.
Analysis
Some of the Trump Administration’s past and recent policies and policy recommendations contradict the Administration’s push for an increase in the size of the U.S. population. One example is the Administration cutting federal spending of Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which many American families depend on to feed and keep their families safe and healthy. The Administration’s crackdown on immigration is also lowering the U.S. population. However, to counter the declining birth rates, the Trump Administration has targeted contraceptives, proposed monetary benefits to mothers, is currently trying to make IVF more accessible, and reportedly proposed incentives to people with children.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, funding for contraceptives has been reduced, and the Administration has also cut funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood that administer birth control and supply contraceptives. There have been orders to destroy contraceptives that were meant for family planning aid in developing countries, which were set to be destroyed, but were then wasted.
A way propopsed to increase the birth rates in the U.S. under Trump’s Administration is through the use of monetary benefits. One of the benefits would be to give $1,000 from the ‘Trump Account’ to babies with social security numbers born between January 2025 and December 2028. This money is strictly for the baby and is only to be accessed when the child turns 18. Another reportedly proposed monetary benefit is the $5,000 “baby bonus” to new mothers after delivery.
As far as IVF and its affordability, Trump struck a deal with the drug company Merck KGaA to lower the cost of its IVF medications. Trump also issued an executive order that calls for policy recommendations to reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatments.
Incentivizing parents through programs is another way in which the Administration is aiming to increase the population. They are reportedly considering committing to reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for applicants who are married and have children. In 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy circulated orders to his department to give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average in response to awarding loans and grants (Population Connection).
Conclusion
Trump’s goal to increase the birth population is boosted by the Administration’s lowering of funding for reproductive aid and contraceptives.. Policy recommendations such as monetary benefits, IVF accessibility, and incentives are additional ways the Administrations are planning to combat the decline in birth rates.
Engagement Resources
Project 2025 and Pronatalism: How Trump’s Allies are Pushing a Far-Right Family Agenda
Trad Values Meets Tech
https://politicalresearch.org/2025/03/27/trad-values-meets-tech
Pronatalism in the US: The Trump administration’s push for more births
https://populationconnection.org/learn/pronatalism-in-the-us/
Trump’s immigration crackdown led to drop in US growth rate last year as population hit 342 million
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Idaho (Brief #11)
Idaho | Ryan Dulaney | 1/26/2026
Primary Date: May 19, 2026
General Election: November 3, 2026
Democratic Party Overview
The Democratic Party in Idaho is implementing an expanded strategy aimed at competitive races in 2026. The Idaho Democratic Party recently launched its “All In for Idaho” campaign to recruit local candidates and grow voter registration, especially in rural and traditionally conservative communities that have often been overlooked.
U.S. Senate — Democratic Field
The sole Democratic candidate in the U.S. Senate primary is David Roth, a realtor and 2022 Democratic Senate nominee, who has filed to run in 2026.
David Roth, 43, brings name recognition from his previous statewide run and is running to provide Democratic voters with a strong option in a state dominated by Republicans. While Democratic votes are unlikely to overcome the GOP’s advantage, Roth’s experience on the ballot and support base could help maintain party momentum into 2026.
Age: 43 Gender: Male
Current Position: Consultant
Why he might win: While this seat is expected to remain Republican, Roth’s recognition among Idaho Democrats and his ability to unify the base makes him the leading candidate for nomination.
U.S. House — Democratic Fields
Idaho has two U.S. House districts, and Democrats have no current Democratic members of the Idaho House delegation.
ID-01
Kaylee Peterson – 33, Female, is an Artisan jeweler and former nominee in both 2022 and 2024.
Ken Brungardt – Age unknown, is a Retired painting contractor and passionate anti-MAGA Democrat.
Peterson has raised more funds and name recognition than Brungardt, giving her an edge in organizing and outreach.
Why she might win: Peterson’s repeat candidacies provide continuity and name familiarity across Democratic voters in Idaho’s most competitive congressional district, strengthening turnout and volunteer networks despite the overall Republican lean.
ID-02
Julie Wiley, age unknown, retired counselor.
Wiley’s strength in the Democratic primary is name recognition among local Democratic activists. Her service background and narrative about helping families and schools could resonate with primary voters who value lived experience.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Kansas (Brief #10)
Kansas | Ryan Dulaney | 1/26/2026
Primary Election: August 4, 2026
General Election: November 3, 2026
Democrat House Members up for Re-election
Kansas has one Democratic member of the house up for re-election Sharice Davids of the 3rd Congressional District.
Senators Up for Election
One U.S. Senate seat is up in 2026, currently held by Republican Senator Roger Marshall.
Senate Democratic Candidate
Christy Davis, Age: unknown, is a Former Kansas Director of USDA Rural Development.
Davis could win because of her history of work with rural communities and experience in economic development, allowing her to connect with moderate and independent voters across the state.
House Democratic Candidates
KS‑01 Colin McRoberts, Age: unknown, currently a Community advocate.
McRoberts could win by interacting with local Democratic voters using a grassroots approach and presenting a strong alternative to the Republican incumbent.
KS‑02 Don Coover, Age: unknown, a Veterinarian and small business owner.
Coover could win because his roots in rural areas and his focus on practical and community-centered solutions make him relatable to independents and moderate Republicans.
KS‑03 Sharice Davids, Age: 44, is the district’s sitting U.S. Representative.
Davids could win just from being an effective incumbent, furthermore her strong connection to Democrat voters and proven fundraising and campaign organization will play a major role in the coming elections.
KS‑04 Chris Carmichael, Age: unknown. He is currently an Attorney.
