JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Grindr Hosts Networking Event Ahead of WH Correspondents’ Dinner to Advocate for LGBT Policy Change (Social Justice Policy Brief #190)
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 Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #232)
Iran has vowed retaliation after a US destroyer fired on an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman late last week.
Professional Exclusion and the Texas Workforce Crisis
Between March 29 and April 6, 2026, a major workforce crisis intensified across Texas as state regulatory bodies began a coordinated effort to revoke or deny occupational licenses for non-citizens and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients.
Issues Affecting Democrat Messaging in the Upcoming Midterm Elections (Elections and Politics Brief #204)
With the 2026 midterm general elections approaching, analytics show Democrats rebuilding national attention. Though it is early, special election results, voter enthusiasm and new candidates suggest what some analysts call a possible Democratic “blue wave.”
New York (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #19)
New York often sits in the average voter’s mind as a solid blue state, almost as a homogenous Democrat stronghold. With the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the mayor of NYC, one wouldn’t be faulted for assuming that the rest of the state is skewed towards the left to some degree. Representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lend credence to this impression.
New Jersey (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #18)
After the 2024 election there was talk of New Jersey having become a swing state. For the first time since George H.W. Bush, a Republican president, had been within 5 points of taking the state (Trump still lost, however). Before then, almost every presidential election had gone blue by around 14 points.
Space Junk and Corporate Accountability in Orbit (Foreign Policy Brief # 231)
Space exploration has transitioned from a public endeavor driven by international cooperation to a heavily privatized industry dominated by billionaire-backed mega-corporations. At the center of this shift is Low Earth Orbit (LEO), defined by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and NASA as the region of space at an altitude of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) or less. Low Earth Orbit, once viewed as a pristine global commons, is rapidly becoming a celestial dumping ground. The exponential deployment of satellite megaconstellations by private tech monopolies has drastically accelerated the accumulation of space junk, raising profound environmental and safety concerns. While these networks boast of bridging global connectivity gaps, their unchecked proliferation commodifies the orbital environment, prioritizing corporate dominance over the long-term sustainability of the cosmos.
Is Strava A Threat to Global Security?
There is a fairly short but detailed history of covert operations, and actions, being discovered by people posting their workout data to Strava, a fitness tracking app.. President Trump’s war with Iran that began at the start of March has been involved in this issue. A French navy’s Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier was discovered moving closer to the Middle East when an officer uploaded their run to Strava which gave up the location of the ship.
Will the Meta Verdicts Spur Change? (Technology Policy Brief #166)
Do social media companies try to hook children on their products? Do they fail to adequately protect those children from harmful content, predators, and exploitation? Millions of parents would probably agree with the juries in California and Texas that recently answered those questions with a resounding yes. As a result, one young plaintiff was awarded $6 million from YouTube and Meta in one case, and Meta was ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties in the other. Meta and YouTube have, of course, vowed to appeal. Despite a growing awareness of the risks to children and teens online, new legislation on children’s online safety remains stalled in Congress, and a robust regulatory system is nowhere in sight.
Professional Exclusion and the Texas Workforce Crisis
Social Justice Policy Brief #190 | Valerie Henderson | April 6, 2026
Summary
Between March 29 and April 6, 2026, a major workforce crisis intensified across Texas as state regulatory bodies began a coordinated effort to revoke or deny occupational licenses for non-citizens and DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients. Reports indicate that over 6,400 individuals including refugees, healthcare workers, and commercial drivers have already seen their professional credentials invalidated or blocked due to new state mandates aimed at restricting the economic participation of non-citizens. This shift represents a dramatic reversal of long-standing Texas policies that previously sought to integrate these skilled workers into the state’s booming economy to fill critical labor gaps.
Analysis
The social justice implications of this crackdown are staggering, as it creates a “pipeline of exclusion” that targets the economic mobility of minority and immigrant populations. By revoking licenses in essential fields like nursing, construction, and transportation, the state is effectively forcing legally present residents out of their careers and into financial instability. This policy ignores the fact that these individuals have already met the state’s rigorous training and testing requirements; their professional competency is not in question, yet their right to earn a living has been stripped away for political reasons.
This movement has created a ripple effect through the Texas economy. As thousands of commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) are revoked, the state’s supply chain and logistics infrastructure face new, unnecessary pressures. In the healthcare sector, the loss of qualified nursing staff during a period of already high demand threatens the quality of care in underserved communities. Advocacy groups argue that this initiative is not about public safety or professional standards, but rather about the systematic marginalization of a demographic that has historically been vital to the state’s growth.
My Opinion
It is incredibly frustrating to watch the government go out of its way to stop people from working and contributing to their communities. If someone has put in the work to go to school, pass their professional exams, and earn a license, they should have the right to use those skills to provide for their family. Taking that away is a direct hit on the “American Dream” that we claim to support. This isn’t just about a job; it’s about a person’s identity and their ability to build a stable life for themselves and their children.
Everyone deserves the right to a livelihood. When the state steps in to block that path, it doesn’t just hurt the worker. It hurts the patients who need nurses, the businesses that need drivers, and the neighborhoods that rely on these professionals. It is a backwards policy that chooses exclusion over progress. We should be finding ways to make it easier for hardworking people to enter the workforce and succeed, not creating new bureaucratic traps to shut them out. This kind of “economic policing” is a major step in the wrong direction for Texas and is a clear violation of the social justice principle that everyone should have a fair shot at success based on their skills and effort.
Engagement Resources
- The Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/02/texas-occupational-licensing-non-citizens/
- National Immigration Law Center (NILC): https://www.nilc.org/issues/workers-rights/occupational-licensing-barriers-2026/
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas: https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/defending-right-work-texas-licensing-crisis
Issues Affecting Democrat Messaging in the Upcoming Midterm Elections (Elections and Politics Brief #204)
Elections and Politics Brief #204 | By Haley Gabrielle Lloyd | March 19, 2026
With the 2026 midterm general elections approaching, analytics show Democrats rebuilding national attention. Though it is early, special election results, voter enthusiasm and new candidates suggest what some analysts call a possible Democratic “blue wave.”
Historically, political analysts look to off-cycle elections and voter engagement metrics as early indicators of national political trends. In recent months, Democrats have performed well in several competitive races. Recently, they have been outperforming in districts that traditionally lean Republican. These results cannot determine national outcomes on their own, but they can reveal shifts in voter engagement heading into midterm campaigns.
The levels of enthusiasm appear to be higher among Democratic voters. According to recent national polling analysis reported by The Washington Post, Democratic voters are more motivated to participate in the 2026 midterms than their Republican counterparts. Off-year elections tend to have lower turnout than presidential contests, so the differences in enthusiasm can greatly influence electoral outcomes.
Several policy issues are driving this engagement. The fight for reproductive rights is still a major force, especially after ongoing legal and political battles over abortion access in many states. Concerns about voter suppression, protecting democracy, and climate policy have also energized progressive organizers and younger voters. At the same time, the Democratic Party is having major debates, especially about U.S. foreign policy. One important debate is about the influence of groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in primary races. These discussions have revealed ideological divisions within the party, which are now shaping Democratic messaging as the 2026 election cycle approaches.
There are big ideological differences about how strongly the party should push for policy changes. Progressive Democrats are going in hard on federal issues like climate change, student debt relief, universal health care, and stronger labor protections. They are also having more critical discussions on U.S. foreign policy. The focus is on human rights and reducing military spending in some areas. On the other hand, moderate or centrist Democrats tend to lean towards gradual reforms, deliberate spending, and messages about economic stability and bipartisan efforts, especially in states where winning over independent or conservative voters is important.
Another topic of debate is the role of campaign funding and the role of outside political organizations in shaping primary outcomes. Some progressive candidates have criticized the influence of large political action committees and high-dollar donors. They believe that grassroots fundraising better reflects the priorities of the party’s base. On the other hand, some within the party argue that support from established advocacy groups and the traditional fundraising methods are essential to stay competitive in expensive state and federal races. These disagreements continue to shape campaign messaging and the overall direction of Democratic strategy heading into the 2026 midterms.
The party is starting to see the rise of a new generation of candidates. Across the country, more young and first-time candidates are launching campaigns in districts traditionally considered difficult for Democrats. In Texas, State Representative James Talarico, who is still in his thirties, is considered a Democratic rising star among progressives after winning one of the closest-watched Democratic Senate primaries. Campaigns such as Talarico’s rely more on grassroots fundraising and digital outreach strategies than previous Democratic campaigns. His campaign was able to raise almost $7 million in its first 3 weeks, and by the primaries, they raised $13 million. It is reported that 98% of donations were $100 or less. The campaign has also stated that they do not take money from corporate PACs.
