JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

Dangers lurk as Zeldin repeals EPA’s endangerment finding (Environment Policy Brief #189)

Scientists first suspected a link between greenhouse gases and climate in the mid-19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize in chemistry with calculations in 1897 that linked burning coal to global warming. From that time onwards, scientists took up studying this linkage with better tools, more resources, and coordination.

JD Vance Blames the Victims (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #203)

Long before Vice President JD Vance shrugged off the killings of American civilians Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, he had already established his brutal pattern of showing remorselessness for the victims. But with the senseless and savage killings of Good and Pretti, Vance has gone even lower to actively blaming the victims, and pushing baseless claims about them to absolve their killers.

The Beijing Summit: Global Capital, Nationalist Rhetoric, and the Future of U.S.–China Coexistence (Foreign Policy Brief #227)

As the global community enters the second quarter of 2026, the geopolitical landscape is dominated by the upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, scheduled for the first week of April in Beijing. This meeting follows a period of extreme volatility in bilateral relations that defined the first year of the second Trump administration. Throughout 2025, the relationship was characterized by a reignited trade war, with the United States imposing aggressive reciprocal tariffs that at times reached triple digits on Chinese imports. These measures were met with targeted Chinese retaliation, including boycotts of American agricultural products and export controls on rare earth minerals. However, a significant turning point occurred in October 2025 during a meeting in Busan, South Korea, where both leaders agreed to a one-year trade truce. This temporary reprieve rolled back the most punitive levies and led to a resumption of Chinese purchases of American soybeans and energy, providing a fragile stability that the April summit seeks to formalize and extend.

A Proposed Billionaire Tax Divides Democrats in California (Health & Gender Policy Brief #185)

A proposed billionaire tax authored by a powerful healthcare workers union could go to the voters in California if the sponsors can collect the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. Even before it has, powerful politicians and tech billionaires are divided, some supporting it, others organizing against it and willing to spend millions to do so.

President Trump’s Odd Proposal to “Nationalize” U.S. Elections (Civil Rights Policy Brief #250)

On February 2, 2026 President Donald Trump stated in a podcast interview that Republicans in a number of states should take over elections in their states in order to protect the political party. He then added that elections in the United States should be “nationalized” and run by the Federal Government rather than the current setup where elections are run by individual states.

Indiana (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #12)

Indiana can be considered a relatively safe Republican stronghold. Both the senators from the state are Republicans, and only 2 of the 9 representatives are Democrats. This year, neither Senator Todd Young nor Senator Jim Banks are up for election, but the house is a different story. All nine seats are up for grabs in theory, although most seats are drawn in a way that all but ensures the current party makeup from changing. That didn’t stop President Donald Trump from trying, however, as late last year he urged the state of Indiana to redraw its congressional districts to unseat incumbent Democrats Frank Mrvan of the 1st district and André Carson of the 7th district. Despite a Republican-supermajority in the Senate, a Trump vow to primary Republican holdouts, and anonymous bomb threats, the measure failed and the maps remained unchanged.

Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed

The Trump administration has revived a policy of entering into Asylum Cooperative Agreements with secretive terms that violate the right of a person physically present in the US to seek asylum. The policy isn’t a new one; Trump did it in his first term, but it’s being used much more extensively now, alarming judges and advocates and frightening asylum seekers.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Indiana (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #12)

2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Indiana | Nate Iglehart | 2/5/2026

The state has fared pretty well over the past few years. It boasts a relatively low cost of living and a low cost of doing business, as well as having a low state-level amount of debt. However, it has ranked increasingly poorly in areas such as net migration, public health, and environmental safety. Those latter two issues have generally played slightly better for Democrats, but even then, most districts outside of the 1st and 7th lean red by hefty margins. That being said, if the special election in Texas was indeed a canary in the coal mine, there are a couple of districts that could be up for grabs. The primary elections will take place on May 5, 2026, with the general elections on November 3.