Carmichael could win by emphasizing his local knowledge and professional experience, making him appeal to Democratic primary voters looking for a credible challenger in a Republican-leaning district.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Iowa (Brief #9)
Iowa | Morgan Davidson | 1/28/2026
In 2026, Iowa will see one Senate race & four House races in its congressional elections. The Hawkeye state has been a Republican stronghold since Trump came on the scene in 2016, but the Cook Political Report currently has two of Iowa’s House seats as toss-ups. In a year where Democrats should be expected to overperform, we could see Hawkeye voters change the distribution of the state’s legislative power in Washington. Currently, all 6 of Iowa’s congressional seats are held by Republicans, but 2026 could see one, if not more, of these change. Voters will be able to cast their ballots in the primary on June 2, 2026 & in the general election on November 3, 2026.
At the Senate level, Joni Ernst announced she would be stepping down, clearing the way for an open-seat race in Iowa for the US Senate. Ernst’s departure is a bit shocking, given Trump’s dominance in the state in 2024, when he achieved his highest vote share in his three times running at 55.7%, up from 51.7% & 53.1% in 2016 & 2020, respectively. That said, she has been criticized from the Right for being too moderate & attacked on the left for her stance on abortion. Ernst has been a leading figure in the fight to restrict a woman’s right to choose, making her out of step with national voters, but this position would have seemed to put her in safe graces with Republicans, particularly Republican primary voters. Ultimately, her pushback on nominations like Hegseth & refusal to endorse Trump in the Iowa caucus led MAGA elite to view her as an enemy. Ernst cited wanting to spend time with her family as to why she would not run in 2026, but threats by Trump allies to primary her tell a different story.
4 Republicans & 4 Democrats have filed to run for the open Senate seat. On the Republican side, Ashley Hinson appears to be in the lead with 3 million more cash on hand than any of her Republican colleagues. While Democrats should be more competitive here than they were in 2024, but the Republican advantage will be hard to beat even in a midterm year where Dems are likely to rise in a backlash election. 3 Democrats appear to be viable candidates for the seat: Nathan Sage, Josh Turek, & Zach Wahls, all of whom have raised over 1 million dollars for their campaign, appear to be in a close fight to win the party’s nomination.
At this point, Zach Wahls is the most likely winner of the Democratic primary for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat. Wahls benefits from a combination of statewide name recognition, an existing base as a state senator, early endorsements, & an ability to bridge the party’s progressive & establishment wings in a crowded field. His campaign has shown the strongest signs of organization & momentum, which matters in a primary where no candidate currently dominates outright. If Wahls were to falter, Josh Turek would likely have the next-best chance, largely because of his appeal to party insiders & labor-aligned Democrats, as well as his compelling personal narrative as a Paralympian & public servant. However, in the absence of clear polling data or a significant fundraising gap, the Democratic primary remains competitive & unpredictable, though Wahls appears marginally better positioned than the rest of the field.
Turning to the U.S. House, Iowa will hold four congressional races in 2026:
- District 1: Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R), incumbent
- District 2: Open seat (Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) running for U.S. Senate)
- District 3: Zach Nunn (R), incumbent
- District 4: Randy Feenstra (R), incumbent
Most Competitive Districts for Democrats
The most competitive districts for Democrats in Iowa include Iowa’s 1st Congressional District (IA-01) & 3rd Congressional District (IA-03). IA-01, which covers eastern Iowa including Davenport & Iowa City, is widely viewed as one of the best Democratic pickup opportunities in 2026. The district has a long history of swing voting & narrowly favored Republicans in 2024, when Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) was re-elected by just 799 votes. With a mix of college-educated voters, organized labor, & urban & suburban communities, IA-01 remains highly sensitive to turnout & national political conditions. As a result, national Democrats have again targeted the district as a top flip opportunity, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee & allied groups signaling early investment.
IA-03, centered on Des Moines & its surrounding suburbs, has similarly shifted into the competitive category. Once a reliably Republican seat, demographic change & suburban realignment have narrowed GOP margins, leading nonpartisan forecasters to rate the district anywhere from “lean Republican” to toss-up. Republican Rep. Zach Nunn narrowly held the seat in 2024 after flipping it two years earlier, & recent polling suggests Democratic challengers remain competitive. Compared to Iowa’s more rural districts, IA-03’s electorate is more college-educated & suburban, making it especially responsive to national political trends & candidate quality. By contrast, Iowa’s 2nd & 4th Districts remain more structurally Republican due to their rural composition & recent voting patterns, leaving IA-01 & IA-03 as Democrats’ clearest paths to House gains.
Most Competitive Iowa Democrats in 2026
Christina Bohannan: IA-01
A law professor & former state legislator, Bohannan ran a razor-thin race in 2024, losing to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks by just 799 votes. She has announced she is running again in 2026, giving her a significant advantage in name recognition, campaign infrastructure, & donor familiarity in a district Democrats view as highly competitive. Among potential Democratic challengers, Bohannan stands out as the most proven vote-getter in IA-01, though she will again need a strong turnout & national support to overcome the incumbent advantage.
Sarah Trone Garriott: IA-03
Trone Garriott, a state senator representing part of the Des Moines metro, has emerged as the leading Democratic contender in IA-03. Recent campaign developments, including former House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst suspending her campaign & endorsing Trone Garriott, have helped consolidate Democratic support behind her, reducing the risk of a divided primary. In a district trending more competitive due to suburban realignment, Trone Garriott’s legislative experience & growing party support position her as Democrats’ clearest path to reclaiming the seat, though she still faces an uphill general election against an incumbent Republican. Together, Bohannan & Trone Garriott represent Democrats’ strongest opportunities to flip Iowa House seats in 2026, combining district fit, electoral credibility, & early signs of party consolidation.
