JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Signal Shift on Processed Foods, Meat and Dairy (Health & Gender Policy Brief #184)
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.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Delaware (Brief #7)
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.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
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.
Impacts of the Expiration of the Affordable Care Act
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) (also known as Obamacare) was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The ACA aimed to make healthcare more affordable to more people, expand Medicaid to individuals with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level, and for private health insurance, prohibit insurers from denying coverage due to preexisting health conditions and from denying coverage to people.
ICE and excessive use of force
Earlier this month, the state of Minnesota made national and international headlines when Minneapolis resident and U.S. citizen, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE officer while attempting to leave an area she was overseeing as a legal observer.
Watching their home go up in smoke: the indigenous of the Amazon ( Environment Policy Brief #187)
The Amazon rainforest is rapidly degrading. The ecological functions of the rainforest such as absorbing greenhouse gases and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere are diminishing as the size of the rainforest shrinks. Global precipitation patterns depend upon the Amazon’s unique location on the planet. The diversity of plant life in the Amazon constitutes about a quarter of the globe’s stock of carbon biomass. There are 80,000 species of plants.
Misogyny and Abuse Are Thriving Online (Technology Policy Brief #162)
Two new reports document the alarming rise of online violence against women and girls. Sex trafficking, sexualized images, and stalking and exploitation online are nothing new. But Artificial Intelligence has exacerbated the problem. Deepfakes almost exclusively target women; in fact, some of the technology used to create them, developed by mostly male teams, only works on female forms.
FTC Escalates Enforcement Against Algorithmic Discrimination in Hiring and Credit Systems (Technology Policy Brief #162)
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) signaled that it would use existing federal law to address algorithmic discrimination in automated decision-making services regarding hiring, lending, and tenant screening. Some tech companies argue that the FTC is overreaching in the absence of explicit AI laws. The FTC’s push highlights how federal agencies are reshaping AI governance on a case-by-case basis rather than implementing broad new laws.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Connecticut (Brief #5)
Connecticut, known as the Constitution State, will feature five U.S. House races in 2026, with no U.S. Senate contests on the ballot. Both of the state’s U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, are midway through their six-year terms, having last been elected in 2022 and 2024, respectively.
Impacts of the Expiration of the Affordable Care Act
Health & Gender Brief #183 | Naja Barnes | January 14th, 2026
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) (also known as Obamacare) was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The ACA aimed to make healthcare more affordable to more people, expand Medicaid to individuals with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level, and for private health insurance, prohibit insurers from denying coverage due to preexisting health conditions and from denying coverage to people.
The ACA’s Premium Tax Credit (PTC) is a refundable credit that helps people to cover the premiums for their health insurance, which helps to lower health insurance costs for those enrolled in Marketplace insurance. The PTC was increased in 2021 and was set to expire at the end of 2025. However, on January 8th, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act PTC for three years. The Senate has yet to confirm the House’s legislation. With its future not yet decided, this raises the question of what possible impacts the expiration of the ACA’s enhanced premium tax subsidies could have on Americans and healthcare systems.
Analysis
The ACA enhanced PTC’s goal was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, but its possible expiration would do the complete opposite.
The expiration may negatively affect Americans’ health and create more of a financial burden by leading to higher health insurance premiums for millions of Americans who are self-employed, do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, and whose jobs do not offer health insurance. Those enrolled in the ACA program will start to see their premium costs increase, to where some may choose altogether to go without health insurance because they can no longer afford it. This outcome will further affect Americans by creating more financial burden if unforeseen health problems arise and they are forced to pay the full price of their medical bills. Health problems may arise or worsen, as one may neglect getting treated due to the lack of health insurance and the finances to go to the hospital. People who need insulin and other medications may no longer be able to afford the lifesaving medication needed, as there would be a risk of losing coverage.
Healthcare systems will suffer with the looming expiration of the enhanced Affordable Care Act PTC. People will not just stop going to the hospitals, but they might refuse or be unable to pay, which creates a financial strain and leads to closures. This may affect rural hospitals and healthcare systems more because rural communities have higher rates of poverty and people with lower incomes than urban areas. Due to the financial strain, job losses may occur, leading to hospitals being understaffed and staffers being overworked.
Conclusion
The enhanced Affordable Care Act Premium Tax Credit Program was set to expire at the end of 2025, but may continue for three more years if decided by the Senate. If it does not continue, many Americans and hospitals will be negatively impacted due to the financial hardships and possible health concerns that will come with the program’s expiration.
Engagement Resources
- About the Affordable Care Act https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html
- The Affordable Care Act 101 https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/health-policy-101-the-affordable-care-act/?entry=table-of-contents-what-did-the-aca-change-about-health-coverage-in-the-u-s
- Health subsidies expire, launching millions of Americans into 2026 with steep insurance hikes https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-subsidies-expire-launching-millions-of-americans-into-2026-with-steep-insurance-hikes
- Five Key Facts About Medicaid Coverage for People Living in Rural Areas https://www.kff.org/medicaid/5-key-facts-about-medicaid-coverage-for-people-living-in-rural-areas/
ICE and excessive use of force
Social Justice Policy Brief #185 | Maya Woods | January 13, 2026
Earlier this month, the state of Minnesota made national and international headlines when Minneapolis resident and U.S. citizen, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE officer while attempting to leave an area she was overseeing as a legal observer. Officer Jonathan Ross, who has an extensive background in ICE, the armed forces, border patrol, and law enforcement, was identified as the shooter, who shot Good three times through her open car window at point blank range. Although we are still waiting for more details and a potential trial, as well as input from the FBI, Vice President JD Vance has suggested that Ross is “protected by absolute immunity,” and that “he was doing his job” when shooting Good at point blank range while she attempted to drive away from the officers.
The day after the shooting, federal authorities declared the state of Minnesota had no jurisdiction to investigate the shooting, a move that has sparked legal controversy. The jurisdiction of the case has invited controversy elsewhere, as at least six top members of a Justice Department unit that investigates police killings resigned in protest after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, declined to investigate the shooting. In the aftermath of the shooting, the Justice Department said there is “currently no basis” to start a criminal investigation, prompting local prosecutors to challenge the Trump administration directly.
Policy analysis: DHS Use of Force policies
Excessive use of force has been brought up as the story continues to unfold and more details come to light. The Department of Homeland Security’s Use of Force policies were last updated in 2022, and state that DHS LEOs (law enforcement officers) are allowed to use deadly force “only when necessary, that is, when the LEO has reasonable belief that that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or others.”
On the topic of “reasonableness,” the DHS derives the threshold for use of force from the Fourth Amendment, which protects privacy and limits overreaches of government power. The DHS’s use of force policy references the 1989 Graham v. Connor case which first tested this application, when discussing reasonableness.
Graham v. Connor
In 1989, a diabetic man had a friend drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice. The man was spotted by a police officer, who initiated an investigative stop, resulting in Graham being handcuffed and sustaining injuries while trying to explain his condition. The Supreme Court ruled that use of force in such encounters must be held up to the reasonableness standard to which LEOs are held to today, due to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal search and seizure.
Today’s “reasonableness”
It is worth noting that the reasonableness standard established by Graham v. Connor is subjective and, especially in high-profile cases like Good’s death, is applied on a case-by-case basis. The concept of what is reasonable under the current administration is also likely much less reasonable than in the past. Following Good’s death, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem stated that Good “proceeded to weaponize her vehicle… The ICE officer, fearing for his life, and the other officers around him… fired defensive shots. He used his training to save his own life and that of his colleagues.” Additionally, the DHS has labeled Good’s actions as an “act of domestic terrorism,” and Good an “Anti-ICE rioter,” while Noem and other high-profile politicians have called Good a “domestic terrorist.” This commentary, in addition to the White House’s recent reframing of the January 6th Capitol riots, indicates attempts from the White House to influence public perception and memory on such matters.