For starters, those 1st and 7th will more than likely remain safe Democrat seats, with Mrvan and Carson both popular, well funded, and in blue districts. While the Cook Political; Report places all seven Republican districts as safely Red, I think that the race in the 5th district, represented by Republican Victoria Spartz since 2021, is a flippable seat. The district is only +8 for Republicans, and while the funding gap is sizable, funding alone may not save a candidate with only one term under her belt and a blue wave looking increasingly likely. Out of the 9 races, these are the names to look out for:

District 1: Frank Mrvan
District 2: Jamie Decio
District 3: Phil Goss and Kelly Thompson
District 4: Drew Cox
District 5: Jackson Franklin and Deborah Pickett
District 6: Cinde Wirth and Raymond Alt
District 7: André Carson and George Hornedo
District 8: Mary Allen
District 9: Jim Graham and Tim Peck

Most Competitive Districts for Democrats

The most competitive districts for Democrats in Indiana include Indiana’s 1st Congressional District (IN-1) and its 5th Congressional District (IN-5). The 1st was widely considered a battleground district in 2024, and while Mrvan has gained ground each election, it is still seen as only a blue district by 1 percentage point. Perhaps time and Mrvan’s popularity will keep it blue, given its urban makeup and location close to Chicago. Democrats know this is an important seat to hold, given the million dollars they’ve helped Mrvan raise, and local pundits don’t think the seat will change red. A good defense here will be a reassuring win for Democrats across the state.

The other competitive district, Indiana’s 5th Congressional District (IN-5), is one where Democrats can go on the offensive instead. Incumbent Republican Victoria Spartz is popular but not wildly so, the district only leans red by 8 points, and some of her challengers have good experience running here. This district encompasses much of the northern suburbs of Indianapolis, including the cities of Carmel, Noblesville, and Fishers, while other population centers include Muncie, Kokomo, Anderson, and Marion. The district is predominantly white and is the wealthiest congressional district in Indiana, as measured by median income. For the Democrats, leaning on Trump’s endorsement of Spartz is a good move, alongside hitting her on her high staff turnover and allegations of a difficult working environment. Spartz also has pushed for fiscal responsibility, and her inability to reign in government spending is a notable weak point on her resume. While it is unlikely, if the Democrats were to flip a seat in the state, it would almost certainly have to be this one.

Most Competitive Indiana Democrats in 2026

Frank Mrvan: IN-1

Frank Mrvan, 56, is the incumbent representative for this district since 2021. Previously, he served as a mortgage broker and pharmaceutical sales representative, before entering politics in 2005 as the township trustee for North Township, Indiana. During his time in Congress, he has sought to protect reproductive healthcare, grow the regional economy, and protect the steel industry. Mrvan also serves as the Vice-Chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus and is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. This election cycle, his platform has not changed much. Mrvan wants to protect reproductive healthcare, grow the local economy, protect public education, protect laborers, and lower healthcare costs. His focus on the labor and manufacturing industries in this district, which encompasses Gary, Indiana, as well as almost all of the Indiana side of the Chicago metropolitan area, is a good move. As a result of this makeup, the district leans heavily blue, and has not elected a Republican representative in almost a century. Mrvan’s $1,419,470 war chest will certainly also help him overcome whatever Republican candidate wins the primary. Additionally, his strong party-line voting record and high participation in Congress mean he will not lack support from Democrats in a Democrat-heavy district. It is almost certain that Mrvan will win the primary and the general election, barring some major news.

Recent Interviews:

Regionally Speaking | US Congressman Frank Mrvan | From the Region to Capitol Hill

D. Ford: IN-5

J.D. Ford entered the Indiana Statehouse in 2018, flipping a long-held red district in the process. So far, his focuses have been on affordability, healthcare, and equality. The last point is particularly important to Ford, as he is Indiana’s first and currently only openly LGBTQ+ state legislator. He sits on many committees: Education and Career Development, Elections, Ethics, Family and Children Services, Health and Provider Services, Local Government, and Rules and Legislative Procedures. All of this legislative experience is his only professional experience, following his bachelor’s in criminal justice and political science and his master’s degree in education from Purdue University Northwest. His focus will play well in this district, where its wealthier suburban voters are more tuned into national trends. Ford’s funding numbers aren’t available yet, but if he is able to gain ground quickly, he can become the favorite in this district and look to upset Spartz.