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Hawaii,_2026
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa Political News: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/
- Zach Whals Interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-q46u-K3g
- Josh Turek Interview- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s1_b0nFqlsc
US Incursion in Venezuela: Review, Reactions, and What Happens Next (Foreign Policy Brief #226)
Foreign Policy Brief #226 | Abran C. | January 29, 2026
In the early hours of Jan. 3, 2026 the United States carried out an attack in Venezuela that saw the removal and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The incursion followed months of military operations in the Caribbean Sea, targeting small boats and oil tankers along the Venezuelan coast. The operation dubbed, Operation Absolute Resolve, saw US forces enter Venezuelan territory, carry out strikes on military sites around the country and in the capital Caracas. Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken by US forces from Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s largest military complex. Maduro was first flown to a US military base and then transported aboard the USS Iwo Jima, which brought Maduro and his wife to a detention centre in New York, where he is being held and indicted on charges of narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States.
How did we get here?
Back in his first term, Donald Trump sought to replace Maduro by recognizing Juan Guaidó, the leader of the opposition-led National Assembly in Venezuela, as the new replacement president of the South American country. Ultimately there was little international support for Guaidó and the attempt to replace Maduro proved ineffective. Now in his second term, Trump and his administration switched gears to military action. Beginning in August 2025, the US began deploying Navy destroyers, along with thousands of military personnel, to the edge of Venezuelan territorial waters claiming to be attempting to thwart drug trafficking.
Beginning in September, 2025 the Trump Administration began strikes on more than 30 boats that killed at least 115 in the Caribbean and the Pacific alleged to be transporting drugs to the US. In November 2025, the administration designated Maduro as the head of what it called the “Cartel de los Soles” as a terrorist organisation. In December 2025, The US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela after the ship left that country with about 2 million barrels of crude. The culmination of months of pressure and use of the military force resulted in the US invading Venezuela and forcefully removing Maduro from the country.
Domestic and International reactions
Domestically, once disapproving of using the US military to invade Venezuela, the vast majority of Republicans, at least 78% per a recent Yougov poll, now say they approve of President Trump’s military action and the capture of Nicolas Maduro. In contrast just 14% of Democrats supported the military invasion of Venezuela. Democratic leaders responded with anger to the Trump administration’s military intervention in Venezuela, with multiple members of congress slamming it as an illegal act carried out in the absence of required congressional approval. On January 8, 2025, the Senate backed the War Powers Resolution with a vote 52-47, to curb President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out further military action against Venezuela without congressional approval. Several senators claimed they felt misled by earlier briefings in which administration officials suggested they did not intend to carry out strikes on Venezuelan territory.
International reaction to the incursion into Venezuela has also been mixed but largely negative. Many Latin American leaders have condemned the US actions. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva said that the actions “cross an unacceptable line… and were a flagrant violation of international law”. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the strikes an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America. Chile’s President Gabriel Boric expressed “concern and condemnation”. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel accused the US of a “criminal attack”. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum characterized the attack as an “unacceptable violation of Venezuelan sovereignty”.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was “deeply shocked” by what it described as a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president”. A statement from The United Nations said it was “deeply alarmed” by the US attacks and capture of Maduro, suggesting it violated international law. In contrast, the US’ European allies did not express condemnation but straddled the fence, instead calling for a transition of government in Venezuela. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that , “the EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition”. French President Emmanuel Macron said he “neither supported nor approved” of the US military operation and stated Frances’ readiness to support a transition.
What Happens Now?
Nicolas Maduro and his wife have pleaded not guilty in court appearances in New York on January 5, 2026. They remain in US custody, with the next court hearing set for March 17, 2026. As of time of writing, the government in Venezuela remains the same. The country’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president on Jan. 5. Rodríguez, a longtime Maduro ally and oil minister, has received the public backing of the Trump Administration for the time being. Although Trump threatened that she would pay a very heavy price, if she does not comply with US demands. It is unclear whether the new Venezuelan President will play along with the United States, and if she does not, will the Trump administration be willing to engage in a longer-term war in order to achieve their aims.
Trump has held meetings with oil executives and suggested that his administration could subsidize US oil companies moving into the country. Additionally, following the operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration has redirected its attention to Cuba. Donald Trump has urged Cuba to “make a deal” or face dire consequences, and warned that the flow of Venezuelan oil and other aid would stop, leaving the already difficult situation to grow even worse. Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel stated that his government will stand against US threats. “Nobody tells us what to do… Cuba is prepared to defend the homeland until the last drop of blood” he said.
The Trump administration in recent weeks has expressed its interest in further regime change and territorial expansion. Along with intervention in Venezuela and Cuba, the Trump administration and allies have made comments on possible strikes in Colombia and Mexico, seeking regime change in Iran and acquiring Greenland, whether forcibly or otherwise. The administration’s attempt at intervention involves a more quick actioned “in and out” style of military force rather than full scale invasion. That may be more of what we see occur in the other countries where military action is being discussed, and it also demonstrates the administration’s understanding of how unpopular new multiyear wars are with the American public. Yet it appears likely the US will engage in further military conflicts in 2026, the newly dubbed “Donroe Doctorine” all but guarantees it.
Democracy on the Brink: Structural Suppression and the Fight for the 2026 Midterms (Elections & Politics Brief #202)
Elections & Politics Brief #202 | Inijah Quadri | January 16, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
The concept of a free and fair election in the United States has always been more of an aspiration than a reality, but as we approach the 2026 midterms, the gap between that ideal and the ground truth is widening at an alarming rate. By definition, a “free and fair” election in the U.S. context requires three non-negotiable pillars: universal access for all eligible citizens without coercion, a transparent and secret balloting process, and an impartial tabulation and certification that reflects the genuine will of the people. Following the contentious 2024 cycle, the machinery of voter suppression has not only been maintained but aggressively upgraded. In 2025 alone, state legislatures across the country accelerated their efforts to restrict the franchise, with sixteen states enacting twenty-nine new laws designed to make voting harder, particularly for working-class communities, people of color, and young voters. These measuresrange from stricter voter ID requirements to the aggressive purging of voter rolls, all under the guise of “election integrity.”