While all of this looks good for the Democratic Party, early polling and analytics do not guarantee election outcomes. Midterms tend to pose a threat for the party that holds the presidency. There also has to be consideration for economic conditions or major national events that could alter the political landscape between now and November 2026. However, the combination of younger candidates and voters in competitive races suggests Democrats may be entering the midterm cycle with outstanding political strength.
Recent research shows members of Generation Z and younger millennials are playing a larger role in midterm turnout. The issues driving them to the polls are reproductive rights and climate policy. College-educated suburban voters, especially women, remain a key Democratic constituency in competitive districts. At the same time, multiracial urban associations also continue to shape electoral outcomes. Latino and Asian American populations are among the fastest-growing demographics. The growth in major cities has added the influence of younger and more diverse voters on campaign strategy and messaging.
Engagement Resources
The NALEO Educational Fund works to promote civic participation among Latino voters. It does outreach, leadership development, and public education programs. The group also shares research on Latino political engagement, especially in states with major Latino population growth.
RuralOrganizing.org helps grassroots organizing in small towns and rural areas nationwide. It trains local leaders and promotes civic engagement on economic and community issues. The network aims to strengthen voter participation in places that tend to be left out of national organizing.
New York (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #19)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Nate Iglehart | 4/14/2026
New York often sits in the average voter’s mind as a solid blue state, almost as a homogenous Democrat stronghold. With the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as the mayor of NYC, one wouldn’t be faulted for assuming that the rest of the state is skewed towards the left to some degree. Representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lend credence to this impression.
Much of this is also no doubt due to the cultural significance and liberal disposition of New York City, but outside of the Big Apple, the story is a little more complicated. It is true that both senators from the state have been Democrats since 1998 and that the state has voted for a Democrat in the presidential election since 1988. But in the past few election cycles, there have been multiple house seats that have changed hands, and now the house delegation makeup is 19 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Some of the more interesting races will likely actually be within the Democratic party as opposed to between the two parties. The issues facing the state extend beyond just NYC, and include extremely high rents and housing prices, crime and safety, education and budgetary woes, and general affordability. The solutions to these issues have split democrats regarding how to solve these issues. For example, Democrats are split between its pro-development wing, which wants to build more housing, and wings more focused on tenant-protection. Centrist elements of the party are also calling for more strict immigration and anti-crime initiatives, further splitting the party.
But there are still races that will be important for Democrats to defend from Republicans. Democrats’ biggest challenge isn’t just flipping seats, it is defending multiple very narrow wins from 2024 and handling a few races that face redistricting. At the end of the day, control of the U.S. House of Representatives may come down to one or two seats, and New York has a couple of races that may decide that control. The primaries will take place on June 23, with the general election occurring on November 3rd.
Currently, the two Senators are Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Schumer is arguably one of the highest profile Democrats in the nation and he serves as the current Senate Minority Leader and previously the Senate Majority Leader. Gillibrand is slightly less well known, but serves on the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services. Neither of these two senators are up for election this cycle, and both remain relatively popular.
In the House, there are 19 Democrats and 7 Republicans. In ascending district order, the representatives are as follows: Republican Nicholas J. LaLota (NY-01), Republican Andrew Garbarino (NY-02), Democrat Tom Suozzi (NY-03), Democrat Laura Gillen (NY-04), Democrat Gregory Meeks (NY-05), Democrat Grace Meng (NY-06), Democrat Nydia Velazquez (NY-07), Democrat Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08), Democrat Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Democrat Daniel Goldman (NY-10), Republican Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11), Democrat Jerry Nadler (NY-12), Democrat Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Democrat Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Democrat George Latimer (NY-16), Republican Michael Lawler (NY-17), Democrat Pat Ryan, (NY-18), Democrat Josh Riley (NY-19), Democrat Paul Tonko (NY-20), Republican Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Democrat John Mannion (NY-22), Republican Nick Langworthy (NY-23), Republican Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Democrat Joseph Morelle (NY-25), and Democrat Timothy Kennedy (NY-26).
However, there are two incumbent Democrats who are not running for reelection this cycle in Velázquez in the 7th district and Nadler in the 12th. This means that Democrats will have to work a little harder in these races to counter the established Republican candidates who will see this as a rare opportunity. Republican Elise Stefanik in the 21st is also not running for reelection. Out of the 26 races, these are the Democratic names to keep an eye out for:
- District 1: Chris Gallant
- District 2: Patrick Halpin
- District 3: Tom Suozzi
- District 4: Laura Gillen
- District 5: Gregory Meeks
- District 6: Grace Meng
- District 7: Antonio Reynoso and Claire Valdez
- District 8: Hakeem Jeffries
- District 9: Yvette Clarke
- District 10: Dan Goldman and Brad Lander
- District 11:Troy McGhie
- District 12: Alex Bores, Jack Schlossberg, and Micah Lasher
- District 13: Adriano Espaillat
- District 14: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- District 15: Ritchie Torres
- District 16: George Latimer
- District 17: Cait Conley and Beth Davidson
- District 18: Pat Ryan
- District 19: Josh Riley
- District 20: Paul Tonko
- District 21: Blake Gendebien and Dylan Hewitt
- District 22: John Mannion
- District 23: Aaron Gies
- District 24: Alissa Ellman
- District 25: Joseph Morelle
- District 26: Tim Kennedy
Most Competitive Districts for Democrats
There are roughly seven races that will be competitive for Democrats. The first, and the most competitive, will be in the 17th district located in the Hudson Valley. Incumbent Republican Mike Lawler has raised a massive amount of money so far, sitting on $5,209,722 of donations. But even with this war chest, polls and analysts consider this race a true tossup. The biggest question is who in a crowded field of Democratic primary candidates will come out on top. These candidates’ backgrounds range from nonprofit executives to political reporters and cybersecurity and infrastructure experts. Cait Conley and Beth Davidson so far look like the frontrunners, with both having raised over $1 million and the former racking up endorsements from incumbents. The district has voted for Democrats in practically every statewide and federal election save for the 2022 governor race, and before Mike Lawler it was represented by a Democrat in the house since 1983. One key element in this district’s race will be the significant Jewish population, including conservative Hasidic communities in Rockland County. The war in Iran and Gaza will be potent political talking points and can swing this district slightly more towards the right, given many Democrats’ disillusionment with the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Another competitive race will be the 4th district, located in suburban Long Island. Currently represented by Democrat Laura Gillen, this district is the second wealthiest in New York and one of the wealthiest in the country. Similarly to the 17th district, this one leans slightly blue but by a smaller margin. Democrats only won it by 2.3 points in 2024, and before Gillen, the district was briefly held by a Republican. That candidate has yet to declare his campaign, but this race will still be somewhat tight. This race will be a must-hold for Democrats, but with Gillen’s centrist platform and solid focus on local issues, it is certainly possible.
The next competitive district will be the 19th district, a historically competitive seat that flips back and forth between parties. Incorporating the Catskills, Hudson Valley, and greater Capital District, it is largely a white and rural district represented currently by Democrat Josh Riley. Riley, a mix of progressive and centrist policies, won this district by 2.2 points in 2024, and while he is not wildly popular, he is popular enough and both well-funded and well-connected enough to be a key part of Democratic efforts to win the House. He shouldn’t lose this race with all of these factors, but the fact that Democratic planners are still focusing on this district means that they likely also have a little trepidation given how uncertain polls can be. Republicans will likely be looking to flip this seat back regardless of how the rest of New York’s races shake out.
One of those important targets will certainly be the chaotic 3rd district, representing parts of western Long Island. This is the wealthiest district in New York and the fourth wealthiest nationally, meaning that most progressive policies here will struggle. Nonetheless, the district leans towards Democrats, with Tom Suozzi having taken the seat after George Santos’ infamous tenure here. This mess of a political stint by Santos may have played a part in Democrats taking this seat, but it is far from certainty that this will remain blue. The 3rd district has had a litany of both Republican and Democrat representatives, but has been shifting blue lately. Importantly, in the 2024 election, this district voted for Trump while also electing a Democratic representative, making it one of the thirteen across the country that voted this way. Between its wealth and its hyper-urban nature, Suozzi has had to focus on cultivating an image of him being a common-sense Democrat focused on bipartisan solutions. It also didn’t hurt that he pushed for tax breaks and removing double taxation on homeowners. Thankfully for Democrats, this approach seems to have worked and Suozzi is fairly popular. But given how competitive this district has historically been, don’t be surprised if this one comes down to the wire.