Deborah Pickett: IN-5

A former Army reservist and policy researcher, Deborah Pickett is also looking to unseat Spartz in this district. Pickett earned a bachelor’s degree from Skidmore College in 1981, and her career experience includes working as a community advocate and researcher with the Center for Integrative Development and the Hudson Institute. Much of the research experience revolved around education projects before shifting to trade policy and international economic studies. All of this experience has crafted a Democrat with a very moderate and well-researched platform. Alongside defending democracy, government welfare, and the environment, Pickett is heavily focused on investing in a well-trained and well-equipped military that works to protect the strong trade and humanitarian alliances Pickett wants the U.S. to engage in. This may end up being a bit of a gamble. With affordability a big issue, she seems to sideline it a bit, and while that is less of an issue with a richer district, it signals a focus more on policies that benefit the nation and not primarily the district. If voters think she will forget about them, they may not back her. This, combined with a paltry $6,645 raised so far means she has an uphill battle. But her military focus will likely play well with some disillusioned Republicans and independents, and Democrats will likely vote for her nonetheless in a general election. If she manages to win the primary, Pickett would be in a solid spot to make this a tight race.

Jackson Franklin: IN-5

Jackson Franklin is a Staff Sergeant in the Indiana Army National Guard, having served as a combat medic since 2019 and deployed to Kosovo in 2023. After the military, Franklin worked as an EMT and as a policy advisor for many local campaigns. But now he wants to emulate his idol, Bernie Sanders, and is pushing for a progressive vision of the country. His platform hits many of the hallmarks of a progressive: universal right to housing, universal healthcare, universal basic income, nationalizing the pharmaceutical and fossil fuel industries, protecting democracy, legalizing cannabis, and taxing the rich. This will be a fascinating race to watch if Franklin wins the primary, because it will be a true test of progressivism in a red district. But for the primary, he will have a bit of work to do. He already has raised $16,778, more than Pickett, but his youth at 25-years-old and his lack of true government experience will make many older voters hesitate. Plus, progressivism in a red district is a big risk. However, the fact that he raised that much money without corporate donors is a testament to some level of local support. Additionally, while many voters will be turned away by his talk of nationalizing industries, his focus on universal services could still be appealing in a district that is wealthier than average but not rich. With Ford taking the standard establishment route and Pickett taking the moderate route, Franklin’s progressive path will provide a great lab for Democratic planners to look at how popular these policies are.

Engagement Resources:

Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels:
- United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2026 – Ballotpedia
Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness:
- 2026 CPR House Race ratings | Cook Political Report
- 2026 CPR Senate Race ratings | Cook Political Report
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization focused specifically on state government, policy, and elections: Indiana Capital Chronicle

Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed

Immigration Policy Brief #193 | Mindy Spatt | January 28, 2026

Summary

Analysis
The first Trump administration began eliminating the right to seek asylum in the United States by signing Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These are meant to derail asylum claims by immigrants going through the legal process to seek asylum from violence or persecution in the United States, by sending the applicants to other countries before their claims are heard, ostensibly to seek asylum elsewhere.

After a Congressional report documented the abuses resulting from the agreements, the Biden administration quickly withdrew from them. Now they are back, speciously labeled “safe third country” agreements, and are being deployed against asylum seekers who, when attending routine court hearings, can have their applications completely derailed by a motion by the Department of Homeland Security to “pretermit” them to another country or countries to pursue their asylum claims.

Pretermitted asylum seekers can be sent to the same area they are fleeing from, Central America in many cases, or countries they have no connection to, including Ecuador and Uganda. For example, Guatemalans could be “removed” to Honduras, theoretically to apply for asylum there; Hondurans could similarly be sent to Guatemala.

At a recent immigration court session in San Francisco, a government attorney made pretermit motions in many of the cases. The judge expressed concerns about the terms of the agreements, including how many asylum seekers can be removed to each country and how robust the asylum procedures are in the countries named in the motions to pretermit. The government attorney immediately responded that the Board of Immigration Appeals has already approved the practice, and the rules don’t permit immigration judges to deny the motions on the basis that they need more information. Judges are severely limited in their authority over motions to send asylum seekers to “safe” third countries.

While the judge’s questions remain unanswered, there’s no reason to think the agreements will provide more benefits than they did in the past. Which was none at all. Hundreds of Honduran and Salvadoran families were subject to the Guatemalan ACA from late 2019 to March 2020, before the COVID pandemic ended the practice. When the democrats were back in power, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released an investigation that found that not a single asylum seeker transferred from the United States had received asylum in Guatemala, and that individuals had been “subjected to degrading treatment and effectively coerced” into returning to their home countries.