This legislative assault is compounded by a federal landscape that has failed to provide necessary safeguards. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025, which would have restored critical protections against racial discrimination in voting, remains stalled in a divided Congress. Without these federal checks, states are free to implement discriminatory maps and procedures with little oversight. Furthermore, the information ecosystem remains a toxic battleground. The rise of AI-generated deepfakes and the unchecked spread of disinformation on corporate-owned social media platforms have created a “liar’s dividend,” where truth is easily drowned out by manufactured outrage, further alienating an already cynical electorate. The 2026 midterms, therefore, are not just a political contest but a stress test for a system that is buckling under the weight of structural inequality and authoritarian ambition.
Analysis
To understand the likelihood of a free and fair election in 2026, one must look beyond the surface-level partisan skirmishes and examine the structural rot at the core of American democracy. The “rules of the game” are a complex, overlapping patchwork found primarily in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4—the “Elections Clause”), the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This legal architecture creates a fractured hierarchy of responsibility. The federal government is tasked with setting baseline civil rights standards and providing oversight through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and cybersecurity support through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). However, the primary authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections resides with the fifty individual states. Crucially, the actual “rubber-meets-the-road” administration falls to the nation’s 3,000+ counties, which are responsible for the physical mechanics of democracy: managing voter rolls, hiring poll workers, and operating the roughly 100,000 polling places nationwide.
Although not directly triggered in the upcoming midterm cycle, the Electoral College remains the most prominent example of this structural disconnect between the popular will and political outcomes. In Presidential cycles, the winner is determined not by the national popular vote, but by a tally of 538 electors, with 270 required to win. The Constitution grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to determine how these electors are selected. In modern practice, political parties in each state nominate slates of potential electors—typically party loyalists or activists. When citizens cast a ballot for President, they are actually voting for their party’s slate of electors. Because 48 states utilize a “winner-take-all” system, a candidate can win a state’s popular vote by a razor-thin margin yet be awarded 100% of that state’s electoral influence. This mechanism allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote by millions, reinforcing a system where geography often outweighs the collective voice of the electorate.
The current crisis is not accidental; it is the predictable result of a political system that prioritizes corporate interests and minority rule over the will of the people. Because of this decentralization, elections can be undermined at multiple levels by different actors: state legislatures use gerrymandering to insulate themselves from accountability; county-level boards can weaponize the certification process to delay or deny legitimate results; and the executive branch can exert pressure through agencies to restrict access to federal forms or equipment.
The Supreme Court, captured by reactionary forces, has played a pivotal role in this dismantling. The ongoing litigation surrounding Louisiana’s congressional maps serves as a stark warning. By signaling a willingness to further weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court is effectively greenlighting racial gerrymandering, allowing politicians to dilute the political power of Black and Brown communities to preserve their own grip on power. This judicial activism ensures that the House of Representatives remains unrepresentative of the actual electorate, insulating incumbents from public accountability.
Recent reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far the erosion of democratic norms has progressed. According to journalists Patrick Marley and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, the Trump administration is actively seeking to reshape how the 2026 midterm elections are conducted — pushing Republican state lawmakers to redraw congressional districts outside the standard post-census schedule, demanding the end of mail-in voting and the elimination of widely used voting machines, and staffing key federal agencies with officials who have openly questioned the legitimacy of past elections. These efforts are not merely rhetorical; they include lawsuits to access voter rolls and executive actions that courts have already begun to strike down as beyond presidential authority, reflecting a broader push to embed partisan advantage into the mechanics of democracy itself.
The situation is exacerbated by the “trench warfare” currently waging between the Department of Justice and recalcitrant state governments. While federal agencies attempt to enforce remaining statutes, they are often outmaneuvered by state legislatures that are willing to weaponize every lever of administrative power to suppress dissent. We are witnessing a coordinated effort to reshape the electorate itself rather than compete for its votes. This includes the strategic disenfranchisement of the millions of Americans who identify as independents, who are frequently locked out of the primary process where the vast majority of congressional races are actually decided. This “primary problem” ensures that the candidates who reach the general election are often beholden to the most extreme elements of their donor bases rather than the needs of their constituents. In fact, according to recent analysis, as few as 8% of voters effectively decide 83% of House seats during the primary stage, rendering the general election a mere formality in the vast majority of districts.
Moreover, the role of capital in our elections cannot be overstated. The flood of dark money unleashed by Citizens United continues to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, allowing billionaires and corporations to purchase influence and shape policy outcomes before a single ballot is cast. When this financial dominance is paired with a media environment driven by profit-maximizing algorithms that amplify fear and division, the result is a populace that is not only disenfranchised but deeply disoriented. The technology sector’s failure to self-regulate, coupled with the government’s inability to pass meaningful AI safeguards, leaves the 2026 election vulnerable to unprecedented levels of manipulation. The “free marketplace of ideas” has been enclosed and monopolized, turning public discourse into a commodity sold to the highest bidder.
Ultimately, the prospect of a truly free and fair election in 2026 is dim under the current conditions. The safeguards that once existed—however imperfect—have been systematically eroded. We are left with a hollowed-out democratic shell, where the mechanics of voting are increasingly weaponized against the very people they are meant to empower. Unless there is a massive, grassroots mobilization to demand structural reform—from the abolition of the Electoral College to the implementation of public financing for elections—the midterms will likely serve to entrench the power of the ruling elite rather than reflect the will of the working class.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/): A nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice, with extensive research on voting rights and election security.
- NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (https://www.naacpldf.org/): The country’s premier legal organization fighting for racial justice, actively involved in litigation to protect voting rights and challenge discriminatory redistricting.
- Common Cause (https://www.commoncause.org/): A watchdog group dedicated to holding power accountable, working on issues ranging from campaign finance reform to ending gerrymandering.
- Voting Rights Lab (https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/): An organization that tracks election-related legislation and fights for free and fair elections through state-level advocacy.
- Fight for the Future (https://www.fightforthefuture.org/): A digital rights group advocating for a web free of censorship and corporate control, focusing on the intersection of technology, AI, and democracy.
- Unite America (https://www.uniteamerica.org/): A philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government, addressing the “primary problem.”
- Will 2026 Be a Fair Fight?: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47xvFa3_aw) This video from The Atlantic is relevant because it discusses the looming threats to the 2026 midterms, including gerrymandering and the potential for executive overreach, aligning with the concerns raised in the article.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Hawaii (Brief #8)
Democratic Primary Series Brief #8 | Morgan Davidson | 1/21/2026
The Aloha state will feature two House races but will be absent a headlining Senate race. Senior Senator Brian Schatz will be back up for re-election in 2028 & the Junior Senator Mazie Hirono will be back up in 2030. Overall, the state is solidly Democratic, with all four members of Congress under the Democratic banner. Further, at the state level, of the 51 state house members, only 9 are Republicans. That means the remaining 42 are Democrats since no Independent has a seat in the Hawaii State House. In the Hawaiian Senate, the breakdown is 3 Republicans to 22 Dems. Hawaii is a solidly blue state, & the real campaign or battle will be in the Democratic primaries.
Turning to the U.S. House, Hawaii’s current Democratic delegation consists of:
- District 1: Ed Case
- District 2: Jill Tokuda
Both incumbents had dominant elections in 2024, with Ed Case winning with 71.8% of the vote & Jill Tokuda winning with 66.5% of the vote & look to do the same. At the time of writing, Democrats have a national advantage in generic ballots, or ballots listing only the political party, not specific candidates. Per Verasight, respondents were asked, “If the 2026 general election were held today [January 2026], which party’s candidate would you be more likely to vote for in your local congressional district?” 51% of respondents side with the Dems, 43% to the GOP, & 6% were undecided. Among voters who reported greater interest in voting, these percentages change to 55% Dems & 42% Republicans, with advantages to Dems of 8% & 13%, respectively.
The current Trump regime in Washington continues to hemorrhage support with crises after crises, from Venezuela & the kidnapping of Maduro, the ICE shooting of Renee Good, to concerns over US involvement with Greenland. Each of these events, individually, has the Trump administration in hot water, & collectively has led to a decrease in support for Trump & the Republican party more broadly. These are issues heading into a midterm election, which tend to favor the party out of power, causing major issues for Republicans down ballot. That said, there is still a long time from today to election day for Republicans to gain ground, but that seems bleak with Trump’s actions since the start of the new year.
Back to Hawaii, where the primary will take place on August 8th, 2026, followed by the general election on November 3rd, 2026, both Democratic incumbents look poised to retain their seats. That said, Jill Tokuda in District 2 seems to have a stronger advantage over her District 1 counterpart, Ed Case.
District 2: Jill Tokuda
Jill Tokuda, as of writing, is running unopposed in her re-election bid for District 2’s U.S. House seat. There is still time for other Democrats to join the race, with the filing deadline being in June of this year; however, chances are slim that Tokuda will face a Democratic challenger. In theory, District 2 should be the harder race, as it represents the suburban areas of Honolulu & the smaller islands that are much more rural than O’ahu, but without a challenger, Tokuda should continue her dominance in the district.
Tokuda is a 49-year-old female incumbent in Hawaii’s second district. Tokuda has represented Hawaiʻi’s Second Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2023, serving the state’s rural & outer-island communities. Her family has called the district home for four generations after emigrating from Okinawa, with roots on Hawaiʻi Island, Maui, Kauaʻi, & Oʻahu. A product of Hawaiʻi’s public schools & the first in her family to attend college, Tokuda earned a degree in international relations from George Washington University before returning home to public service. She spent twelve years representing Windward Oʻahu in the Hawaiʻi State Senate, where she became one of the Legislature’s most trusted voices on fiscal & education policy, chairing committees including Ways & Means, Education, Labor, & Hawaiian Affairs. As budget chair, she oversaw the state’s $14 billion budget, expanded early childhood education & school-based health services, & secured long-delayed constitutional protections for Hawaiʻi’s most productive agricultural lands. In Congress, Tokuda serves on the Armed Services Committee, the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, & the Agriculture Committee, while also holding leadership roles focused on rural health, Asian Pacific American representation, & regional Democratic organizing. She & her husband are raising their two sons in the same public schools that shaped them, reinforcing her emphasis on education, local opportunity, & stewardship of Hawaiʻi’s future.
Jill Tokuda is well-positioned to win re-election in 2026 largely because Hawaiʻi’s Second Congressional District remains safely Democratic & she faces no listed challengers according to Ballotpedia. As a first-term incumbent elected comfortably in 2022 & even more so in 2024, Tokuda benefits from the structural advantages of incumbency, strong name recognition across the neighbor islands, & deep local ties built over decades in public service. Her committee assignments in Congress, particularly on Armed Services & Agriculture, reinforce her ability to deliver for a district with significant rural, military, & outer-island needs. With no serious primary opposition & a Republican bench that has struggled statewide for decades, Tokuda enters the 2026 cycle as a clear favorite to retain her seat.