From here, the races get slightly less competitive, but still are the biggest targets for upsets on both sides. In the 11th district, drama regarding the constitutionality of a redistricting effort and lawsuits have made a traditionally red district (currently the only one in metropolitan NYC) more open for a Democrat to win. Nicole Malliotakis, the incumbent Republican representative, is a very popular third-term representative and won the last election 64-36. Before her, however, the Staten Island district was represented by a Democrat, a pair of Republicans before that, and then only Democrats from 2013 all the way back to 1945. The district still leans red in both its registered voter numbers and recent voting results, but a lawsuit alleging voter discrimination against minority groups made its way all the way to the Supreme Court before being halted for this cycle, meaning that next cycle, this map may look vastly different. For now, it is still likely a slightly red seat, but with a blue wave big enough, Republicans may not be able to hold onto this district.
In the 1st district, Republican incumbent Nick LaLota, who was re-elected with 55.5% of the vote in 2024, may be at risk of an upset. On paper, this seat looks safe. Located on the eastern end and North Shore of Long Island, including the Hamptons, this district used to be a swing district in the 1990s before leaning more and more Republican since the 2010s. But a December 2025 poll found that 41% of voters supported LaLota while 38% supported the current leading Democratic candidate Chris Gallant. With 20% undecided, this seems to indicate this could be a closer race than previously anticipated, especially as polling aggregators have continually downgraded this seat over the past year from a solid Republican win to a likely Republican win. That being said, the fight is certainly uphill. LaLota has raised $2,404,492, around eight times as much as Gallant has. LaLota is also a two term representative, and represents a collection of fairly wealthy and middle-class towns that have historically voted red. If the winds continue to blow in Gallant’s direction, this could be an interesting race to watch.
Another potential upset race will be in the 21st district. Similarly to the 1st, this race sees incumbent Republican Elise Stefanik facing a surprisingly strong campaign from Democrat Blake Gendebien. A historically blue district, Stefanik has changed the game since she won this seat in 2015. But she’s set to shift the paradigm once more, now in the other direction. After having nearly been nominated by Trump to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations in 2024, she decided in December 2025 that she would not run for reelection this cycle, leaving the race more open than expected. Republicans have rallied around businessman Anthony Constantino and he has raised over $5 million in a short time. But Democratic challenger and dairy farmer Blake Gendebien has also managed to raise an enormously surprising $4 million over the same time, making this a last minute addition to the watchlist. Don’t be fooled, the district still leans slightly red, but without an incumbent Republican, Gendebien may just be able to shock observers here.
Finally, there is one race that will not be important in the fight for control of the House, but will be very interesting to watch in order to see where internal Democratic politics is heading. In the 12th district, the district represented Midtown Manhattan and both the Upper East and West Sides. It is the most Democratic district in New York and the 9th most in the country, while also sitting high on the rankings when it comes to average wealth. As a result, the extremely crowded field has a lot of money poured into it, with four candidates raising at least $1 million already. There is a candidate focusing on big-tech regulation paired with progressive social issues, there is an establishment Democrat, there is a younger generation-focused candidate who also happens to be a grandson of John F. Kennedy, and then there is a center-left, anti-Trump coalition candidate. Each has backing and momentum, but seeing as incumbent Jerry Nadler is not running for reelection, this will be an interesting test lab for the near future of Democratic politics in elite, urban districts.
Most Competitive New Jersey Democrats in 2026
Cait Conley: NY-17
Cait Conley, 39, is a former U.S. Army combat veteran and former director of counterterrorism for the National Security Council. A West Point graduate and Hudson Valley native, Conley is leveraging her military and public service career to push into politics. After deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq across her 16-year-long career, she is focusing her campaign on issues such as lowering costs, cleaning up corruption, affordable healthcare, infrastructure, and treating climate change as a national security issue. In a crowded race, Conley has managed to raise the most money and gather the most endorsements out of any remaining candidate. $1,914,138 raised is nothing to scoff at, and when paired with a host of endorsements from current representatives and organizations, Conley has a lot of momentum going forwards. In particular, this district’s large Jewish population may actually play in Conley’s favor, despite this voting bloc often voting for conservatives. Conley’s experience in the Middle East and with counterterrorism may yield her some goodwill here, and in a district that has historically swung blue, she has a good chance of flipping this seat back.
Recent Interviews
Cait Conley on her NY District 17 House Campaign, Trump, Hegseth and the Illegal Iran War
Beth Davidson: NY-17
The other main contender in the 17th district is Beth Davidson, a 52-year-old Rockland County legislator. Davidson has deep roots in the district, having been a staunch activist when it comes to housing advocacy and administrative work. Between her time at the YMCA, her synagogue’s board, and the Environment Committee and Task Force on Water Resources Management, Davidson truly has experience in a lot of different facets of public service. Her platform is mainly focused on housing affordability, the cost of living, infrastructure, and access to things like healthcare and abortion rights. On the campaign front, she is a seasoned politician. She has ran and won multiple local level campaigns, and this time around she has raised an impressive $1,490,848 through the end of 2025. While she has less endorsements, the people of the district may resonate with her long career of local leadership more than Conley’s, and her Jewish background will help pull that conservative Hasidic community towards her campaign. While money still matters a lot in elections, and she is second on this front, local trust often is a great counter. In the end, the real question will be how much voters want their representative to play a part at the national level versus at the local level. And if they lean towards the local level, Davidson will have a lot more support and a better chance at winning the seat.
Recent Interviews:
Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson on Bid for Congress | PIX on Politics Daily
Laura Gillen: NY-04
Out in a quiet and suburban Long Island district, incumbent Laura Gillen, 56, looks out on an empty field of Republican candidates. And yet, poll aggregators only give this district a slight blue lean. Having won in 2024 by a 2.3 point margin, the former lawyer and law professor has been a staunch centrist. She declined to congratulate Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral win, she broke ranks with Democrats to pass the Laken Riley Act, she voted to censure Democratic congressman Al Green for speaking during Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address, and she recently voted to pass extra funding to ICE. Her platform aims to focus on current Democratic priorities like the cost of living crisis and local investment towards healthcare and infrastructure, while also courting conservatives with more law enforcement-oriented policies and an explicit rejection of the Democratic Party’s left wing. While this might turn off younger voters, it will certainly work in a very wealthy district that swings between parties. Gillen certainly has money of her own; she’s raised $2,858,864 already and has likely not had to spend very much so far. She will certainly win the primary, but if Republicans run Anthony D’Esposito, the previous representative, she will have to work quite hard to hold the seat. Nonetheless, polls suggest she has a slight edge, and depending on whether a blue wave is explicitly anti-ICE or not, she could either ride it to victory or die by it due to her voting record.
Recent Interviews
Rep. Laura Gillen on government shutdown and more | The Point Full Interview 10.5.25
Josh Riley: NY-19
Josh Riley, 45, is the incumbent representative in this historically competitive district. He was able to flip the district with 51.1% of the vote in 2024, and now he is looking to build on this success. Coming from a working-class background in upstate New York, Riley attended Harvard Law School before taking roles in the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a counsel to former Senator Al Franken. This is his first time now in office, and he has pushed a slew of policies that straddle the line between progressive economic populism and more moderate social and immigration policies. Riley’s main focus, like many Democrats, has been on the cost of living, campaign finance reform, healthcare, and protecting democracy. With endorsements from many organizations and a whopping $3,129,176 raised through the end of 2025, Riley is in a solid position as the campaign ramps into high gear. But Republicans will try to target this seat, and while the main challenger hasn’t raised a ton of money yet, he is a state senator with endorsements from Trump, Speaker Johnson, and Representative Mike Lawler. This will be a close race based on how previous election cycles have gone, and if Republicans see an opportunity, Riley may need to work hard to fend off his opponent.
Tom Suozzi: NY-03
Tom Suozzi, 63, is a lifelong public servant. A native to this Long Island district, his father was the mayor of Glen Cove, as was Suozzi himself for a time. He was then elected to the House in 2016 and reelected in 2018 and 2020. In 2022, he attempted to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 2022 but lost to incumbent governor Kathy Hochul. But in 2024, he managed to re-win this district 52-44, flipping this seat back for Democrats. In terms of policy, Suozzi has some commonalities with Riley and Gillen. He is focused primarily on affordability through reducing taxes, he strikes a moderate tone on immigration, he backs police funding and extending ACA tax credits, and bipartisanship and pushing back against the left wing of the party are both core to his political identity. All of this has thus far played well in this wealthy district, and there is no reason to believe that this won’t continue. Suozzi has immaculate name recognition and local connections in this district, he has raised almost 10 times the amount as his main Republican opponent (Suozzi is sitting on $3,246,484 through 2025), and after Santos’ tenure, the sense of stability that Suozzi has brought will likely earn him some goodwill from independent voters. Unless the expected blue wave in November doesn’t materialize, Suozzi should be expected to win this race.