Perception, of course, does not impact what really happened. Videos of the incidents have been circulated, and there was a crowd of witnesses present when Good was shot, and she appeared to be driving away from Jonathan Ross rather than weaponizing her vehicle. Vehicles, of course, can be used as weapons in confrontations with law enforcement, and it’s important that LEOs protect themselves against such threats. But video evidence shows that Ross stepped in front of Good’s car as she was trying to flee another ICE officer (likely illegally) trying to force entry into her car. Despite Ross’s dangerous positioning, he nonetheless had time to jump away from Good’s slowly moving car, leaving several feet of room between himself and Good’s car, as she was steering away from him.
Furthermore, in situations where a driver is weaponizing their vehicle, killing the driver willlikely not make that situation any safer, as the vehicle then becomes rogue, as was evidenced by Good’s car slamming into other parked cars in the neighborhood after she was shot. Had other cars not been in her car’s path, the car could have very easily struck an officer or civilian.That’s why in these situations, shooting the tires and disabling the vehicle is a much safer means of stopping an individual in a vehicle, whether they are weaponizing it or not. And regardless of whether or not the vehicle in question was being weaponized, it’s hard to fathom a situation in which a LEO would be justified using deadly force in what would, in any other situation, be viewed as a routine traffic stop. It’s also perfectly reasonable for a woman to quickly drive away from masked men approaching her car.
However, the White House’s attempt to reinterpret the case is concerning, especially given the subjectiveness of the reasonableness standard when it comes to justifying use of force. The FBI is currently investigating the case, and it is unclear what will happen next. But the agency’s input, along with any ensuing legal rulings, will likely shape interpretations of reasonableness in the future, and certainly during a Trump presidency.
Watching their home go up in smoke: the indigenous of the Amazon ( Environment Policy Brief #187)
Environment Policy Brief #187 | Todd J. Broadman | January 6, 2026
POLICY
The Amazon rainforest is rapidly degrading. The ecological functions of the rainforest such as absorbing greenhouse gases and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere are diminishing as the size of the rainforest shrinks. Global precipitation patterns depend upon the Amazon’s unique location on the planet. The diversity of plant life in the Amazon constitutes about a quarter of the globe’s stock of carbon biomass. There are 80,000 species of plants.
The degradation of this vital system is primarily due to deforestation, and behind the deforestation is agribusiness and organized crime. Climate scientists and biologists characterize the condition of the forest today as “very, very serious.” If deforestation reaches 20 – 25% there is likely to be a tipping point. At present, deforestation is at 18%. Once the tipping point is reached, a rapid acceleration of deforestation is forecasted with some scientists estimating up to a 70% habitat loss. Global carbon will then rise dramatically as will global temperatures.
As witnessed and recorded by MapBiomas Fire Monitor, the burning of the Amazon was accelerated between January and October 2025. 7.5 million acres (3 million hectares) went up in carbon smoke, an area 39 times the land area of New York City. This was actually a year-over-year decrease due to local and regional firefighting efforts, yet even this progress is fragile. In 2024, an area the size of California was transformed to cinder and ash. These fires destroyed biomass, species habitat, and tribal territory not only in Brazil, but also in Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador.
The government of Brazil is the primary player in the effort to protect the Amazon. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spoke in November of this year about their intentions at COP30 in Belem, Brazil. He said, “We have recorded the lowest deforestation rate in the Amazon in 11 years. Our commitment is to restore 40 million hectares of degraded pastureland over the next decade. But the forest is not made up solely of fauna and flora — around 50 million people live in the Amazon region of South America.” The actions he touched on were financing and the community-led securing of land rights for Indigenous Peoples. In terms of financing, he lent his support for the $125 billion-dollar Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF).
On top of the continuing threats posed by man-made fires, large portions of the Amazon are experiencing drought – four severe droughts over the last two decades. Lakes are drying up and waters that remain are turning into “steaming cauldrons,” according to hydrologist Ayan Fleischmann. He and his team have investigated the many dolphins that are now dead and dying on Lake Tefe. The water temperature there was recorded at 106 degrees Fahrenheit (41 degrees Celsius).
Man-made fire is tied to industrial agriculture, cattle ranching and farming in particular. Land is burned as a method of clearing vast stretches to accommodate cattle. Beef production along with the sales and profits that result are the primary drivers. There is a single company, JBS, based in Brazil, that dominates the meat supply chain. They purchase cattle raised by over 40,000 independent ranchers and have a stated policy that all cattle are to be bought from “deforestation-free” ranches. “They say this is going to be implemented,” one rancher observed, “and I’d say straight away: that’s impossible.” JBS does have a network of “green offices” which advise ranchers on how to comply with their rules which includes the planting of trees on previously deforested land. The Bezos Earth Fund has contributed to this process of mobilizing livestock farmers to commit to not lighting existing rainforest land on fire. One of the many hurdles with compliance is that a significant portion of Amazon land used for ranching has been taken by force. These independent ranchers must also utilize ear trackers on cattle and satellite internet connectivity to verify compliance. A practice of “cattle laundering” is commonly used to make it appear that environmental regulations are followed.
ANALYSIS
In addition to industry, drug cartels and organized crime have a significant and growing presence in the Amazon, and is worth an estimated $280 billion dollars. Criminals in the jungle live by their own laws in their pursuit of wealth. They have established 31 airstrips, 13 of which are within indigenous lands. There are hit men that routinely kill those who oppose their efforts, including tribal members. In addition to being responsible for deforestation, the criminal gangs use mercury in their illegal mining operations. They perpetrate sexual violence and drug trafficking among the Amazon’s remaining native tribes including the Yanomami.
For the U.S.’s part in trying to contain Amazon deforestation, there continue to be minor contributions made to the Amazon Fund, created in 2008 by Brazil’s National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES). The Amazon Fund’s mission is to promote sustainable use of the rainforest. That contribution from the U.S. is expected to end soon in line with President Trump’s elimination of USAID, a key partner for this program. We can expect no further participation from the Trump administration in any global climate-related conventions; there was no U.S. delegation at COP30. U.S. based NGOs such as Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Foundation will continue to campaign for Amazon’s protection.
One hopeful financing mechanism introduced at COP30 is The Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF). The initiative aims to raise $125 billion to be paid as a kind of carrot to those countries (Brazil in particular) who keep their tropical forests intact. Payments are made based upon the number of hectares of preserved forest cover. Tropical forests areas will be monitored and verified through satellite technology. 20% of TFFF funding is to be allocated to indigenous tribes.
While governments and industries of the developed world go to battle over the bounty of the Amazon, the land has been home to millions of native peoples for millennia. Perhaps this is the strongest argument for its preservation: the relationship between indigenous tribes and the forest biome they call home. There are about 350 ethnic groups with an aggregate of around 2.7 million people who call the Amazon home. 60 of those ethnic groups have little or no contact with outsiders. For them, deforestation is the painful process of removing their identities. Likewise, native communities are and will continue to be the most faithful stewards of their ancestral lands.
Engagement Resources:
- https://amazonaid.org/ envisions an Amazon free of destructive mining practices where people have access to safe, dignified livelihoods and ecosystems thrive.
- https://mongabay.org/ is an independent, nonprofit media organization reporting on nature and planetary challenges with a global network of local journalists.
- https://amazonwatch.org/ protects the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin.
Misogyny and Abuse Are Thriving Online (Technology Policy Brief #162)
Technology Policy Brief #162 | Mindy Spatt | January 8, 2026
Summary:
Two new reports document the alarming rise of online violence against women and girls. Sex trafficking, sexualized images, and stalking and exploitation online are nothing new. But Artificial Intelligence has exacerbated the problem. Deepfakes almost exclusively target women; in fact, some of the technology used to create them, developed by mostly male teams, only works on female forms.