District 1
Incumbent: Ed Case (Male, 73)
Challengers: Della Au Belatti (Female, 52); Jarrett Keohikalole (Male, 41)
Incumbent Democrat Ed Case is favored to retain Hawaiʻi’s First Congressional District in 2026, though he faces a potentially competitive Democratic primary from two challengers running to his left. According to Data for Progress polling, Case leads the field but does not currently command a majority, raising the possibility that the primary could go to a runoff. The central tension in the race is ideological: Case’s centrist, pragmatic style continues to appeal to establishment Democrats & moderate voters, while progressive activists are increasingly coalescing around alternative candidates who promise a more assertive liberal agenda.
Ed Case (Incumbent)
Ed Case has represented Hawaiʻi’s First District since 2019 & is one of the state’s most experienced federal lawmakers, having previously served in Congress in the early 2000s & as Hawaiʻi’s lieutenant governor. At 73, Case is viewed as a steady but ideologically moderate figure, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, national security, & bipartisan governance. Further, younger voters see Case as old & out of touch. While his approach has helped him survive competitive primaries in the past, it has also drawn criticism from progressive voters who view him as insufficiently aligned with the Democratic Party’s leftward shift on issues like climate policy, healthcare, & foreign affairs.
Della Au Belatti
Della Au Belatti, a 52-year-old former Hawaiʻi State Representative, enters the race with strong progressive credentials & deep ties to Democratic Party organizing. As a former chair of the Hawaiʻi Democratic Party, Belatti is well known among party activists & grassroots networks. Her campaign emphasizes reproductive rights, climate action, housing affordability, & a more confrontational posture toward corporate influence in politics. Belatti’s challenge is converting institutional goodwill & activist enthusiasm into broad-based voter support beyond the party’s progressive base.
Jarrett Keohikalole
Jarrett Keohikalole, 41, is a sitting Hawaiʻi State Senator representing Kāneʻohe & Kailua, & positions himself as a generational & ideological alternative to Case. Keohikalole has built a reputation as a policy-focused progressive, with emphasis on healthcare access, cost-of-living relief, & environmental protection. His youth & legislative experience give him credibility among voters seeking change without inexperience, though he faces the same structural hurdle as Belatti in expanding appeal beyond Honolulu’s progressive core.
Who Is Most Likely to Win
Despite dissatisfaction among liberal voters, Ed Case remains the most likely winner due to incumbency, name recognition, & a fragmented opposition. While Belatti & Keohikalole together may represent a majority of the district’s Democratic electorate ideologically, their split support significantly benefits Case under Hawaiʻi’s primary rules. Unless one challenger consolidates progressive voters or Case’s support collapses late in the cycle, the incumbent’s path to renomination & eventual re-election in this safely Democratic district remains the clearest. If Case suffers a health scare or scandal of sorts, look for Belatti to take advantage with the grassroots background & current lead over Keohikalole in the Data for Progress poll.
Primary outlook: Competitive, but Case favored
General election outlook: Safe Democratic hold
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Hawaii,_2026
- Verasight Poll & information- https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-trump-slips-on-immigration?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6273&post_id=185257395&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2ncajb&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
- Politico Coverage of Hawaii’s 1st district- https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-score/2025/11/17/the-next-democrat-indivisible-wants-to-boot-from-congress-00653934
- Jill Tokuda interview- https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/watch-jill-tokuda-delivers-a-powerful-speech/1235181668562817/
- Ed Case Interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwI90ATzz5s
- Della Au Belatti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dlYyUykJvY
- Jarrett Keohikalole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZpOlCRUzD4
New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Signal Shift on Processed Foods, Meat and Dairy (Health & Gender Policy Brief #184)
Health & Gender Policy Brief #184 | Haley Gabrielle Lloyd | January 15, 2026
On January 7, 2026, the U.S. federal government released the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These new guidelines show a shift in how U.S. health officials define healthy eating andaddress processed foods, protein consumption and dairy. The Guidelines were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). They are set to shape federal nutrition policy, school meal standards and how public health is messaged for the next five years.
The guidance targets packaged, ready-to-eat foods high with sugar, sodium, refined carbohydrates and additives, citing chips, candy, sugary drinks and frozen meals as examples. What is commonly knownas “ultra-processed foods,” the federal government is now calling “highly processed foods.” Federal officials warn the foods are contributing to obesity and obesity-related diseases, including Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
The recommendations call for a diet centered on whole, nutrient-dense foods such as fruits and vegetables, as well as whole grains, healthy fats and protein. Unlike previous versions, the new recommendations explicitly include meat and full-fat dairy when eaten in moderation. Federal officials have described the shift as a move away from rigid low-fat frameworks toward a broader focus on eating minimally processed foods. Added sugars remain a major concern. The guidelines recommendlimiting added sugars to less than 10% of daily calories and state that no amount of added sugar is necessary for good health, particularly for children. Sodium intake limits remain in place, and saturated fat is still recommended to stay below 10% of daily calories, even as the guidance allows more flexibility around whole-food sources of fat.
The rollout has sparked political debate and skepticism beyond the nutrition and health community.This reflects a broader mistrust of federal health guidance and of the Trump administration.
Some conservatives and food industry groups have questioned whether the administration isoverreaching by discouraging processed foods that are affordable and widely consumed. They warn that the recommendations could raise food costs or further stigmatize foods relied on by low-income families. Others on the right have criticized the guidelines as inconsistent, arguing they promote meat and dairy while continuing to caution against saturated fat. The American Action Forum, a center-right economics and health research institute, argued that broad warnings against categories ofprocessed foods could be overly simplistic and cause confusion about affordable food options, callingfor clearer definitions and careful consideration of economic impact. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas called the update “a huge win for America,” saying food is “the best medicine known to man,” while
Sen. Tommy Tuberville thanked officials for highlighting “real, healthy food” under the Make America Healthy Again agenda.