Georgetown University also criticized the practice in a report entitled Dead Ends: No Path to Protection for Asylum Seekers Under the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement. It concluded that Guatemala did not meet the standards for a “safe third country” and that the rights of asylum seekers were being violated regularly by both U.S. and Guatemalan officials.

For those subject to an ACA, there is no requirement that a person have even passed through the third country before being sent there, let alone have any connection to it. Reportedly, DHS attorneys are being told by the White House to seek dismissal of all Spanish-speaking asylum applicants

There are very few ways for asylum applicants to challenge such motions, especially if the respondents are appearing without an attorney, as is the case in the majority of cases. Judges in San Francisco often give asylum seekers 3 months to try to find an attorney and to gather evidence as to why they would face persecution, danger or a serious threat if they were sent to any of the three countries suggested by the government, usually Guatemala, El Salvador, or Ecuador. In most cases, a person or their family or a close associate had experienced persecution, violence or threats there.

In the past, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were among the top countries from which asylum was granted, with almost 4,000 applications approved from these countries in 2018 alone. The problems that would cause a person to flee one country are equally present in each of the other two, but that is not relevant to the claim of fear. This is especially true of the continuing threat of gang violence in the region; Guatemala recently declared a national state of emergency to address gang violence.

With that, sending people back to these nations appears to violate the United States obligation under international law to avoid “refoulment,” the practice of forcibly returning refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to violence or persecution. That is, of course, unlikely to deter the Trump administration from doing so.

Engagement Resources

Deportation with a Layover

Failure of Protection under the US-Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement

https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/deportation-layover/failure-protection-under-us-guatemala-asylum-cooperative

Monitoring The Human Cost Of The U.S. Government’s Forced Third

Country Transfer Agreements, Website launched December 5, 2025,

https://www.thirdcountrydeportationwatch.org

Along with carbon emissions, U.S. climate accords go up in smoke

Environment Policy Brief #186 | Todd J. Broadman

POLICY

A year ago, at the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as President, he signed Executive Order 14199, requesting a “government‑wide review” of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States formally supports. That review resulted in a signed a memorandum on January 6^th of this year that specifies that the U.S. formally withdraw from 66 “organizations, conventions, and treaties.” Included in the 66 are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other important climate treaties. In all, the U.S. withdrew from 31 UN bodies.

Given that Trump considers man-made climate change a hoax, this recent directive is a bureaucratic formality. The official reason for U.S. non-participation? These agreements “undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas.” An early example was the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement which took effect January 27, 2026. Yet another climate change agreement that preceded the Paris Agreement, one that pledged U.S. support for climate change activities in developing countries, has also been exited.

Given that the U.S. is the second largest carbon emitting country (behind China), there are troubling implications. Domestic policies that maximize oil production are being pursued along with trade and investment policies that favor overseas mineral and oil extraction. Acquiring mineral-rich foreign territories by force or the threat of force is also an implemented strategy. GNP growth is still tightly linked to a reliance upon carbon-based energy. Withdrawal from global treaties is also consistent with the U.S. being the globe’s largest exporter of crude oil and petroleum by-products – exporting more than even Saudi Arabia.

While 27% of carbon emissions are from China, the U.S. is responsible for 13% and is sending a clear message to other UNFCCC and IPCC member states that regardless of its global climate impacts, the U.S. acts alone, independent of other states and does so solely in support of its own national interests. In the face of this bold exit, the U.N. insists that the U.S. has a “legal obligation” to pay its fair share of membership dues essential to fund agency operations. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres publicly announced he regretted the decision.

The U.S. had been contributing 20% of the UN’s budget. There are consequences for no longer paying dues. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, the U.S. will lose its vote in the General Assembly. Not much of a consequence though, given that the U.S. has been acting independently of most UN protocols. The U.S. will though, maintain its pivotal seat on the Security Council.

Within the framework of the UNFCC, the legal basis for carbon emission limits, there was good reason to believe that emission reduction targets would be met. Developed countries, led by the U.S., must report on greenhouse gas emissions and changes to domestic energy policies. The UNFCC was signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the Senate. Once again, the U.S. has chosen to isolate itself. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “once the withdrawal takes effect one year from signing, the United States will be the only country not engaged in the UNFCCC.”