Chris Gallant: NY-01
In contrast to Tom Suozzi’s career, the 36-year-old Chris Gallant has served the public in almost every way besides politics. A former New York Army National Guard who served in the Middle East, a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, a FAA air traffic controller and leader of his union, and a volunteer firefighter, Gallant aims to bring competence and accountability to this race and win a surprise victory against incumbent Republican Nick LaLota. In order to do this, Gallant has adopted a more moderate platform than many other Democrats in a bid to win voters in a district that went Trump’s way by 10 points. He hits the affordability and healthcare points like many other candidates, but he also aims to invest in coastal protection, something important for Long Island, and explicitly is running against what he calls “political infighting” and a lack of results from elites in DC. His efforts have yielded a lot of hope for Democrats, with a recent poll finding that 41% of voters supported LaLota while 38% supported Gallant. This is far closer than anticipated, but it will absolutely still be a tough fight for Gallant. LaLota has an incumbent and fundraising advantage in a red district. Additionally, Gallant’s identity as openly gay may or may not rub more conservative voters the wrong way. If LaLota’s popularity continues to slip, Gallant may just be able to upset him and win the seat, but both polling and betting odds are not particularly in his favor at the moment. Nonetheless, keep an eye on this race as we get closer to November.
Blake Gendebien
Blake Gendebien, 49, has made quite a stir in the race in the 21st district. A dairy farmer and lifelong resident of Lisbon, NY, he has thus far ran a campaign that may just become a model for how Democrats can win rural red districts. Besides being a dairy farmer, he is a school board member, the Vice Chair of a major regional dairy co-op, and founded a pediatric cancer nonprofit. This background of service and working-class upbringing has influenced his policy platform. Gendebien’s priorities are supporting farmers, protecting small businesses, and general rural economic development, but he also wants to push for anti-corruption measures, expanding healthcare access in rural areas, and working across the aisle to get things done without getting too much into the weeds ideologically. While none of this by itself would make much of a stir in one of the reddest NY seats, his massive fundraising efforts have turned heads. His campaign has raised $4,051,856, and is closing in on the $5,005,073 Republican candidate Anthony Constantino has raised. Constantino does not have the incumbent advantage, as the representative here, Elise Stefanik, is stepping down. This race may be Democrats’ best chance at retaking this seat since 2012, when they last controlled it. That being said, Gendebien will have a tough fight on his hands, as Republicans will almost certainly see this seat as a must-win in New York. While polling aggregators have increasingly pushed their predictions closer to a tight race, polls still lean slightly towards Constantino, so keep an eye out for data as the summer comes and goes.
Recent Interviews:
CBS6 speaks with NY-21 candidate Blake Gendebien
Alex Bores: NY-12
The first of three leading Democratic candidates in the Midtown Manhattan district, Alex Bores, 35, is an indicator for a potential future for the Democrats. Bores himself is a fifth-generation New Yorker who was a software engineer at Palantir before working in various fintech startup roles. He also was elected to the New York State Assembly in 2022, where he helped pass the AI regulation legislation (RAISE Act). With a master’s degree in computer science, he is focusing heavily on ai regulation and is best understood as a technocratic progressive. Bores is pushing for strong regulation and safety standards for AI companies, as well as countering deepfakes and job displacement. Outside of AI, Bores wants to make NYC more affordable through expanding the housing supply, he wants to strengthen democratic institutions and (interestingly) limit the influence of wealthy interests, and he strikes a pro-worker tone based on concerns about tech-driven inequality. The reason he is a frontrunner is because he has both racked up endorsements from state and federal legislators and he has raised the most in the race by a wide margin at $2,236,328. In fact, he raised $1,200,000 in the first 24 hours, but the vast majority of it was from outside of the district. With strong fundraising and a local base, Bores seems to be a favorite. But time will tell how his less locally-rooted donor base and his competition will hinder his ascent to the seat. Both of his rivals have strong campaigns, and if he manages to beat them, he could be a preview of what mainstream urban Democratic politics could be.
Recent Interviews:
Why Is The AI Industry Afraid Of Alex Bores? | Lever Time
Jack Schlossberg: NY-12
Next up in this race is Jack Schlossberg, the 33-year-old political commentator and author. The only grandson of President John F. Kennedy, Schlossberg represents the generational change Democrat in this race. He studied at Yale, Harvard Law School, and Harvard Business School before becoming a Vogue political correspondent and author. Without any traditional governing experience, Schlossberg’s campaign is focused on the aforementioned generational change, the cost of living, democracy and anti-corruption, and climate and civic engagement efforts. This platform is one that hinges on a sense of idealism and renewed faith in politics, and Schlossberg has leaned into this by vowing not to take corporate PAC or super PAC money. Despite this, he still has managed to raise $1,117,588 with a lot of grassroots donations. All of this has led to Schlossberg actually leading in the race according to multiple polls. While they all highlight large undecided blocs, the polls show a 7 to 10 point lead for Schlossberg as of February. With massive name recognition and a strong social media presence appealing to local voters, he certainly has the “vibes” part of running a campaign down. What remains to be seen is whether his lack of a detailed policy platform and governing experience irks voters as the primary nears.
Recent Interviews:
Extended interview: Jack Schlossberg
Micah Lasher: NY-12
Micah Lasher, 44, is bringing political experience and establishment support to this race. He is a freshman New York State Assemblymember, but is also a former Director of Policy for Governor Kathy Hochul, Director of State Legislative Affairs for Michael Bloomberg, aide to incumbent Representative Jerrold Nadler, and former chief of staff in the NY Attorney General’s office. Throughout all of these positions, he has focused on housing reform, minimum wage increases, gun control, and abortion protections. All of these, plus additional focuses on the cost of living, abolishing ICE, and fighting Trump-era policies, make up his policy platform. Lasher also enjoys endorsements from many of his previous bosses and has the highest fundraising potential with Michael Bloomberg’s support. He already has the second-most raised at $1,374,760, and with deep governing experience, he will certainly appeal to older voters and more mainline Democrats. But without something to make him stand out besides his experience, this NYC district may just have gotten a taste of Zohran Mamdani’s politics and push for someone more progressive than Lasher. If this happens, Lasher may just end up being the control experiment for onlookers to measure this race by. But if this isn’t the case, Lasher stands in a strong position to win the race if this becomes a financial battle of attrition.
Recent Interviews:
Full interview with U.S. House candidate Micah Lasher | The Point 3.8.26
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 New York Times and City & State New York are both great local resources for coverage of elections and issues facing New York.
New Jersey (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #18)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Nate Iglehart | 3/29/2026
After the 2024 election there was talk of New Jersey having become a swing state. For the first time since George H.W. Bush, a Republican president, had been within 5 points of taking the state (Trump still lost, however). Before then, almost every presidential election had gone blue by around 14 points. But looking deeper, there are some Republican strongholds within the state that had been, and continue to, gain ground in house and gubernatorial elections. That being said, since 2020 and especially since 2024, New Jersey may start swinging back towards the Democrats. There are a few districts which have recently had both Democratic and Republican representatives, and with a potential blue wave looming, there may be a couple seats that could help swing control of the house. The primary elections will be held June 2, 2026, with the general election taking place on November 3, 2026.
The issues facing New Jersey favor what many Democratic candidates have been focusing on across the country. Primarily, voters are concerned about affordability (in the form of property traces and the cost of living), healthcare, infrastructure, and a large state-level budget deficit. But New Jersey has some of the highest tax burdens, including a high top marginal personal income tax rate of just under 12%, meaning Republicans have the upper hand here. Democrats have controlled both houses of the New Jersey Congress since 2004, meaning the blame can fairly squarely fall on them in the eyes of many voters. A key dynamic will be just how important of an issue this becomes in the light of a host of other more pressing issues, and as other neighboring states like New York have persisted through high income taxes and even slightly raised the top marginal tax rates.
Currently, the two Senators are Democrats Andy Kim and Cory Booker, with only the latter up for election this cycle. Booker, first elected in a 2013 special election and then re-elected in 2014 and 2020, is running third full term in office and is likely to win. He is one of the most notable Democrats of late, having made many media appearances critical of the Trump administration and also still riding some name recognition from his 2020 presidential campaign. Booker currently serves on four committees: the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and the Committee on the Judiciary. His platform has always centered on social justice, criminal reform, and healthcare & social policy, but this cycle he is leaning heavily on an economic platform focused on eliminating federal income taxes on the first $75,000 of income for many Americans, expanding tax credits, and raising taxes on the rich. WHen it comes to fundraising, there is no better than Booker. $30,106,071 has been donated to his campaign through the end of 2025, and when combined with his high popularity and his importance, Booker is all but assured to retain his seat.