On the left, environmental and public health advocates have raised concerns about the expanded emphasis on animal products, particularly red meat and full-fat dairy, citing climate impacts and long-standing links to cardiovascular risk. Critics have also questioned why the final document diverged from recommendations made by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, saying the process appears more political than scientific. The American Heart Association welcomed the focus on cutting added sugar and highly processed foods but emphasized that elevating red meat and full-fat dairy risks undermining long-standing guidance on saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. The Center for Biological Diversity criticized the emphasis on animal products as politically driven and said it ignores the climate and ecological costs of meat production.
The response from Democratic lawmakers has been limited. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who has long focused on food policy and nutrition, has previously raised concerns about meat-heavy diets,citing links to chronic disease and environmental impact. Beyond Booker, reaction from prominent Democratic lawmakers has been notably quiet.
Public reaction has also been divided. On platforms including X, Reddit and TikTok, supporters havewelcomed simpler messaging around “real food” and cutting back on sugar. Others have expressed confusion over what qualifies as processed and whether the update reflects new science or a rebranding of previous administrations’ advice. Marion Nestle, a longtime nutrition professor at New YorkUniversity, has previously warned that broad and inconsistent use of the term “processed foods” can confuse consumers and undermine confidence in dietary guidance. Recent polls from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation and the Annenberg Public Policy Center show declining trust in federal health agencies.
These changes appear to read less like a new change and more like rebranding of long standing federal advice. The refurbished focus on whole foods and limiting added sugars is aligned with previous guidance. What does stand out is the emphasis on red meat and full fat dairy. This is interesting to see since decades of previous messaging noted the link between saturated fats cardiovascular issues. Even for meat eaters, there have been eyebrows raised about how this advice contradicts heart health research. It feels like a rebrand with ambiguous and slightly questionable additions.
The emphasis on red meat and full-fat dairy in particular feels like the strangest addition. While the guidelines stress moderation, the messaging blurs the line between decades of public health efforts. For consumers who struggle to interpret nutrition advice, this shift might confuse protein intake with adapting healthy eating patterns that cardiologists have long urged people to start.
Administration officials have pushed back against criticism, describing the guidelines as a reset rather than an ideological statement. They say the changes are intended to address rising rates of obesity and chronic disease and that the focus on nutrient density and reducing highly processed foods reflects current evidence and is meant to be flexible.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has defended the guidelines as a public health reset. At a White House event announcing the update, Kennedy said the message was simple:“Eat real food.” In a CBS News interview, he emphasized protein intake and said the administration is encouraging people to eat more meat, dairy and other high-quality protein sources.
The dietary guidelines are now in effect and will shape federal nutrition policy, school meals and public health messaging for the next five years.
Sources: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture (https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov); Associated Press (https://apnews.com); CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com); Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu; https://debeaumont.org).
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Delaware (Brief #7)
Nate Iglehart | 1/19/2026
Announced Delaware Democrat Senate Candidates: Chris Coons (incumbent) and Christopher Beardsley
Announced Delaware Democrat House Candidates: Sarah McBride (incumbent)
The primary elections will take place on September 15, with the general election happening on November 3rd
Senate
Chris Coons, 63, is the incumbent Senator in this race, and he will be a tough opponent to beat. He is an experienced Congressman, serving on the Appropriations, Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Small Business & Entrepreneurship, and Ethics committees since his election to the seat in 2010. He also ranked fairly regularly among the most productive Senators in Congress, which has led him to enjoy a +20 approval rating. Before becoming a Senator, he served as New Castle County Council President and County Executive, and practiced law in Delaware. His platform is fairly progressive, highlighting gun safety, civil rights, criminal justice reform, climate change, and economic policies that are fairly popular, although Delaware has one of the oldest average ages of any U. state. Nonetheless, he is likely to win in large part due to his popularity, his massive $4,714,517 war chest, and his finger on the pulse of the most pressing issues, as shown by his leading position of the Congressional bipartisan delegation to Denmark in January. Unless there is some major scandal that hits Coons, it is highly likely that he will continue to be a Senator for Delaware.
Recent Interviews
American Conversations: Senator Chris Coons
Sen. Chris Coons: Nobody Knows Trump’s Plan to Help Iran
Christopher Beardsley, 33, is a former federal worker and Fulbright scholar looking to unseat Coons with a platform focused on housing, healthcare, and accountable governance. He is looking to leverage his experience in the Peace Corps and as a Management and Program Analyst for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. With his belief that quality housing and healthcare are human rights, his support for raising the minimum wage, his defense of progressive social values, and his stance against increased military funding, his platform will likely resonate with younger voters. However, he has not raised much, if any, funding thus far, and his opponent is an experienced and popular candidate. Additionally, his lack of media interviews and general presence outside a campaign page may indicate that, so far, he hasn’t mounted the extensive media campaign he would likely need to unseat Coons. The primary is still a long way out, but for the moment, Beardsley has a lot of ground to cover if he wants a shot at taking the seat.
House
Sarah McBride, 35, is the incumbent representative for Delaware’s only district. She was elected in 2024 with a comfortable 16% lead and became the first openly transgender member of the U.S. Congress. She serves on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and has focused on LGBTQIA+ rights, protecting reproductive rights, expanding access to healthcare, and addressing economic insecurity. This time around, she has no primary challengers, and unless there is a late addition to the race, she will go straight to the general election unchallenged. This means that her $2,419,367 fundraising number will be saved entirely for this election, dwarfing the currently published numbers of any declared Republican candidate so far (Donyale Hall has raised the most, with $534). As a result, it seems equally likely that she will continue to be the representative for Delaware, especially given her name recognition, her successful pushes to establish paid leave and expand Medicaid, and her progressive social values in a consistently blue stronghold.