Analysis:
AI-facilitated violence against women refers to acts of digital abuse generated and spread by online technologies that result in physical, sexual, psychological, social, political, or economic harm, or otherwise infringe on women’s rights.
According to a recent Organization of American States report on gender-based violence online, women are disproportionately victimized by cyber violence as compared to men. The report cites a long list of forms this violence can take, including:
- Non-consensual creation and distribution of photos and videos of a sexual or intimate nature
- Unauthorized publication of private information
- Impersonation and identity theft
- Surveillance and monitoring
- Cyberstalking
- Direct threats of harm or violence
- Technology-facilitated physical violence
- Abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of women and girls.
- Attacks on women’s groups, organizations, or communities
The report acknowledges that, of course, gender-based discrimination and violence against women are nothing new and are connected to, rather than separate from, violence offline. But gender based abuse is flourishing on the Internet, especially through AI-generated deepfakes.
Journalists, human rights workers, and activists are especially at risk, according to a report developed by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), a part of the Advocacy, Coalition Building and Transformative Feminist Action (ACT) to End Violence Against Women Programme funded by the European Union.
It found that a whopping 70% of women working in the fields of human rights, activism, and journalism surveyed had experienced online violence related to their work. The survey defined technology-facilitated violence against women as any act committed, assisted, aggravated, or amplified through the use of information technologies or digital tools resulting in or likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological, social, political, or economic harm. “These are forms of violence that are directed against women because they are women and/or that affect women disproportionately,” note the authors.
The mainstreaming of generative AI tools threatens to “supercharge” the risks of online violence to women in public life by making it easier and cheaper to produce and distribute abusive content.
Like the OAS report, the UN report ties online violence to physical violence. Forty-one percent of respondents in the UN survey reported experiencing physical harm along with online harassment, including assault, stalking, swatting, and verbal harassment.
Laura Bates, an author and activist in Great Britain, has been a victim. Bates runs a website called Everyday Sexism, “an ever-increasing collection of over 200,000 testimonies of gender inequality.” She is the author of many books on sexism and misogyny, including Men Who Hate Women: From Incels to Pickup Artists, The Truth About Extreme Misogyny, and How It Affects Us All. After its publication, she told an interviewer on National Public Radio that she received death threats daily, some days as many as 200, and was subjected to pornographic and abusive deepfake videos using her likeness.
Some governments are taking action. In Denmark, authorities are attempting to clamp down on deepfakes with changes to copyright laws that ensure that every person has the right to their own body, facial features, and voice. Strengthened protections give Danes the right to demand that online platforms remove content posted without their consent.
Peru has already changed its Criminal Code to include harassment, sexual harassment, sexual blackmail, and dissemination of images, audiovisual materials, or audios with sexual content, and countries including Bolivia, Brazil, and Nicaragua have established national police cybercrime divisions.
Women’s organizations are also fighting back; some are listed below.
Engagement Resources:
The Coalition Against Online Violence is a collection of global organizations working to find better solutions for women journalists facing online abuse, harassment, and other forms of digital attack.
https://onlineviolenceresponsehub.org
The Everyday Sexism Project, https://everydaysexism.com
Julie Posetti, Lea Hellmueller, Kaylee Williams, Pauline Renaud, Nermine Aboulez, and Nabeelah Shabbir, Tipping Point:The Chilling Escalation Of Online Violence Against Women In The Public Sphere, New York, December 2025. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/tipping-point-the-chilling-escalation-of-violence-against-women-in-the-public-sphere-in-the-age-of-ai-en.pdf
FAQs: AI-Powered Online Abuse: How AI Is Amplifying Violence Against Women And What Can Stop It, November 2025
Online Gender-Based Violence Against Women and Girls: Guide of Basic Concepts, https://www.oas.org/en/sms/cicte/docs/Guide-basic-concepts-Online-gender-based-violence-against-women-and-girls.pdf
FTC Escalates Enforcement Against Algorithmic Discrimination in Hiring and Credit Systems (Technology Policy Brief #162)
Technology Policy Brief #162 | Jason Collins | December 30, 2025
Summary
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) signaled that it would use existing federal law to address algorithmic discrimination in automated decision-making services regarding hiring, lending, and tenant screening. Some tech companies argue that the FTC is overreaching in the absence of explicit AI laws. The FTC’s push highlights how federal agencies are reshaping AI governance on a case-by-case basis rather than implementing broad new laws.
Analysis
Currently, no federal legislation explicitly governs the use of AI across all sectors in the U.S. Still, the FTC has invoked its authority under statutes such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
In a joint statement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the FTC said, “Private and public entities use these systems to make critical decisions that impact individuals’ rights and opportunities, including fair and equal access to a job, housing, credit opportunities, and other goods and services,” but added, “Although many of these tools offer the promise of advancement, their use also has the potential to perpetuate unlawful bias, automate unlawful discrimination, and produce other harmful outcomes.”
Together, these agencies have signaled that they will hold companies accountable where automated systems harm workers and consumers.
The FTC has maintained that existing legal authorities apply to those automated systems. In late September last year, the FTC announced Operation AI Comply, which included five law enforcement actions against operations that use AI hype or sell AI technology that can be used in deceptive and unfair ways.
In public guidance, the FTC outlined a roadmap for companies using AI to comply. Companies are expected to:
- Test their algorithms
- Be honest with customers about how and why their data is being used
- Be transparent about the AI frameworks
Throughout 2025, the FTC has brought multiple new cases involving companies like Ryter, in which the agency ultimately found no Section 5 violation. This case shows that the FTC continues to enforce its policies on a case-by-case basis.
In response to the FTC’s heightened scrutiny, some tech companies raised concerns about how far enforcement policy could go before stifling innovation. During a panel at CES 2025, current and former FTC Commissioners, including Christine Wilson and Julie Brill, sat together to examine the FTC’s role in AI oversight and in unfair and deceptive acts or practices (UDAP).
During the panel, it became clear there were two schools of thought: that the FTC should act to prevent new technologies that bring new risks, and that excessive enforcement could discourage technological advancement. However, the answer is still unclear, as no new policies or federal AI laws have been implemented yet.
The FTC is adopting a case-by-case approach to ensure fairness rather than sweeping AI regulation and seeks to fill the gaps in existing frameworks. This means that companies deploying automated decision-making systems can no longer rely on those gaps for protection.
Engagement Resources
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Connecticut (Brief #5)
Brief #5 | Morgan Davidson | 12/30/2025
Connecticut, known as the Constitution State, will feature five U.S. House races in 2026, with no U.S. Senate contests on the ballot. Both of the state’s U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, are midway through their six-year terms, having last been elected in 2022 and 2024, respectively.
On the House side, Connecticut’s current Democratic delegation consists of:
- District 1: John Larson
- District 2: Joe Courtney
- District 3: Rosa DeLauro
- District 4: Jim Himes
- District 5: Jahana Hayes
All five Democratic incumbents are expected to seek reelection in 2026. Connecticut remains one of the most reliably Democratic states in the country, with all seven members of its congressional delegation affiliated with the Democratic Party.
Looking district by district, each incumbent enters the cycle in a strong position. All five representatives benefit from the incumbency advantage, and none faced a truly competitive general election in 2024. The narrowest margin among them was approximately 53.4 percent, underscoring the relative safety of these seats even in less favorable electoral environments.
Heading into 2026, national conditions appear increasingly favorable for Democrats. Republicans are projected to underperform their 2024 vote share amid voter backlash to tariff-driven cost increases, broader inflationary pressures, and declining approval of the current presidential administration. Against that backdrop, Connecticut Democrats are well positioned to retain full control of the state’s House delegation, with few signs of serious general-election vulnerability.