With international agreements reduced to scraps of paper, the question arises as to what domestic obligations will be adhered to. Very few. Back in 2009, the EPA put in place a new set of standards based on years of evidence pointing to climate change – known as the “endangerment finding.” Like the international “scraps of paper,” Trump wants to rip-up that finding and does not want any environmental standard to impede growth and energy production.

Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director and Lead Economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that “withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe.”

As if there must be some immediate payoff to continue membership with these international organizations, Marc Rubio countered with “there is little to nothing to show for it,” concluding that “it is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people.” When asked why, Rubio added that the organizations were “mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful and poorly run.”

ANALYSIS

This pulling away from world conventions and treaties ushers in a new, multi-polar geopolitics, variously called the Trump Doctrine or “Donroe” Doctrine. He no longer has interest in a liberal international order with the U.S. modeling a global vision of a better world. Multilateral commitments, free trade interdependence, and international law are viewed as constraints on U.S. freedom.

This executive action to withdraw from international treaties is in line with other global actions and serves to further isolate this country. The idea of solidarity and cooperation to make life on earth sustainable for future generations is no longer a collective undertaking. The link between burning fossil fuels and long-term value of human rights has been severed. The larger scope of the administration is to distance itself from any “progressive ideology,” a government that has the right and freedom to make its own rules and answer to no one because of its military might.

Also important to note are the UN programs that the U.S. will continue to support. These include UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP), albeit with 90% budget cuts for each organization. The U.S. will continue its support of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“He’s just taken a bazooka and blown the whole thing apart,” says Nina Schwalbe, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Policy and Politics. She used the image of a tree cut down to describe Trump cutting ties to the World Health Organization. “Now he’s cutting down the whole forest,” she concluded.

USResist Resources:

https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/ helps senior civil servants around the world to meet global challenges by building their expertise, knowledge and connections.

https://sustainabilityonline.net/ aims to provide current news, insights, and opinions from the business world regarding sustainability in all its various applications.

Trump’s Policies to Increase Pronatalism in the U.S.

Health & Gender Policy Brief #185 | Naja Barnes | February 4th, 2026

Pronatalism is the belief that our society’s duty is to encourage people to have more children (National Women’s Law Center). This belief is rooted in boosting the economy, embracing eugenics, and increasing white nationalism. Elon Musk is echoing this belief by stating that the answer to saving civilization is by having more children. Except that sentiment does not ring true for everyone. And it is not reflective in the Trump Administration’s policies and actions.

Analysis

Some of the Trump Administration’s past and recent policies and policy recommendations contradict the Administration’s push for an increase in the size of the U.S. population. One example is the Administration cutting federal spending of Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which many American families depend on to feed and keep their families safe and healthy. The Administration’s crackdown on immigration is also lowering the U.S. population. However, to counter the declining birth rates, the Trump Administration has targeted contraceptives, proposed monetary benefits to mothers, is currently trying to make IVF more accessible, and reportedly proposed incentives to people with children.

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, funding for contraceptives has been reduced, and the Administration has also cut funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood that administer birth control and supply contraceptives. There have been orders to destroy contraceptives that were meant for family planning aid in developing countries, which were set to be destroyed, but were then wasted.

A way propopsed to increase the birth rates in the U.S. under Trump’s Administration is through the use of monetary benefits. One of the benefits would be to give $1,000 from the ‘Trump Account’ to babies with social security numbers born between January 2025 and December 2028. This money is strictly for the baby and is only to be accessed when the child turns 18. Another reportedly proposed monetary benefit is the $5,000 “baby bonus” to new mothers after delivery.

As far as IVF and its affordability, Trump struck a deal with the drug company Merck KGaA to lower the cost of its IVF medications. Trump also issued an executive order that calls for policy recommendations to reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatments.

Incentivizing parents through programs is another way in which the Administration is aiming to increase the population. They are reportedly considering committing to reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for applicants who are married and have children. In 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy circulated orders to his department to give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average in response to awarding loans and grants (Population Connection).