In the House, there are eight Democrats, three Republicans, and one vacancy in the 11th district. In ascending order, the representatives are Democrat Donald Norcross, Republican Jeff Van Drew, Democrat Herb Conaway, Republican Chris Smith, Democrat Josh Gottheimer, Democrat Frank Pallone, Republican Thomas Kean Jr., Democrat Rob Menendez, Democrat Nellie Pou, Democrat LaMonica McIver, and Democrat Bonnie Watson Coleman. Out of the twelve races, these are the Democratic names to keep an eye out for:
- District 1: Donald Norcross
- District 2: Bayly Winder
- District 3: Herb Conaway
- District 4: John Blake and Rachel Peace
- District 5: Josh Gottheimer
- District 6: Frank Pallone
- District 7: Rebecca Bennett, Tina Shah, Miachel Roth and Brian Varela
- District 8: Rob Menendez
- District 9: Nellie Pou
- District 10: LaMonica McIver
- District 11: Analilia Mejia
- District 12: Brad Cohen and Jay Vanigankar
Most Competitive Districts for Democrats
Most districts are safe in the hands of the incumbent parties largely because of both how the districts are drawn and how popular those incumbents are. However, there are four districts that will likely be “battlegrounds” in 2026.
The first is NJ-02, where Republican Jeff Van Drew is the incumbent. He was first elected as a Democrat in 2018, but announced the following year that he would be switching parties. The district is New Jersey’s largest geographically and encompasses Atlantic City. What makes this district unique is that it has shifted to the right ever since the 90s, and despite going Obama’s way in both elections, has voted for Republican candidates almost every statewide and federal election since. Van Drew, who was re-elected with 58.1% of the vote in 2024, is facing three main Democratic challengers. Additionally, Van Drew’s popularity in some polls has dropped down to 42%, with a plurality indicating that they would be open to a new representative. A candidate who embodies that “new blood” archetype might just be able to reverse the district’s rightward swing.
The next district to keep an eye on his NJ-07. The incumbent is Republican Thomas Kean Jr., who was re-elected with 51.7% of the vote in 2024, but he is facing a swatch of potential Democrat opponents who are well funded. In the Democratic primary are figures such as healthcare executive and former navy aviator Rebecca Bennett, former chief of staff for the Small Business Administration Michael Roth, former senior advisor to the U.S. Surgeon General Tina Shah, and former chair of the New Jersey Forward Party Brian Varela. This district has flip-flopped between Democrats and Republicans over the past several election cycles, and with a plurality of voters disapproving of Kean’s work thus far combined with such a narrow win in 2024, it is likely to flip again. With the northwestern district, which has become more ethnically diverse over time, being one of the most affluent congressional districts in the United States, Democrats may have to tweak their standard messaging to improve their odds here. But Kean has faced a lot of pressure due to his political closeness to Trump as well as a lot of virtual town halls instead of talking to voters in person. This will be the seat Democrats likely focus on the most.
The final district that Democrats will focus on differs from the previous two. NJ-09 will be a defensive battle, with incumbent Democrat Nellie Pou fighting to remain after being elected with only 50.8% of the vote in 2024. The district is entirely urban, stretching from Pompton lakes to northern Newark and the Hudson River-adjacent town of Cliffside Park. In the 2024 election, the district shifted dramatically to the right, voting by 1.1 points for Trump after having previously voted for Biden by 19 points. Pou still managed to win her election, but the winds were clearly shifting. That being said, much of the vote was driven by the district’s large Hispanic population, which truly helped in Trump’s 2024 election. Since then, it is highly likely that Trump has burned through any goodwill he may have had with this constituency due to his immigration policy and failure to address affordability. This seat will no doubt be close as Republican strategists see this as a district they can win back by labeling Pou as out of touch. Time will tell if a blue wave and good donor relations thus far will manage to keep Pou in office.
Most Competitive New Jersey Democrats in 2026
Bayly Winder: NJ-02
Bayly Winder, 33, is a former foreign affairs officer and Biden appointee who has branded himself as a bipartisan and pragmatic candidate. Those two facets are key to his plan for winning a district that leans slightly red. His policy focuses are centered around lowering the cost of living, protecting Medicaid and social services, anti-corruption and government reform, and a foreign policy that is in favor of foreign aid and free trade. His campaign has tried to be an antithesis to Van Drew’s by promising in-person town halls and more direct constituent engagement. Winder has also tried to pursue that “outsider” stance by criticizing both parties’ failures to address issues and corruption on both sides. He doesn’t quite have the laundry list of endorsements other candidates might, but in this race he has the most money, having raised $451,845 through 2025. On paper, this campaign seems pretty solid, but his connections to Biden’s administration will likely hurt him more than it will help him. His credentials and his bipartisan focus will definitely gain him ground, and he likely will win the primary, but in a general election Winder will have to work hard to earn the trust of the constituency.
Michael Roth: NJ-07
The first of a few candidates covered in this brief that will be running in this district, Michael Roth is a strong contender. Roth, who is in his mid-thirties, is a community investment expert who served briefly atop the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) under Joe Biden. His campaign is also focused on pragmatic center-left policies. Issues like making NJ more affordable, cutting middle-class taxes and increasing corporation taxes, increasing the housing supply and reforming zoning, and lowering energy costs through modernization all feature prominently in his platform. What makes Roth stand out is his experience at high levels of both the public and private world. It also doesn’t hurt that he has raised a respectable $610,278 so far and is a New Jersey native. But neither of those facts alone will win him the crowded primary, which is the main hurdle. It is important to note that in early March, members of the Summit Democratic municipal committee held a straw poll in the race in which Roth emerged as the winner. Yet it is early in the race, and there is still plenty of time for Roth to gain daylight between himself and the rest of the candidate pool or to flame out and be buried under the weight of many competing personalities.
Recent Interviews:
Brian Varela: NJ-07
Brian Varela, 36, is seeking to pull on the heartstrings of voters in this district. A first-generation American, Varela grew up in the working class and he emphasizes this “lived experience” narrative. After graduating from Kean University and UNC, he built a successful marketing company and later expanded into early education businesses. Varela has long been a Democratic organizer and tried to win the 2022 congressional primary here as a third-party candidate but now he is firmly a democrat. His policy focuses are on the cost of living, universal healthcare, childcare and family policies, pushing back against ICE, and acting as an outsider against political elites. Between his compelling personal narrative, business success, and outsider positioning combined with some increasingly popular progressive policies, Varela is looking to take advantage of Kean’s weaknesses and flip this seat. But without elected office experience and in a crowded field with candidates with similar positions, his personal narrative will have to do a lot of heavy lifting. So far, he has racked up endorsements from everyone including county Democratic chairs to organizations like Peace Action and the mayors of Sparta and Newark. He also has raised the second most by a Democrat in the race, riding high on $1,759,731. While he may not be the favorite yet, his story and background pair well with his policies and the issues facing New Jersey today. As we approach the primary election, keep an eye out for Varela to make a challenge to the more establishment Democrats in this race.
Recent Interviews:
Brian Varela OneNJ7 Meeting July 2025
Rebecca Bennett: NJ-07
The favorite at the moment is probably Rebecca Bennett. Bennett, a Navy helicopter pilot and aircraft commander who served for over 15 years, is running a tight campaign that has raised an inordinate amount of money. Her $1,943,974 is the most in this race, and is surprising given her lack of government or political experience. Bennett also worked in healthcare startups and larger healthcare companies, and this is a major policy area of hers. She wants to expand access to care, lower costs, and improve patient outcomes, but the rest of her platform is more generic. She values national security, and wants to combat the rising cost of living, but her website is more vague about exactly how she wants to accomplish these. While this gives Bennett more flexibility down the line, she will need to eventually sort out these questions. She does have some policies regarding environmental protections and resilient infrastructure, as well as combating the influence of special interests, but her campaign is more profile than policy-based. What makes her the favorite is her ability to fundraise without connections and run as a pragmatic, electability-focused Democrat with military precision and a healthcare worker’s focus on outcomes. With Roth and Varela breathing down her neck, she is still a long way from being a shoe-in, but if she gains momentum she may be hard to stop from winning the primary.