Taken together, Connecticut’s five congressional districts reflect a state where Democratic strength is built through multiple, reinforcing coalitions rather than reliance on a single voter base. Urban centers such as Hartford and New Haven anchor the delegation through racially diverse, union-heavy, and progressive constituencies, while suburban and exurban districts in Fairfield County and northwestern Connecticut have shifted steadily toward Democrats amid broader trends among college-educated and professional voters. Even in the state’s more rural eastern and western regions, labor influence, defense-related employment, and demographic change have eroded traditional Republican advantages. As a result, each district enters the 2026 cycle with distinct local characteristics but a shared structural tilt that continues to favor Democratic candidates statewide. The primaries will take place on August 11th of 2026, followed by the General election on November 3rd.
District 1
John Larson:
Rep. Larson is the incumbent Democrat for CT 1. The former History teacher/football coach entered politics in the 80s & has been in his current seat for the past 27 years. As a senior member of Congress, Larson serves on the Ways and Means Committee and wields significant influence in the House. Over his career, Larson has played a central role in landmark legislation on healthcare, labor rights, gun safety, voting rights, climate policy, and Social Security reform, while delivering billions in federal funding to his district. Known as a consensus builder, he remains one of Connecticut’s most experienced and influential Democratic lawmakers.
Platform Priorities
- Social Security & seniors: Protecting and expanding Social Security benefits; lowering prescription drug costs through Medicare negotiation.
- Healthcare access: Defending and building on the Affordable Care Act; lowering out-of-pocket costs for working families.
- Labor & economic security: Strong support for unions, workplace protections, and middle-class wage growth.
- Gun violence prevention: Expanded background checks and federal gun safety reforms.
- Climate & clean energy: Investment in renewable energy, emissions reduction, and green manufacturing.
Voter & Donor Support
Larson’s base includes union households, seniors, public-sector workers, and communities of color in Greater Hartford. He benefits from deep institutional support within the Democratic Party, strong labor backing, and a long-established donor network tied to healthcare, education, and organized labor.
Why He Might Win
- Deep incumbency advantage with decades of constituent service.
- National influence through leadership on Ways and Means and Social Security.
- Strong alignment with district demographics and policy priorities.
Why He Might Lose
- Primary fatigue or generational change pressures.
- Voter desire for new leadership, though no serious challenger has emerged.
Key Election Variables
- Whether a credible Democratic primary challenger materializes.
- Senior voter turnout.
- National Democratic enthusiasm in a midterm cycle.
Electoral Odds:
General: Very low risk
Primary: Low risk, but non-zero due to tenure length
Those challenging Larson include Luke Bronin, Ruth Fortune, & Jillian Gilchrest. At one point, there were five total challengers, with one dropping out in December, underscoring the challenge of unseating Larson.
Luke Bronin
Luke Bronin is a former two-term mayor of Hartford, serving from 2016 to 2024, where he led the city through a period of fiscal stabilization, major housing investment, and the COVID-19 pandemic. As mayor, Bronin played a central role in averting municipal bankruptcy, expanding affordable housing, launching the nationally recognized Hartford Youth Service Corps, and prioritizing public safety. A Rhodes Scholar, he previously served as a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan on an anti-corruption task force and held senior roles in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department, including work on the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and efforts to combat terrorist financing. Earlier in his career, he served as General Counsel to former Governor Dannel Malloy, helping advance gun safety legislation, clean energy initiatives, and veteran homelessness reduction efforts.
Platform Priorities
- Cost of living relief: Lowering housing, healthcare, and energy costs for middle- and working-class families.
- Housing affordability: Federal investment in affordable housing supply and tenant protections.
- Climate action: Accelerated transition to clean energy and emissions reduction.
- Rule of law & anti-corruption: Protecting democratic institutions and accountability in government.
- Middle-class economic policy: Tax and financial reforms that limit advantages for the wealthiest households.
Voter & Donor Support
Bronin’s natural base includes Hartford-area Democrats, policy-oriented voters, younger professionals, and supporters drawn to executive experience and technocratic governance. His background in federal finance and municipal management positions him well with institutional donors, national Democratic networks, and reform-oriented contributors. However, he lacks the deep labor and senior-voter ties that have long anchored the district’s incumbent coalition.
Why He Might Win
- Executive leadership experience at both municipal and federal levels.
- Strong résumé on fiscal management, housing, and governance reform.
- Appeals to voters seeking generational change or a post-incumbent transition.
- Ability to frame the race around future-oriented leadership rather than seniority.
Why He Might Lose
- Challenging a deeply entrenched incumbent with decades of constituent relationships.
- Lower name recognition outside Greater Hartford.
- Potential skepticism from labor and older voters loyal to existing representation.
- Risk of the primary electorate prioritizing seniority and congressional influence.
Key Election Variables
- Whether Democratic primary voters prioritize experience and continuity versus renewal.
- Bronin’s ability to consolidate progressive, reform-minded, and younger voters.
- Fundraising performance relative to the incumbent.
- Turnout levels in Hartford versus surrounding suburban towns.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Low to moderate – viable challenger, but uphill against a well-established incumbent.
- General: High – District 1 remains overwhelmingly Democratic regardless of the nominee.
Ruth Fortune
Ruth Fortune is an attorney, mother, and immigrant-rights advocate whose personal story anchors her candidacy for Congress. She immigrated to the United States as an undocumented child and later built a professional career in law, framing her journey as an example of upward mobility achieved through perseverance and public investment. Fortune is running on a message centered on expanding opportunity for working families, strengthening democratic institutions, and ensuring that constitutional rights are protected for all residents, regardless of background.
Platform Priorities
- Economic equity: An economy that works for working- and middle-class families, not just top earners.
- Public education: Investment in quality public schools and equitable access to educational opportunity.
- Immigration & civil rights: Protecting immigrant communities and defending constitutional freedoms.
- Democratic norms: Opposition to authoritarian governance and defense of democratic institutions.
- Social justice: Policies aimed at reducing systemic inequality and expanding opportunity.
Voter & Donor Support
Fortune’s natural base includes progressive activists, immigrant communities, younger voters, and Democrats motivated by lived-experience representation. Her support network is more grassroots-oriented, with strength among small-dollar donors and advocacy-driven organizations rather than institutional or corporate donors.
Why She Might Win
- Compelling personal narrative that resonates with voters seeking descriptive representation.
- Strong alignment with progressive values in urban parts of the district.
- Ability to mobilize grassroots enthusiasm in a low-turnout primary.
- Clear contrast with long-tenured incumbents on generational and experiential grounds.
Why She Might Lose
- Limited name recognition beyond activist and progressive circles.
- Fundraising disadvantages relative to both incumbents and better-connected challengers.
- Difficulty expanding appeal to older, labor-aligned, and institutional Democratic voters.
- Structural challenge of unseating an entrenched incumbent in a safe Democratic seat.
Key Election Variables
- Progressive turnout levels in Hartford and surrounding urban communities.
- Ability to convert grassroots enthusiasm into sustained field operations.
- Whether the primary electorate is motivated by change versus continuity.
- Fundraising viability through the early and mid stages of the campaign.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Low — credible values-based challenge, but structurally disadvantaged.
- General: High — the district is safely Democratic regardless of nominee.
Jillian Gilchrest
Jillian Gilchrest is a four-term Connecticut State Representative, social worker, and mother who has built her political career around translating community needs into legislative outcomes. In the state legislature, she has focused on policies affecting working families, healthcare access, and reproductive rights, and currently serves as Chair of the Human Services Committee. Gilchrest’s campaign emphasizes a people-first approach to governance, rooted in direct constituent engagement and a rejection of special-interest influence.
Platform Priorities
- Reproductive freedom: Protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.
- Healthcare affordability: Lowering healthcare costs and expanding access to care.
- Working families: Paid family and medical leave, childcare support, and economic security.
- Human services: Strengthening safety-net programs and social services.