Recent Interviews:
Congresswoman Sarah McBride in Conversation with David Axelrod
Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights | The Ezra Klein Show
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
Foreign Policy Brief #225 | Abran C. | January 19, 2026
The illustration of Greenland posted to X by Katie Miller (wife of Trump aide Stephen Miller)
Europe sends troops to Greenland to counter the US
European troops have begun arriving in Greenland last week in a show of support to Denmark, as leaders attempt to respond to President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland. Trump recently announced he would be putting extra tariffs on any European states that opposed the US in acquiring Greenland. A small French military contingent along with limited deployment, which also involves Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK. Denmark, which is a NATO ally, would be obligated to come to the island’s defense were the US to invade. Greenland as a territory of Denmark is technically EU territory and would likely pull other European states into the conflict against the US. The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that the United States attempting to seize Greenland would “mark the end of NATO”. Greenlanders have repeatedly expressed their refusal to be part of the US, with 85% of the population rejecting the idea, according to a 2025 poll.
Additionally and often overlooked, billionaires like Peter Thiel, Ronald Lauder, Ken Howery (the US ambassador to Denmark), Bill Gates, Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, see Greenland as a source of rare earths, land for data centers and a laboratory for their techo-libertarian economic experiments. Some of these tech-billionaires have envisioned unregulated “freedom cities” in Greenland, free from any democratic oversight, environmental laws, and labor protection laws.
In this photo obtained by The Associated Press, Iranians attend an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026. (UGC via AP)
Protests in Iran
For over 20 days now nationwide protests have swept across Iran. The protests began over widespread and increasing discontent over the country’s faltering economy and the collapse of its currency the Rial. While the initial focus was on issues like spikes in the prices of food and the country’s sky high annual inflation rate, protesters have now begun chanting anti-government statements as well. Iran has shut down the internet over large parts of the country, and accurate information has been difficult to get. Reports in the media of protestors being killed have ranged in the dozens, thousands, and even tens of thousands. In reality there are no concrete numbers as to just how many have been arrested or killed and will likely not be available until protests have ended and internet access is restored.
US President Donald Trump has warned of “very strong action” against Iran, using backing protestors as the basis for a possible attack. His administration also announced a new 25% tariff on any country doing business with Iran. Trump said he thought it was “a good idea” for Americans to evacuate from Iran and The State Department put out a statement saying that all US citizens should leave the country. Iran’s exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who is based in the US, has appealed to Trump to militarily intervene in the country in order for him to take control. Meanwhile, Gulf states Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Turkey warned and lobbied Trump against strikes on Iran for fears that it would lead to major regional conflict. It is unclear whether their lobbying will cause the US to refrain from carrying out strikes or only delay the now expected attack.
UNICEF/Mohammed Jamal A woman searches through the burnt remains of her shelter at a displacement camp in Darfur, Sudan.
Update: Civil war in Sudan
Sudan’s Prime Minister Kamil Idris, has announced the government’s return to Khartoum, after nearly three years of operating from its wartime capital of Port Sudan. The government has pursued a gradual return to the capital after the army recaptured the city in March 2025. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and military rivals the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been in a brutal battle for power since mid-April 2023, creating the world’s largest humanitarian and refugee crisis. The fighting has forced nearly 12 million people to flee their homes and seek safety either elsewhere in Sudan or across the border. Additionally, more than 21 millionpeople are suffering from malnutrition and famine has been confirmed in parts of the country where humanitarian aid is unable to enter.
The UN’s World Food Programme recently issued a plea for $700m to fund its work in Sudan. The organization’s request is needed to prevent what it says is the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis from getting worse. Sudan peace efforts are being carried out in Cairo, Egypt. The host nation, Egypt, other key mediators, the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE and the United Nations are calling on the warring parties to agree to a humanitarian truce.
A man takes a photograph of a forest fire burning in El Hoyo, Chubut province, Argentina, on Wednesday. Forest fires in Argentine Patagonia continued to spread in the provinces of Chubut, Santa Cruz and Rio Negro. Photo by Matias Garay/EPA
Patagonia on fire
Raging wildfires in Patagonia have destroyed nearly 37,000 hectares of native forests and threaten local communities. After nearly two weeks the fires, which are believed to have been deliberately set, were only partially under control. The emergency prompted the evacuation of 3,000 people, most of them tourists visiting the region, and destroyed homes and rural infrastructure. President Milei scrapped Argentina’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, downgrading it to the Secretariat of Tourism, Environment and Sports. The move led to a decrease of almost 80% to the country’s environmental budget between 2023 and 2024. The fires also come just one month after President Javier Milei announced changes to the Land Law and Forest Law, which removed limits on foreign purchases of land in Patagonia and lifted long-standing restrictions on changing land use after fires. Though every summer, wildfires devastate Patagonia, and have grown in intensity since 2020, some suspect foul play and corruption as a possible cause of the massive fires.
China and Canada reset ties and increase trade
Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, hailed a “new strategic partnership” with China as he held talks in Beijing with President Xi Jinping, in the first visit to China by a Canadian leader in eight years. The two leaders announced that Canada and China had reached a preliminary trade deal aimed at reducing tariffs, investment in energy, and a commitment to import 49,000 electric vehicles from China at preferential rates. Until recently, for almost a decade, Canada and China had been locked in diplomatic tensions after retaliatory arrests of each other’s citizens and a series of trade disputes. Though as both have faced uncertainty from their largest trading partner, the United States, the two countries are now seeking to forge a path bi-laterally, independent of the United States. Carney himself described the trade deal as a recognition of operating in a “new world order”.