Recent Interviews
Nellie Pou: NJ-09
Nellie Pou, 69, is a well-known and long-serving New Jersey Democrat. Pou has one of the longest political resumes in NJ, starting as the Deputy Speaker of the NJ Assembly in 1997 before serving in the State Senate after 2012 and now in the U.S. House. Before those elections, she worked in the Paterson city government as a business administrator, youth program coordinator, and human services director. She was also the first Latina from New Jersey elected to Congress, a title that has and will win her some goodwill in her district. Pou has also positioned herself as a broad coalition-builder with appeal amongst moderates, something that can only help her in tight races like this. Her policies are grounded, focusing on healthcare and social services, expanding access to education and workforce development, social justice and immigrant protections, government funding for local programs, and infrastructure. That last area is important to Pou, as she serves on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, as well as the Homeland Security Committee. By running a low-drama campaign, she forces voters to look at her resume and political success thus far, which is a solid move. She also has vast local fundraising networks and has raised $1,773,275, dwarfing her Republican counterparts. But with her slight win in 2024, this seat is still not safe. The district is trending more competitive, and her establishment stances don’t win her support amongst both Republicans and progressives. If Pou wants to hang on to her seat, she will need to make sure that her constituents are able to trust her to continue representing them well and by ensuring that her Republican counterparts are not just extensions of Trump but their own people. Unlike other districts, connections to Trump may not be as big of a hindrance for Republicans given voters here liked Trump. But regardless, a blue wave may just give Pou the space to breathe she needs to retain her seat.
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 New Jersey Globe and the New Jersey Monitor are both great local resources for coverage of elections and issues facing New Jersey.
Space Junk and Corporate Accountability in Orbit (Foreign Policy Brief # 231)
Foreign Policy Brief #231 | By Inijah Quadri | April 13, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
Space exploration has transitioned from a public endeavor driven by international cooperation to a heavily privatized industry dominated by billionaire-backed mega-corporations. At the center of this shift is Low Earth Orbit (LEO), defined by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and NASA as the region of space at an altitude of 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) or less. Low Earth Orbit, once viewed as a pristine global commons, is rapidly becoming a celestial dumping ground. The exponential deployment of satellite megaconstellations by private tech monopolies has drastically accelerated the accumulation of space junk, raising profound environmental and safety concerns. While these networks boast of bridging global connectivity gaps, their unchecked proliferation commodifies the orbital environment, prioritizing corporate dominance over the long-term sustainability of the cosmos.
Space junk—comprising defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, and millions of fragmentation debris pieces—poses an existential threat to future space operations. The European Space Agency (ESA) maintains a comprehensive, real-time “map” and census of this congestion, illustrating a dense shroud of objects that grow more crowded by the hour. Operating at orbital velocities, even centimeter-sized fragments carry the kinetic energy of an anvil dropped from a skyscraper. The European Space Agency’s 2025 Space Environment Report indicates that there are over one million debris objects larger than a centimeter currently orbiting Earth. This congestion risks triggering the Kessler Syndrome, a theoretical cascade of self-sustaining collisions that could render specific orbital bands completely unusable for generations, cutting humanity off from vital space-based public services like climate monitoring and global navigation.
Recent deregulatory trends have only exacerbated the crisis. In early 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration abandoned proposed rules that would have strictly mandated the safe removal of commercial rocket bodies within a set timeframe. Justified under the guise of maintaining American dominance in space, the withdrawal of these regulations exemplifies a glaring failure to hold private capital accountable. By allowing private entities to externalize the environmental costs of their operations, the current policy landscape fundamentally gambles with public safety and the equitable use of outer space.
Analysis
The privatization of Low Earth Orbit represents an aggressive enclosure of the commons, where profit-driven entities are permitted to pollute a shared human resource with minimal oversight. Despite the gravity of the situation, there is currently no singular global “orbital police” force with the power to issue binding mandates. The closest technical authority is the IADC (Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee), which currently consists of 13 member agencies, including NASA (USA), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), CNSA (China), and ISRO (India). While the IADC is the global authority on how to mitigate debris, it functions as a technical body rather than a regulatory one. It works through a Steering Group and four specialized Working Groups—Measurements, Environment, Protection, and Mitigation—to reach a scientific consensus on “best practices.” However, these consensus-based guidelines only carry weight if individual nations choose to codify them into their own domestic laws.
The structural incentives of late-stage capitalism drive companies to launch as many satellites as quickly as possible to secure market share, creating an orbital house of cards. SpaceX’s Starlink alone accounts for thousands of active satellites, and recent data highlights that their network was forced to execute over a hundred thousand collision-avoidance maneuvers in just a six-month window. This staggering figure illustrates an unsustainable operational tempo, placing the burden of collision management entirely on reactive measures rather than proactive, structural regulation.
Regulatory frameworks have failed to keep pace with the hyper-commercialization of space. Current enforcement mechanisms remain dangerously weak, essentially functioning as mere slaps on the wrist that corporations can easily absorb as the cost of doing business. For instance, the Federal Communications Commission issued its first-ever space debris fine to Dish Network for failing to properly deorbit a satellite, but the penalty was a meager financial sum that completely fails to deter multibillion-dollar enterprises from future negligence. To bridge this gap, policy experts have proposed the creation of an International Space Traffic Management (STM) organization—a centralized body that would treat orbital paths as finite natural resources, similar to how maritime or air traffic is managed globally.
To prevent the Kessler Syndrome from becoming an imminent reality, policymakers and international bodies must urgently pivot from corporate appeasement to stringent, enforceable governance. Treating Low Earth Orbit as an environmental zone requiring rigorous ecological protection is paramount. This necessitates the implementation of punitive taxes on debris generation, the mandated integration of zero-debris technologies, and strict international caps on the number of satellites a single entity can operate. The European Space Agency recently adopted a Zero Debris approach, which mandates aggressive collision avoidance and strict post-mission disposal within five years, and serves as a foundational blueprint.
However, technological fixes alone cannot resolve what is fundamentally an issue of unchecked power and inequitable resource distribution. True orbital sustainability requires democratizing space governance, ensuring that the interests of marginalized communities, independent researchers, and future generations outweigh the imperialistic ambitions of a few dominant spacefaring corporations. Stakeholders must organize globally to establish binding treaties that outlaw the monopolization of orbits and enforce massive financial penalties on polluters, ensuring the space frontier remains a shared realm for the benefit of all humanity rather than an exploited playground for private capital.
Engagement Resources
European Space Agency Space Debris Office (https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris): Leading international research on space environmentalism, collision avoidance strategies, and the Zero Debris initiative aimed at mitigating orbital pollution.
Union of Concerned Scientists (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database): An advocacy and research organization maintaining a comprehensive database of active satellites, analyzing the impacts of commercial congestion and the corporatization of space.
Outer Space Institute (https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/): A network of transdisciplinary space experts focused on identifying and addressing challenges related to space governance, debris mitigation, and the equitable use of orbital resources.
Secure World Foundation (https://swfound.org/): An organization promoting cooperative solutions for space sustainability, focusing on international policy frameworks to address orbital debris and challenge unilateral space traffic management.
Space Court Foundation (https://www.spacecourtfoundation.org/): An educational nonprofit advocating for the development of space law and policy, focusing on holding private entities accountable for their activities in outer space.
Is Strava A Threat to Global Security?
Foreign Policy Brief # 230 | By Reilly Fitzgerald | April 3, 2026
Policy Summary
There is a fairly short but detailed history of covert operations, and actions, being discovered by people posting their workout data to Strava, a fitness tracking app.. President Trump’s war with Iran that began at the start of March has been involved in this issue. A French navy’s Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier was discovered moving closer to the Middle East when an officer uploaded their run to Strava which gave up the location of the ship.
Analysis
Strava is one of the most popular apps for working out, particularly for endurance athletes such as runners, cyclists, triathletes, etc. It is also especially popular with military personnel, and other secret or covert professionals around the world. Strava was released in 2009 and since then has garnered a ginormous following with 135 million users worldwide in 190 countries, and 13 languages. Needless to say, it is quite popular. People upload their workouts, including GPS location data among other details, to the app and can engage with others like a social media platform, seeing people in different locations who exercise like you do.
It is not surprising that military personnel, whose profession requires they maintain good physical shape and health, use an app such as Strava. However, the what if their location is meant to be classified?
At the outset of March, President Trump attacked Iran in a maelstrom of missile fire. This led to the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran, and many other important military and political figures in Iran. Trump’s war triggered immediate shock reactions from countries around the world, including many of our NATO allies such as France and Germany. The French began moving naval assets closer to the region to be nearer Iran and the military operations being conducted by the United States. Part of this was the movement of the Charles De Gaulle Aircraft Carrier, a French naval vessel. The location of this warship was leaked to the internet via Strava when a French Navy officer uploaded his running exercise, that was conducted on the flight deck of the ship, to Strava.