- Progressive governance: Centering constituent voices in policymaking over corporate interests.
Voter & Donor Support
Gilchrest’s base includes progressive Democrats, women voters, healthcare and social-service professionals, and constituents familiar with her legislative work. She is well-positioned to attract support from advocacy organizations focused on reproductive rights and family policy, as well as small- to mid-level donors aligned with progressive causes. Her state-level visibility provides a stronger institutional foundation than that of first-time challengers, though it is still well short of incumbent-scale networks.
Why She Might Win
- Proven legislative record with tangible policy wins.
- Clear alignment with progressive priorities in an urban, Democratic district.
- Ability to consolidate voters seeking both experience and generational change.
- Strong credibility on healthcare and family-focused policy.
Why She Might Lose
- Competing against a long-tenured incumbent with deep district ties.
- Risk of progressive vote fragmentation among multiple challengers.
- Fundraising gap relative to the incumbent.
- Difficulty expanding name recognition beyond her state legislative base.
Key Election Variables
- Whether progressive challengers consolidate or split the anti-incumbent vote.
- Turnout among women, younger voters, and urban Democrats.
- Endorsements from major advocacy or labor organizations.
- Fundraising momentum early in the primary.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Low to moderate- stronger than a purely grassroots challenger, but still uphill.
- General: High- the district is safely Democratic regardless of the nominee.
District 2 – Joe Courtney
Joe Courtney has represented Connecticut’s Second Congressional District since 2007 and is a senior member of the U.S. House with deep influence on defense, veterans, and workforce policy. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and is the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. Courtney has played a central role in securing long-term investment in submarine production and naval infrastructure, supporting thousands of defense-sector jobs in eastern Connecticut and strengthening the region’s military presence. A longtime advocate for veterans, farmers, and working families, he previously served in the Connecticut General Assembly and is known for his bipartisan approach and sustained focus on constituent-driven economic and national security priorities.
Platform Priorities
- Veterans and military families, defense-sector employment.
- Labor protections and infrastructure investment.
- Healthcare access and rural economic development.
Voter & Donor Support
Courtney draws strong backing from labor unions, defense-industry workers tied to Electric Boat, veterans, and older voters across eastern Connecticut.
Why He Might Win
- Longstanding ties to working-class and defense communities.
- Consistent record on jobs and veterans’ issues.
Why He Might Lose
- The district remains more politically mixed than others.
- National Republican overperformance in rural areas.
Key Election Variables
- Turnout in New London and Windham Counties.
- National security and defense spending debates.
General: High but more contested. If Republicans have a shot it may be this district but national tides should favor the Dems & the incumbent here.
Primary: High- incumbency should seal this but the challenger is of quality.
Kyle Gauck
Kyle Gauck is an Army veteran, business-minded Democrat, and father running for Congress in Connecticut’s Second District. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2010 and served as a specialist with the 5th Special Forces Group, deploying to the Kuwait–Iraq border in 2013. Following his military service, Gauck built a professional background spanning aerospace defense, business, and creative industries, and is currently pursuing an MBA at the University of Connecticut. Living in eastern Connecticut with his wife and two daughters, Gauck frames his candidacy around service, integrity, and practical leadership rooted in both military experience and private-sector problem solving.
Platform Priorities
- Healthcare access: Protecting and expanding the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid; lowering premiums and out-of-pocket costs; expanding telehealth and rural healthcare infrastructure.
- Veterans’ services: Fully funding the VA, streamlining claims, expanding mental health and suicide prevention services, and increasing housing and job-training support.
- Reproductive freedom & LGBTQ+ rights: Federal protection for abortion access, support for gender-affirming care, and passage of the Equality Act.
- Government accountability: Congressional term limits and a ban on stock trading by members of Congress.
- Rural investment: Broadband expansion, support for rural hospitals, and economic development across eastern Connecticut.
Voter & Donor Support
Gauck’s natural base includes veterans, younger voters, healthcare-focused Democrats, and reform-oriented constituents skeptical of career politicians. His campaign is positioned toward grassroots and small-dollar donors, with limited evidence of institutional or major-donor backing at this stage. His military background may resonate across partisan lines, particularly in veteran-heavy communities within the district.
Why He Might Win
- Military service provides credibility on national security and veterans’ issues.
- Clear reform message on healthcare, accountability, and term limits.
- Potential appeal to voters seeking outsider or nontraditional candidates.
- Ability to connect healthcare access to rural and working-class concerns.
Why He Might Lose
- Running against a well-established incumbent with deep district ties.
- Limited name recognition beyond early supporters.
- Fundraising and campaign infrastructure remain unproven.
- District’s Democratic electorate has historically favored experience and seniority.
Key Election Variables
- Veteran and rural voter turnout in eastern Connecticut.
- Gauck’s ability to translate grassroots enthusiasm into sustained fundraising.
- Whether accountability and reform messaging gains traction in a low-profile primary.
- Incumbent strength and absence of broader anti-incumbent sentiment.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Low- credible message, but significant structural disadvantages vs an incumbent.
- General: High the district should remain Democratic regardless of nominee.
District 3
Rosa DeLauro
Rosa DeLauro has represented Connecticut’s Third Congressional District since 1991 and is one of the most senior and influential Democrats in the U.S. House. She serves as Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, giving her direct oversight of federal investments in healthcare, education, labor, and biomedical research. Throughout her career, DeLauro has built a national reputation as a leading advocate for working families, championing higher wages, paid leave, child tax credits, food safety, and affordable healthcare while consistently opposing trade agreements that undermine U.S. jobs. A longtime leader within the Democratic caucus and a former executive director of EMILY’s List, a platform to elect pro-choice women to Congress, she remains a central figure in shaping progressive economic and social policy in Congress.
Platform Priorities
- Progressive economic policy and labor rights.
- Public health, food security, and education funding.
- Reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ protections.
Voter & Donor Support
Strong support from progressive voters, labor, healthcare advocates, academics, and New Haven’s diverse urban electorate.
Why She Might Win
- Deeply Democratic district.
- Longstanding progressive credibility.
- Strong name recognition and fundraising base.
Why She Might Lose
- Age and tenure could invite primary challenges.
Key Election Variables
- Progressive turnout.
- Potential generational primary challenger.
Electoral Odds
General: High
Primary: High
Damjan Denoble
Damjan Denoble is a civil rights and immigration attorney, entrepreneur, and father of three running as a Democratic challenger in Connecticut’s Third Congressional District. His family arrived in the United States as refugees from the former Yugoslavia, an experience he cites as foundational to his political identity and commitment to civil liberties and democratic institutions. After graduating during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Denoble built a career spanning healthcare consulting, international policy work, and journalism, including freelance reporting for Nikkei Asia. Upon returning to the United States, he founded a law firm and the nonprofit FronteraTECH.org, where for more than a decade he has represented immigrant families and workers facing systemic abuse. Denoble frames his candidacy as a response to entrenched political power and argues that long-serving leadership has failed to meet the urgency of current economic, democratic, and environmental challenges.
Platform Priorities
- Universal healthcare: Treating healthcare as a guaranteed right, with expanded coverage and cost controls.
- Affordable housing: Large-scale public investment to address housing shortages and rising rents.
- Democratic reform: Challenging entrenched political power and promoting structural accountability.
- Civil rights & immigration: Strong protections for immigrants, workers, and due process.
- Climate & environmental protection: Aggressive action to protect regional and national environmental interests.
- Constitutional governance: Defending democratic institutions and countering authoritarian movements.
Voter & Donor Support
Denoble’s natural base includes progressive activists, civil rights advocates, immigrant communities, and voters dissatisfied with long-tenured incumbency. His background in nonprofit work and legal advocacy suggests strength among small-dollar donors and issue-driven supporters, while institutional party, labor, and large-donor backing remains uncertain at this stage.