Conclusion

Trump’s goal to increase the birth population is boosted by the Administration’s lowering of funding for reproductive aid and contraceptives.. Policy recommendations such as monetary benefits, IVF accessibility, and incentives are additional ways the Administrations are planning to combat the decline in birth rates.

Engagement Resources

Project 2025 and Pronatalism: How Trump’s Allies are Pushing a Far-Right Family Agenda

https://nwlc.org/project-2025-and-pronatalism-how-trumps-allies-are-pushing-a-far-right-family-agenda/

Trad Values Meets Tech

https://politicalresearch.org/2025/03/27/trad-values-meets-tech

Pronatalism in the US: The Trump administration’s push for more births

https://populationconnection.org/learn/pronatalism-in-the-us/

Trump’s immigration crackdown led to drop in US growth rate last year as population hit 342 million

https://apnews.com/article/census-bureau-immigration-trump-us-population-7130f180e3d8c03185932e3e6f9974e8

Idaho (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #11)

Idaho | Ryan Dulaney | 1/26/2026

Primary Date: May 19, 2026

General Election: November 3, 2026

Democratic Party Overview

The Democratic Party in Idaho is implementing an expanded strategy aimed at competitive races in 2026. The Idaho Democratic Party recently launched its “All In for Idaho” campaign to recruit local candidates and grow voter registration, especially in rural and traditionally conservative communities that have often been overlooked.

U.S. Senate — Democratic Field

The sole Democratic candidate in the U.S. Senate primary is David Roth, a realtor and 2022 Democratic Senate nominee, who has filed to run in 2026.

David Roth, 43, brings name recognition from his previous statewide run and is running to provide Democratic voters with a strong option in a state dominated by Republicans. While Democratic votes are unlikely to overcome the GOP’s advantage, Roth’s experience on the ballot and support base could help maintain party momentum into 2026.

Age: 43 Gender: Male

Current Position: Consultant

Why he might win: While this seat is expected to remain Republican, Roth’s recognition among Idaho Democrats and his ability to unify the base makes him the leading candidate for nomination.

U.S. House — Democratic Fields

Idaho has two U.S. House districts, and Democrats have no current Democratic members of the Idaho House delegation.

ID-01

Kaylee Peterson – 33, Female, is an Artisan jeweler and former nominee in both 2022 and 2024.

Ken Brungardt – Age unknown, is a Retired painting contractor and passionate anti-MAGA Democrat.

Peterson has raised more funds and name recognition than Brungardt, giving her an edge in organizing and outreach.

Why she might win: Peterson’s repeat candidacies provide continuity and name familiarity across Democratic voters in Idaho’s most competitive congressional district, strengthening turnout and volunteer networks despite the overall Republican lean.

ID-02

Julie Wiley, age unknown, retired counselor.

Wiley’s strength in the Democratic primary is name recognition among local Democratic activists. Her service background and narrative about helping families and schools could resonate with primary voters who value lived experience.

Kansas (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #10)

Kansas | Ryan Dulaney | 1/26/2026

Primary Election: August 4, 2026
General Election: November 3, 2026

Democrat House Members up for Re-election
Kansas has one Democratic member of the house up for re-election Sharice Davids of the 3rd Congressional District.

Senators Up for Election
One U.S. Senate seat is up in 2026, currently held by Republican Senator Roger Marshall.

Senate Democratic Candidate

Christy Davis, Age: unknown, is a Former Kansas Director of USDA Rural Development.
Davis could win because of her history of work with rural communities and experience in economic development, allowing her to connect with moderate and independent voters across the state.

House Democratic Candidates

KS‑01 Colin McRoberts, Age: unknown, currently a Community advocate.
McRoberts could win by interacting with local Democratic voters using a grassroots approach and presenting a strong alternative to the Republican incumbent.

KS‑02 Don Coover, Age: unknown, a Veterinarian and small business owner.
Coover could win because his roots in rural areas and his focus on practical and community-centered solutions make him relatable to independents and moderate Republicans.

KS‑03 Sharice Davids, Age: 44, is the district’s sitting U.S. Representative.
Davids could win just from being an effective incumbent, furthermore her strong connection to Democrat voters and proven fundraising and campaign organization will play a major role in the coming elections.

KS‑04 Chris Carmichael, Age: unknown. He is currently an Attorney.
Carmichael could win by emphasizing his local knowledge and professional experience, making him appeal to Democratic primary voters looking for a credible challenger in a Republican-leaning district.