This French officer’s workout brought back up many studies done over the past decade that demonstrate some of the security dangers of Strava. For example, in 2018 the United States, and other countries, were exposed via Strava for the deployment of military and security forces around the world that were supposed to be classified or acting covertly.
Strava each year uploads the Strava Global Heatmap. This is a physical representation of all of their users’ exercise data displayed on a world map, publicly viewable for any and all people. This Global Heatmap logs about 3 trillion pieces of data representing each individual’s performance. This led to the discovery of covert military and intelligence assets in places like Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria; and did not just affect American personnel, but also European and Russian forces as well. Also included on the Heatmap was data from within military bases on US soil, as one user logged a bike ride from within the boundaries of what is known colloquially as ‘Area 51’ in Nevada. The Guardian ran a headline in 2018 that said “Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US Army bases”.
In 2018 United States Department of Defense implemented an outright ban on GPS software being on smartphones, watches, and other pieces of technology while in combat zones. This was an important policy to protect American servicemembers; however, it did not apply to domestic or international bases outside of combat areas. So, in terms of intelligence gathering capabilities of foreign adversaries, there was still a big opportunity to gather information on military forces.
Globally, Strava is still a threat to security for military personnel but also to world leaders. An article by ASIS Security Management, from 2025, discussed how potential world leaders and military commanders can become targeted via their Strava usage. For example, in 2023 a former Russian submarine commander was assassinated while running (he uploaded his workouts to the internet too); unsurprisingly, Russia blames Ukrainian forces for this act of violence.
A 2025 article in the Swedish publication Dagens Nhyeter discussed the role that Strava has played in providing security concerns for their heads of government due to their bodyguards logging their runs and exercise sessions to Strava. This has implicated bodyguards of the Swedish Royal Family and also the Swedish Prime Minister.
The employment of a bodyguard ought to be a secretive position, but they are consistently leaking their positions around the world by exercising. In the 2025 Swedish article, it was stated that over 1,400 workouts were logged while these bodyguards were exercising. The locations of various government agencies and offices; residences of governmental leaders; the personal residences of the bodyguards; routes that are used very frequently for commuting and exercise; hotels abroad; and more were all leaked to the public. Five of the 1,400 workouts were by bodyguards responsible for the protection of Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. The 1,400 workouts were logged in locales such as Israel (leading in/out of a luxury hotel where presumably the Prime Minister was located), skiing in the Alps, running in Central Park in New York City, and even on military bases in Africa.
Strava, and other GPS tracking fitness apps, pose a unique threat to global security. The ability to track people via their wearable technologies, or cellular devices, is going to lead to a more dangerous world.
Engagement Resources
- Strava Global Heat Map – https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?sport=All&style=dark&terrain=false&labels=true&poi=true&cPhotos=true&3d=false&gColor=blue&gOpacity=100#9/34.1908/-116.0576
- Dagens Nyheter Article, 2025 – https://www.dn.se/sverige/har-lacker-sapo-hemliga-uppgifter-om-ulf-kristersson/
- ASIS Security Management Article, 2025- https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/latest-news/today-in-security/2025/july/strava-privacy-settings/
Will the Meta Verdicts Spur Change? (Technology Policy Brief #166)
Technology Policy Brief #166 | By Mindy Spatt | April 14, 2026
SUMMARY
Do social media companies try to hook children on their products? Do they fail to adequately protect those children from harmful content, predators, and exploitation? Millions of parents would probably agree with the juries in California and Texas that recently answered those questions with a resounding yes. As a result, one young plaintiff was awarded $6 million from YouTube and Meta in one case, and Meta was ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties in the other. Meta and YouTube have, of course, vowed to appeal. Despite a growing awareness of the risks to children and teens online, new legislation on children’s online safety remains stalled in Congress, and a robust regulatory system is nowhere in sight.
ANALYSIS
Thousands of families of distressed teens are suing META, Tik Tok, Google, and other social media companies, alleging their children were deliberately hooked on platforms that disregarded their safety, subjecting them to exploitation and harmful content.
Social media companies have always ducked responsibility for their content, and receive immunity through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which does not hold them to the same standards as actual publishers, who are considered liable for what they publish. Two recent suits took a different approach to establishing liability.
In the California case, a young woman claimed she had become hooked on social media at a young age, resulting in her suffering from depression and anxiety. The evidence presented by the plaintiff focused on the way the platforms had been designed, including showing that the companies knew full well that features like infinite scroll, push notifications, and algorithm amplification would help hook young people, and that hooking them was absolutely the goal.
The youth market generates billions in profits, and advertisers know the easiest way to reach young people is on social media. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 36% of U.S. teens report using TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and/or Facebook “almost constantly.”
A day before the California verdict, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for not protecting young people from online harm, such as sexual predators, in breach of the state’s consumer protection laws. Dozens of other states have filed similar cases, and the financial stakes are higher than in the individual suit, with Meta ordered to pay $374 million in civil penalties.
Evidence presented by the New Mexico attorney general included internal Meta documents and testimony from former Meta employees demonstrating how Meta’s design features enabled child exploitation by pedophiles and predators. In that case, evidence of Meta’s intentional strategies to hook young people on their products was also presented.
“These products were purposefully designed to harm and addict millions of young people, and lead to lifelong mental health consequences,” commented Sacha Haworth, Executive Director of The Tech Oversight Project, in a press release about the verdict. She urged passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, now making its way through Congress.
Known as KOSA, it would establish a “duty of care” for platforms to act to prevent harmful activities like cyberbullying and sexual exploitation, strengthen privacy protections for minors, and provide parents and children with better ways to opt out of addictive algorithmic recommendations.
KOSA is controversial and has attracted the ire of free speech advocates and LGBTQ groups that fear the “duty of care” provisions will result in censorship. The Electronic Frontier Foundation questioned its likely effectiveness, saying, “This bill won’t bother big tech. Large companies will be able to manage this regulation, which is why Apple and X have agreed to support it. In fact, X helped negotiate the text….”
Age limits and parental controls have turned out to be largely ineffective, shifting even more responsibility away from the companies, even as they continue to rake in huge profits from their youngest subscribers. As is often the case, the European Union is considering a much stronger approach with proposals for:
- Complete bans on the most harmful addictive practices for minors, and automatic disabling of many addictive features for including infinite scrolling, auto-play, and reward loops,
- Actions to rein in targeted ads, influencer marketing, and addictive design, and
- Bans on engagement-based recommendations for minors and protection from commercial exploitation by prohibiting offering minors financial incentives, which is now common practice for “kidfluencers.”
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
- What is Technology Addiction? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/technology-addictions-social-media-and-more/what-is-technology-addiction
- The Tech Accountability Project https://law.yale.edu/mfia/projects/tech-accountability-project
- Kids Online Safety Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/text
- The Kids Online Safety Act Will Make the Internet Worse for Everyone by Joe Mullin, May 15, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/kids-online-safety-act-will-make-internet-worse-everyone
The Removal of the Climate Science Chapter From The U.S. Judiciary’s Scientific Reference Manual (Environmental Policy Brief #164)
Environmental Policy Brief #164 | By Jason Collins | March 23, 2026
Summary
In early February 2026, the Federal Judicial Centre removed a chapter explaining climate science from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Judges used this manual to evaluate scientific testimony in U.S. courtrooms. The removal was prompted after Republican state attorneys argued that the chapter presented climate science in a manner that could influence litigation against fossil fuel companies. The chapter,
Scientists who authored the chapter have issued a public letter warning that judges no longer have a scientific baseline to verify when evaluating climate evidence. The removal raises the question of whether scientific consensus should be removed from legal reference materials just because it is politically contested.
Analysis
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is a guide that judges use when managing cases that involve complex scientific and technical evidence during the description of evidence. The reference guide helps judges reach informed decisions backed by scientific knowledge. The chapter in question was authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton of Columbia Law School. It defined core climate terminology, described scientific consensus on climate change, the evidence of climate change, and used attribution science to explain the human causes of climate change. The chapter explained the difference between weather and climate change, making it a beneficial tool during court decisions.
The removal of the reference will influence how judges and courts understand scientific evidence.
The decision to remove the climate chapter in the reference was led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers. Lawmakers argued that the chapter is presented in a way that could bias legal outcomes, particularly in ongoing litigation against fossil fuel companies. In a statement, McKuskey said, “Bias towards left-leaning climate policies would have absolutely tipped the scales in many cases.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called the chapter “a political pamphleteering for the climate scam.”
Following the removal of the chapter, 28 co-authors of the Reference Manual issued an open letter calling the removal a “political attack.”