Why He Might Win
- Distinct outsider narrative in a district dominated by long-term incumbency.
- Strong ideological clarity and willingness to challenge party orthodoxy.
- Appeal to voters seeking structural reform rather than incremental change.
- Ability to frame the race around urgency, democracy, and generational transition.
Why He Might Lose
- Running in one of the safest Democratic districts in the country.
- Challenging a nationally influential incumbent with deep institutional support.
- Messaging may resonate strongly with a narrow but intense electorate rather than the broader primary base.
- Limited evidence of a scalable fundraising or field operation.
Key Election Variables
- Progressive and anti-incumbent turnout in New Haven and surrounding communities.
- Whether voters prioritize seniority and committee power over reform-oriented messaging.
- Denoble’s ability to convert philosophical critique into concrete electoral organization.
- Presence or absence of additional challengers fragmenting reform-minded voters.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Low- ideologically distinct but structurally disadvantaged.
- General: High- District 3 is safely Democratic regardless of nominee.
Andrew Rice
Andrew Rice is a first-time Democratic candidate, molecular biologist, and member of the Democratic Socialists of America running to challenge Rep. Rosa DeLauro in Connecticut’s Third Congressional District. A University of Connecticut graduate living in Milford, Rice left his job in the biotech sector to campaign full-time, arguing that his scientific work ultimately served corporate interests rather than the public good. He frames his candidacy as a generational and ideological challenge to long-serving Democratic leadership, particularly on healthcare and foreign policy.
Platform Priorities
- Medicare for All: Government-run single-payer healthcare.
- Foreign policy shift: Ending U.S. military aid to Israel amid the Gaza conflict.
- Labor reform: A 30-hour workweek.
- Housing policy: Seizing vacant homes held by private equity to expand housing supply.
- Anti-corporate politics: Reducing the influence of corporate money in Democratic policymaking.
Voter & Donor Support
Rice’s support is concentrated among younger left-wing activists, DSA-aligned voters, and issue-driven progressives dissatisfied with incremental reform. He relies primarily on grassroots enthusiasm and small-dollar donations. Institutional Democratic backing and major donor support are effectively nonexistent, and even the Connecticut DSA chapter has not committed to endorsing his campaign.
Why He Might Win
- Clear ideological contrast with the incumbent on healthcare and foreign policy.
- Appeal to a small but motivated segment of progressive voters.
- Ability to force debate on issues party leadership has avoided.
Why He Might Lose
- Running against a nationally respected, deeply entrenched incumbent.
- Minimal name recognition and limited campaign infrastructure.
- Lack of endorsements from major progressive organizations.
- District electorate broadly aligned with the incumbent’s record.
Key Election Variables
- Whether progressive dissatisfaction translates into measurable primary turnout.
- Rice’s ability to qualify for the primary ballot.
- Media attention generated by issue-based confrontations.
- Overall Democratic primary turnout in a safe district.
Electoral Odds
- Primary: Very low- primarily symbolic and issue-driven.
- General: High- District 3 is safely Democratic.
District 4 – Jim Himes
Jim Himes has represented Connecticut’s Fourth Congressional District since 2009 and is currently serving his ninth term in the U.S. House. He is the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and serves on the House Financial Services Committee, giving him a central role in national security oversight and economic policy. Raised by a single mother and shaped by years living abroad in Latin America, Himes brings an international perspective to Congress and has focused his legislative work on affordable housing, economic opportunity, and access to quality healthcare and education. Prior to Congress, he worked in finance and led nonprofit efforts to expand affordable, energy-efficient housing, experiences that continue to inform his policy approach and emphasis on pragmatic governance.
Platform Priorities
- Financial regulation and economic stability.
- Suburban cost-of-living concerns.
- National security and democratic institutions.
Voter & Donor Support
Strong backing from college-educated suburban voters, finance-sector donors, and Democratic professionals in Fairfield County.
Why He Might Win
- The district has shifted decisively Democratic.
- Strong alignment with suburban political trends.
Why He Might Lose
- No real reason. There are no primary challengers at this time & no Republican challenger.
Key Election Variables
- Suburban swing voter behavior.
General: High- only challenger is an Independent candidate at the time of writing
Primary: Uncontested
District 5
Jahana Hayes
Jahana Hayes has represented Connecticut’s Fifth Congressional District since 2019 and serves on the House Committee on Education and Workforce and the House Agriculture Committee, where she is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture. A former public school teacher, Hayes built her career around expanding equitable access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity, and has focused her legislative work on nutrition policy, labor, veterans’ issues, and gun violence prevention. First elected in 2018, she made history as the first African American woman to represent Connecticut in Congress, bringing a background in education, bipartisan lawmaking, and community advocacy to a diverse district spanning central and northwestern Connecticut.
Platform Priorities
- Education investment and teacher advocacy.
- Healthcare affordability.
- Economic opportunity in mixed urban-rural communities.
Voter & Donor Support
Hayes’s base includes educators, voters of color, and urban Democratic strongholds, with growing support among younger voters.
Why She Might Win
- Strong personal narrative and educational background.
- District trends increasingly Democratic.
Why She Might Lose
- One of the more competitive district in the state.
- Requires consistent turnout in urban cores.
Key Election Variables
- Democratic turnout in Waterbury and Danbury.
- Independent voter swing.
General: High- the state should remain solidly Democratic
Primary: Likely to be unchallenged
Challengers
Hayes has two challengers in Jackson Taddeo-Waite & Winter Solomita but neither have campaign sites, interviews, or any record of donations. Unlike other incumbents in the state, Hayes is young & has not invited the quality challengers members like Larson or Rosa DeLauro who are both over 75.
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_Connecticut,_2026
- CT Mirror- The CT mirror is a go to resource on Connecticut Politics- https://ctmirror.org/
- Larson on re-election- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT6oYT9sal0&themeRefresh=1
- Luke Bronin on challenging Larson- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPq-LaemI4
- Ruth Fortune Reel- https://www.facebook.com/RuthFortuneForCongress/videos/1558069945219157/
- Jillian Gilchrest- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRxeZ2OEkOQ/
- DeLauro on the House floor speaking out against Trump- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFV-oC6pijw
- Damjan Denoble- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F2GHTYOO_o4
- Damjan Denoble 2040 vision- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMg0yG5MSoP/
USRESIST 2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #6: Colorado
Brief #6 | Ryan Dulaney | 1/2/2026
Senate Candidates Up for Election (Democratic Primary)
- John Hickenlooper
- Julie Gonzales
- Karen Breslin
- Brashad Hasley
- Anthony Zimpfer
House Candidates Up for Election (Democratic Primary)
- Diana DeGette
- Carter Hanson
- Melat Kiros
- Santiago Palomino
- Tiffany Rodgers
- Wanda James
- Joe Neguse
- Cinque Mason
- Kyle Doster
- Alex Kelloff
- Trisha Calvarese
- Eileen Laubacher
- John Padora Jr.
- Jenna Preston
- Zurit Horowitz
- Jessica Killin
- Justice Lord
- Joe Reagan
- Jamey Smith
- Michelle Tweed
- Matt Cavanaugh
- Jason Crow
- Dylan Shelby
- Brittany Pettersen
- Shannon Bird
- Manny Rutinel
- Daniel Hassler
- Larry Johnson
- Evan Munsing
- John Szemler
- Dave Young
There are ten congressional seats up for the 2026 election in Colorado. All of the state’s eight U.S. House of Representatives seats and one U.S. Senate seat. The Democratic Party currently holds four of the eight House seats and both U.S. Senate seats in a state that has trended Democratic of late.
Colorado’s political balance has shifted significantly in recent years. Once a battleground, the state is increasingly blue, especially in urban and suburban centers. Democrats have increased support in recent cycles, mostly driven by demographic changes and increased turnout in population centers. Republicans continue to outperform in rural and low population density regions, but their vote share has eroded in much of the state.
The state’s population of 5.8 million people is concentrated in metropolitan regions; with a substantial number of younger and college-educated voters who have increasingly backed the Democratic party. Issues such as affordability, healthcare, climate policy, and reproductive rights, are expected to shape the 2026 federal contests.
Colorado’s primary election is scheduled for June 30, with the general election on November 3.
Democratic Primary Candidates (House + Senate)
U.S. Senate
Seat Up for Election: John Hickenlooper (D-incumbent)
- Basic Info: Incumbent U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper, a former governor and Denver mayor, is seeking re-election in 2026.
- Challengers:
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Hickenlooper: Older and moderate Democrats, business community, established fundraising networks.
- Gonzales: Younger progressives, grassroots activists, labor and progressive coalition supporters.
Why he might win?
- Strong statewide name recognition, deep fundraising base, broad appeal across moderate Democratic voters.
Why he might lose?
- Primary challenge from progressive wing, potential voter desire for generational change.
Key election variables
- Primary turnout among progressive vs. moderate Democrats; fundraising gaps.
Chances of winning: High (Hickenlooper is a popular incumbent)
U.S. House — Democratic Primary Fields
CO-1
A safely Democratic district in Denver and surrounding communities.
- Diana DeGette – Incumbent U.S. Representative.
- Carter Hanson, Wanda James, Melat Kiros, Christopher Oldfield, Santiago Palomino, Tiffany Rodgers – Challengers seeking the Democratic nomination.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Urban progressive coalition, long-time Democratic base; incumbency strength generally carries institutional support.
Why she might win?
- Long incumbency, fundraising infrastructure, established voter support.
Why she might lose?
- Primary challengers could appeal if Democratic base seeks fresh representation.
Key election variables
- Name recognition vs. appetite for change in a crowded primary.
Chances of winning: High
CO-2
A Democratic stronghold in Boulder and northern Front Range.
- Joe Neguse – Incumbent U.S. Representative.
- Cinque Mason – Primary challenger.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Progressives, younger voters, university communities; strong donor support.
Why he might win?
Why he might lose?
- Low likelihood unless major shift or upset.
Key election variables
- Primary turnout; challenger viability.
Chances of winning: High
CO-3
A more competitive district but with Democratic primary candidates:
- Kyle Doster, Alex Kelloff – Democratic primary candidates.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Emerging progressive and moderate supporters as field develops.
Why they might win?
- Broad appeal to emerging voters if message resonates.
Why they might lose?
- Republican incumbent advantage in general.
Key election variables
- General election competitiveness in a swing district.
Chances of winning: Moderate to Low
CO-4
A Republican-leaning district with Democratic primary candidates:
- Trisha Calvarese, Eileen Laubacher, John Padora Jr., Jenna Preston – Declared Democratic primary candidates.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Democratic minority voters and activists; limited donor networks.
Why they might win?
- Exceptional national environment favoring Democrats.
Why they might lose?
- Strong Republican incumbent environment.
Key election variables
- District partisanship, turnout patterns.
Chances of winning: Low
CO-5
Democratic primary candidates include:
- Zurit Horowitz, Jessica Killin, Justice Lord, Joe Reagan, Jamey Smith, Michelle Tweed — Democratic candidates.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Grassroots voters, suburban progressives.
Why they might win?
- If unified around key issues like affordability.
Why they might lose?
- Republican tilt of district.
Key election variables
- Candidate quality, turnout.
Chances of winning: Low
CO-6
- Jason Crow – Incumbent U.S. Representative.
- Dylan Shelby – Challenger.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Broad suburban base, moderate donors.
Why he might win?
- Incumbency, fundraising.
Why he might lose?
- Challenger has minimal traction.
Key election variables
- General election environment; GOP strategy.
Chances of winning: High
CO-7
- Brittany Pettersen – Incumbent U.S. Representative.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Suburban Democrats, women voters.
Why she might win?
- Incumbency in a Democratic-leaning district.
Why she might lose?
- Unlikely primary challenge upset.
Key election variables
- Turnout patterns in Denver metro.
Chances of winning: High
CO-8
Competitive open seat:
- Shannon Bird, Daniel Hassler, Larry Johnson, Evan Munsing, Manny Rutinel, John Szemler, Dave Young — Democratic primary candidates running to challenge incumbent GOP Rep. Gabe Evans.
Which population groups support? Donor support?
- Diverse coalition of suburban and moderate voters; fundraising profiles vary.
Why they might win?
- Targeted DCCC interest in flipping the seat.
Why they might lose?
- GOP incumbent advantage and district structure.
Key election variables
- Suburban turnout; candidate consolidation.
Chances of winning: Moderate
Summary
Colorado’s 2026 election cycle includes eight Democratic U.S. House primaries and one Democratic U.S. Senate primary. The Senate race features a notable primary challenge to an incumbent, while House contests range from safe Democratic districts to competitive swing seats where Democrats see opportunities to expand representation. The outcomes will depend on candidate quality, turnout dynamics, and broader national political conditions
Montana Youth Return to Court to Block Laws Weakening Climate Protections (Environment Policy Brief #186)
Environment Policy Brief #186 | Jason Collins | December 30, 2025
Summary
A group of young activists from the landmark Held v. Montana case filed a new challenge against recent state laws. The filed petition challenges several statutes passed by Republicans that threaten the activist group’s victory in the Montana Supreme Court in 2024. According to the group, the new changes are violations of the state’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” The youth plaintiffs are preparing for a renewed legal fight and highlighting that climate harms are a constitutional issue.
ANALYSIS
The young group, led by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm, is asking the Montana Supreme Court to overturn three laws passed in 2025, saying they undermine the group’s 2024 victory.
In Held v. Montana, the court affirmed the state’s protection from climate-change-related harms and recognized that government actions contributing to climate change can violate constitutional rights. Now, the youth group argues that the new laws violate this result.
The first law targeted is Senate Bill 221 (SB 221), which revises the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) environmental review process. Under the new law, agencies are only required to inventory six specified greenhouse gases. The law also limits the state’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the State’s Clean Air Act.
House Bill 285 (HB 285) makes it harder for agencies to deny permits for fossil fuel projects, even if those projects are harmful or worsen the climate crisis. The third law the group wants overturned is House Bill 291 (HB 291), which the group argues prevents state agencies from adopting stricter air quality standards than federal law.
Republican lawmakers cited improved clarity and efficiency in MEPA as reasons for the new laws. Still, Nate Bellinger, attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a press statement that “Montana’s leaders are openly defying the Constitution and the Supreme Court.” He added, “Held made clear that these youth are being harmed now and that Montana has a constitutional duty to protect them. Instead, lawmakers passed laws with the explicit intent to undermine the court’s ruling.”
The group is asking the court to hear the case as an original proceeding and to declare the 2025 CAA and MEPA provisions unconstitutional. In the petition, the youth shared that they were already experiencing ongoing harms as a result of the state’s refusal to comply with Held. The petition lists harms such as respiratory illness from wildfire smoke and fossil fuel pollution, property damage linked to extreme weather, and loss of access to forests and lakes.
Lawmakers argue that environmental regulation and expansive climate review can slow economic development. Reuters reported that earlier in May, when Montana’s Republican governor, Gregory Gianforte, signaled the new amendments, Gianforte said, “Last year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that if left unchecked would have impacted Montana’s energy sector at a time when Americans have seen electricity costs soar nearly 30 percent in the last four years.”
The outcome of this challenge has broad implications. The case challenges whether state legislatures can sidestep a state Supreme Court ruling and pass laws that contradict it.