“Omitting the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual deprives judges of a carefully reviewed baseline explanation of the relevant science. It leaves judges without a tool to evaluate the parties’ framing, sometimes cherry-picked literature, and adversarially hired and paid witnesses,” they wrote.
The core tension lies in the gap between scientific agreement and political disagreement. Despite evidence that climate change is largely driven by human activities, climate science remains politically contested in policy and legal contexts, especially when it interacts with economic outcomes. But does that mean that legal references avoid topics that are politically sensitive?
Climate-related lawsuits are increasing in the country. For example, homeowners in Washington state have filed a landmark lawsuit against oil companies over increasing insurance premiums linked to climate change. Currently, 23 states have sued President Donald Trump’s administration for the removal of the endangerment finding in the Clean Air Act. Cases like these often rely on scientific evidence, and without the climate science chapter, judges will face greater challenges when evaluating expert claims in court. As a result, this could lead to inconsistent rulings and legal uncertainty in climate cases. Advancing Earth and Space Sciences (AGU) issues a warning about ignoring science: “Climate science is not, and should never be, a partisan issue,” and added, “Court decisions that lack access to climate science will be worse for us all.”
Engagement Resources
5 climate court battles to watch in 2026 – 5 examples of high-stakes climate court cases that would use the climate science chapter
Reference Guide on Climate Science – the chapter that was removed
EPA’s endangerment finding repeal – another example of politicians removing climate science from policy
Unmanned Imperialism: The Proliferation, Human Cost, and Future of Drone Warfare (Foreign Policy Brief #229)
Foreign Policy Brief #229 | Inijah Quadri | March 25, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
Unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, have fundamentally reshaped modern conflict, transforming the skies into a perpetual zone of surveillance and lethal action. These aerial platforms range from small, commercially adapted First-Person-View drones used for tactical strikes to One-Way Attack systems that function as loitering munitions, as well as Medium and High-Altitude Long-Endurance models capable of carrying heavy, precision-guided explosives. With capabilities spanning from real-time intelligence gathering to targeted assassinations across borders, drones grant immense destructive power at a fraction of the cost of traditional air forces. They operate via remote human piloting through satellite communications, though modern iterations increasingly rely on artificial intelligence for navigation and target acquisition.
While the United States and Israel initially monopolized this technology, the global landscape has shifted drastically. Today, countries like China, Turkey, and Iran have emerged as premier manufacturers, flooding the international market with affordable combat drones. Consequently, the proliferation of these weapons is ubiquitous. Nearly every nation-state, alongside a growing myriad of non-state actors and insurgent groups, now possesses military-grade drone capabilities. This unchecked diffusion means that devastating aerial power is no longer the exclusive domain of global superpowers, creating a volatile environment where cross-border strikes and asymmetric warfare can be executed with unprecedented ease.
Analysis
The conventional metric for measuring the effectiveness of drone warfare relies heavily on tactical advantages, celebrating the ability to neutralize adversaries and destroy expensive military hardware using remarkably cheap technology. Military strategists often laud drones for lowering the threshold of engagement, allowing states to project imperial power and conduct lethal operations without risking their own soldiers or facing the domestic political backlash typically associated with troop deployments. However, this sanitized narrative of precision and cost-efficiency actively obscures the profound human devastation left in its wake. The reality of drone warfare is defined by extrajudicial killings, decimated infrastructure, and a staggering toll on civilian populations. Far from being a clean instrument of modern combat, the drone serves as a tool of asymmetric terror, turning marginalized regions into testing grounds for the military-industrial complex.
Furthermore, the expansion of the global drone market has fueled a highly lucrative arms race that benefits private defense contractors at the expense of human lives. Nations in the Global South are increasingly subjected to devastating airstrikes, as both state forces and militant groups deploy fleets of loitering munitions with catastrophic consequences for civilian communities. The abstraction of violence—where a remote operator can extinguish a life from thousands of miles away—has severely degraded the moral and legal constraints of war. International humanitarian law remains woefully inadequate to address the rapid normalization of cross-border drone assassinations, which consistently bypass democratic oversight and judicial accountability.
Looking toward the future, the trajectory of drone warfare is hurtling toward full autonomy, presenting an existential threat to human rights. The integration of artificial intelligence is rapidly shortening the kill chain, transferring life-and-death decisions from human operators to opaque algorithms. Recent conflicts have already witnessed the deployment of AI-driven targeting systems capable of processing vast amounts of data to generate kill lists autonomously, often accepting terrifyingly high margins of civilian “collateral damage.” As autonomous drone swarms become a reality, we face a future where human empathy is entirely removed from the battlefield, replaced by machines programmed to hunt and kill. Resisting this dystopian progression requires a fierce rejection of the militarized logic that values technological supremacy and corporate profit over the sanctity of human life.
Engagement Resources
- Airwars (https://airwars.org/): A collaborative, not-for-profit transparency project aimed at tracking and assessing military actions and related civilian harm claims in conflict zones heavily impacted by airstrikes and drone warfare.
- Drone Wars UK (https://dronewars.net/): An independent organization conducting research and advocacy to challenge the growing use of armed drones, highlighting the erosion of international law and the rising civilian casualties of remote warfare.
- Center for Civilians in Conflict (https://civiliansinconflict.org/): An international advocacy group that researches the devastating impacts of modern warfare, including the rapid proliferation of drones, and demands civilian protection and accountability from armed actors.
- Amnesty Tech (https://www.amnesty.org/en/tech/): A division of Amnesty International dedicated to exposing the human rights violations facilitated by emerging technologies, including the push toward lethal autonomous weapons systems and AI-driven warfare.
- Stop Killer Robots (https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/): A global coalition of NGOs actively campaigning for a preemptive ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems to ensure meaningful human control over the use of force.
Tech Billionaires Making a Killing on AI War Machines (Technology Policy Brief #165)
Technology Policy Brief #165 | Mindy Spatt | March 21, 2026
Summary
The Pentagon is enriching the pockets of the tech billionaire owners of AI companies. While the Department of Defense/War has broken its contract with the company Anthropic, other AI companies are signing large contracts, such as Open AI and Palantir.
Analysis
The clash between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the military’s use of the company’s technology was just a tiny blip in the huge shift in military operations toward Artificial Intelligence. Anthropic’s “Claude” AI system was key in the first 24 hours of the war with Iran, and was likely used in the US’s attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro in January. In fact, Anthropic was one of the first AI companies to contract with the Pentagon. That ended a few weeks ago when Anthropic refused to allow its AI to be used for targeting autonomous lethal weapons.
Even before Open AI stepped into Anthropic’s combat boots it too had inked contracts with the Defense Department, one worth $200 million (as is the newest one), and was vying for a $100 million Pentagon prize challenge to produce autonomous drone swarms
Peter Theil and Alex Karp’s Palantir is a leading government contractor, providing AI analysis to the military and other agencies, both in the US and abroad, which may be why its market value is up to $375 billion this month. That is much more than any traditional weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are worth.
Palantir and many other AI companies are also supplying weapons technology to Israel, where AI is deployed to create lists of supposed Hamas targets on the basis of billions of data points. It does not appear to have been successful; reportedly a mere 17% of the people killed in Gaza were actual fighters, meaning the vast majority of the 75,000 dead were civilians, approximately 30% of them children.
Those disturbing statistics haven done nothing to slow the surge. Meta, Google and OpenAI, all which once had language in their corporate policies eschewing the use of AI in weapons, have removed such wording and are inking contracts worth billions to provide war and surveillance technology.
One massive multi-year $9 billion secure cloud computing contract with the military includes services from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle. Relative newcomer Anduril, a defense tech company, just signed a $20 billion deal for A.I.-backed software for the US military’s use.
This year, the Department of Defense/War intends to spend $13.4 billion on “autonomous systems” alone. That money will go toward remotely operated drones that are navigated by AI, including when they strike, and will give rise to numerous other operational costs.
In a report on the military’s use of AI technology, the Brennan Center for Law and Justice points out that the same companies raking in billions in government contracts routinely use their fortunes to influence policy and advocate for the unfettered deployment of their technology. Add to that the way tech CEOs are sucking up to Trump personally and “donating” to his vanity projects and you’ve got the recipe for the next phase of tech’s takeover of the world. Funded by your tax dollars.
Engagement Resources
- The Business of Military AI, Amos Toh and Emile Ayoub, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. March, 2026 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/business-military-ai
- AI’s Safety Promises Crumble as Defense Contracts Take Priority, The Tech Buzz, Mar.6, 2026 https://www.techbuzz.ai/articles/ai-s-safety-promises-crumble-as-defense-contracts-take-priority