Engagement Resources
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #224)
Foreign Policy Brief #224 | Abran C. | December 30, 2025
Latin America’s shift to the right
Latin America’s shift towards the political right has continued following the recent elections in both Chile and Honduras. In Chile the election of the far-right Jose Antonio Kast marked the country’s most significant shift rightward since the former Chilean dictator, Agusto Pinochet. The election of Kast now makes three neighboring South American states formerly at odds, Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, firmly in control by the rightwing and all seeking closer relations with the United States. In Honduras the Trump backed candidate, Nasry Asfura has been declared the winner after a more than two week long vote count left those in the small Central American country in suspense. Following the election results, the opposing Liberal Party candidate, Salvador Nasralla refused to concede and alleged interference in the election process by the United States after President Trump conditioned continued aid to the country on whether the right-wing candidate won. Trump also pardoned the former Honduran President found guilty of trafficking drugs to the United States.
The region has firmly moved away from its left-leaning majority after the second “pink tide” (term used to refer to the leftward shift of countries in Latin America) that swept the region in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Economic crisis, migration and violence that has continued to plague the region and anti-status quo sentiment has led to the political reversal. In 2026 the region has elections in Costa Rice, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Haiti to look forward to.
Cambodia’s Defense Minister Tea Seiha, left, and Thailand’s Defense Minister Nattaphon Narkphanit hold documents during the special General Border Committee meeting at a border checkpoint in Thailand’s Chanthaburi province.Agence Kampuchea Press / AFP Photo
Thailand and Cambodia sign ceasefire deal (Again)
Last week Thailand and Cambodia signed another ceasefire agreement that seeks to end weeks of fighting that began after the former July 2025 ceasefire deal was broken. The two countries blame each other for instigating the fresh round of fighting, which has spread to nearly every province along their border. Cambodia’s Defence Ministry said Thailand’s military struck first, carrying out a heavy bombardment of disputed border areas. Meanwhile Thai media claimed that Cambodian forces had launched heavy attacks overnight along the disputed border, where many homes were damaged by shelling.
Both countries claim to have acted in self-defence and accuse the other of attacking civilians. Yet since breaking the ceasefire deal, the two neighbours’ combined killed more than 40 people, according to official counts. About a million people have also been displaced. The conflict stems from a territorial dispute over the colonial-era demarcation of their 500 mile long frontier and a collection of temple ruins situated there.
A firefighter walks at the site where a Russian drone struck a residential building during a night of Russian drone and missile attacks, amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine, Dec. 27, 2025. Photo by Thomas Peter/Reuters
New round of attacks on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv
Russia launched a new wave of strikes on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv in the final days of the year. The strikes killed one person and wounded 27 just one day before a meeting between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. The two leaders met in Florida last week for further talks on ending the near four year long war. Zelenskyy described the attacks as evidence of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s false narrative on seeking peace. Zelenskyy stated “This attack is Russia’s answer to our peace efforts. It really shows that Putin doesn’t want peace,”.
The Russian ministry in turn said the strike was in response to Ukraine’s attacks on “civilian objects” in Russia. The past few weeks saw targeted bomb attacks in Moscow that killed Lt. General Fanil Sarvarov. General Sarvarov was the head of the Operational Training Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces’ General Staff. Since the beginning of its invasion of Ukraine, Russian authorities have blamed Kyiv for several high-profile assassinations of military officers and public figures in Russia. Ukraine has claimed responsibility for some of them, but has not yet commented on either of the recent attacks.
A missile is launched from a military vessel at an unidentified location, in this screen grab obtained from a handout video released by the Department of War on December 25, 2025. U.S. Department Of War Via X, Via REUTERS
US airstrikes inside of Nigeria
The US has carried out air strikes in Nigeria targeting two Islamic State-linked camps in the Bauni forest of the country’ s Sokoto State. The strikes are the outcome of a months-long tense diplomatic clash between the West African nation and the US that has morphed now into a new form of cooperation. The strikes were approved by Nigerian President Bola Tinubu and launched from maritime platforms domiciled in the Gulf of Guinea. Following the attacks, US President Donald Trump announced the strikes on Truth Social, saying that U.S. forces had launched strikes against Islamic State militants at the request of Nigeria’s government and laid out the reason for the attacks. Trump said it was based on claims of the group targeting Christians in the region and said there would be more military action to come. Nigeria’s foreign minister called the airstrikes a “new phase of an old conflict” and also said he expected more strikes to follow, stating “For us, it is something that has been ongoing,” referring to attacks that have targeted both Christians and Muslims in Nigeria for years.
U.S. Deports Russian Dissidents who Face Prison or Draft in Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #223)
Foreign Policy Brief #223 | Yelena Korshunov | December 30, 2025
In October 2025, U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported on its official website that more than 2 million undocumented immigrants had already left the United States — including 1.6 million who voluntarily self-deported and more than 527,000 who were forcefully deported. “This is just the beginning,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin proudly stated.
Among those being deported are a growing number of Russians, including dissidents, i.e. those who dared to speak out against the war in Ukraine. They had fled Russia to save their lives — seeking protection in a nation once regarded as a global stronghold of democracy. They have also found themselves caught in the ICE machinery. This summer, Russians were massively deported from the U.S. on at least two occasions.
The human rights organization Human Rights First reported that ICE Flight Monitor tracked two flights in June and August 2025 involving the transfer of detained Russian nationals from U.S. government custody to Egyptian authorities in Cairo. The organization noted that “recent reports indicate that Russian nationals aboard those two flights were subsequently forcibly returned by Egyptian authorities to Russia, including individuals who had been detained in the United States for over a year after seeking asylum.”
According to The Insider, the exact number of Russians deported was not immediately known. The only approximate figure available to date comes from late August 2025, when the United States deported at least 30 Russians—including political asylum seekers—in a single day.
Additionally, in early December 2025, another group of Russian political refugees was deported back to Russia, a country they had once been fortunate to escape. Upon arriving at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport during the night of December 9, the men were immediately issued draft notices, according to a report by the independent Russian media resource Agenstvo, which cited Dmitry Valuyev, president of the organization Russian America for Democracy in Russia.
Valuyev believes the notices handed to the forcibly returned men most likely concern mandatory military registration or orders to appear at local enlistment offices. However, Agentstvo was unable to establish contact with any of the deported individuals.
News of the flight carrying deportees emerged on December 7. Valuyev noted that the precise number of Russians on the flight remains unknown. The BBC also reported on the deportations, revealing that on December 7 a plane departed from an airport in Mesa, Arizona, transporting Russians and Iranians removed from the U.S. Various media outlets estimate that there have already been three or four such “deportation flights” with Russians in 2025. (ARE THESE THE
Among those deported earlier was Russian activist Leonid Melekhin, who had previously been detained multiple times in Russia for participating in protest actions. In August 2024, he crossed the Mexico–U.S. border and applied for political asylum. He spent several months in U.S. immigration detention, and his asylum request was ultimately denied, resulting in his deportation. In July 2025, upon Melekhin’s deportation to Russia, a court in a Russian city Perm arrested him charged with “justifying terrorism.”
Many other dissidents who have been deported back to Russia face terrifying consequences upon their return. For previously speaking out against the war, they will be thrown into prison and sent to penal colonies from which there is virtually no escape. The same fate awaits many of them as befell Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader who recently died (or was killed) in a Russian penal colony.
Engagement Resources:
- DHS Removes More than Half a Million Illegal Aliens From US
- ,https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/27/dhs-removes-more-half-million-illegal-aliens-us
- Asylum-Seeking Russians Deported From U.S. at Risk of Persecution and Forced Mobilization, Activists Warn, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/12/10/asylum-seeking-russians-deported-from-us-at-risk-of-persecution-and-forced-mobilization-activists-warn-a91389 (Independent News from Russia)
- ICE Flights Monitor: September 2025 Report, https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/ice-flight-monitor-september-2025-monthly-report/
- U.S. deports another group of Russians on ICE flight to Egypt, https://theins.ru/en/news/287546