Iowa (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #9)

Iowa | Morgan Davidson | 1/28/2026

In 2026, Iowa will see one Senate race & four House races in its congressional elections. The Hawkeye state has been a Republican stronghold since Trump came on the scene in 2016, but the Cook Political Report currently has two of Iowa’s House seats as toss-ups. In a year where Democrats should be expected to overperform, we could see Hawkeye voters change the distribution of the state’s legislative power in Washington. Currently, all 6 of Iowa’s congressional seats are held by Republicans, but 2026 could see one, if not more, of these change. Voters will be able to cast their ballots in the primary on June 2, 2026 & in the general election on November 3, 2026.

At the Senate level, Joni Ernst announced she would be stepping down, clearing the way for an open-seat race in Iowa for the US Senate. Ernst’s departure is a bit shocking, given Trump’s dominance in the state in 2024, when he achieved his highest vote share in his three times running at 55.7%, up from 51.7% & 53.1% in 2016 & 2020, respectively. That said, she has been criticized from the Right for being too moderate & attacked on the left for her stance on abortion. Ernst has been a leading figure in the fight to restrict a woman’s right to choose, making her out of step with national voters, but this position would have seemed to put her in safe graces with Republicans, particularly Republican primary voters. Ultimately, her pushback on nominations like Hegseth & refusal to endorse Trump in the Iowa caucus led MAGA elite to view her as an enemy. Ernst cited wanting to spend time with her family as to why she would not run in 2026, but threats by Trump allies to primary her tell a different story.

4 Republicans & 4 Democrats have filed to run for the open Senate seat. On the Republican side, Ashley Hinson appears to be in the lead with 3 million more cash on hand than any of her Republican colleagues. While Democrats should be more competitive here than they were in 2024, but the Republican advantage will be hard to beat even in a midterm year where Dems are likely to rise in a backlash election. 3 Democrats appear to be viable candidates for the seat: Nathan Sage, Josh Turek, & Zach Wahls, all of whom have raised over 1 million dollars for their campaign, appear to be in a close fight to win the party’s nomination.

At this point, Zach Wahls is the most likely winner of the Democratic primary for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat. Wahls benefits from a combination of statewide name recognition, an existing base as a state senator, early endorsements, & an ability to bridge the party’s progressive & establishment wings in a crowded field. His campaign has shown the strongest signs of organization & momentum, which matters in a primary where no candidate currently dominates outright. If Wahls were to falter, Josh Turek would likely have the next-best chance, largely because of his appeal to party insiders & labor-aligned Democrats, as well as his compelling personal narrative as a Paralympian & public servant. However, in the absence of clear polling data or a significant fundraising gap, the Democratic primary remains competitive & unpredictable, though Wahls appears marginally better positioned than the rest of the field.

Turning to the U.S. House, Iowa will hold four congressional races in 2026:

District 1: Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R), incumbent
District 2: Open seat (Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) running for U.S. Senate)
District 3: Zach Nunn (R), incumbent
District 4: Randy Feenstra (R), incumbent

Most Competitive Districts for Democrats

The most competitive districts for Democrats in Iowa include Iowa’s 1st Congressional District (IA-01) & 3rd Congressional District (IA-03). IA-01, which covers eastern Iowa including Davenport & Iowa City, is widely viewed as one of the best Democratic pickup opportunities in 2026. The district has a long history of swing voting & narrowly favored Republicans in 2024, when Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) was re-elected by just 799 votes. With a mix of college-educated voters, organized labor, & urban & suburban communities, IA-01 remains highly sensitive to turnout & national political conditions. As a result, national Democrats have again targeted the district as a top flip opportunity, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee & allied groups signaling early investment.

IA-03, centered on Des Moines & its surrounding suburbs, has similarly shifted into the competitive category. Once a reliably Republican seat, demographic change & suburban realignment have narrowed GOP margins, leading nonpartisan forecasters to rate the district anywhere from “lean Republican” to toss-up. Republican Rep. Zach Nunn narrowly held the seat in 2024 after flipping it two years earlier, & recent polling suggests Democratic challengers remain competitive. Compared to Iowa’s more rural districts, IA-03’s electorate is more college-educated & suburban, making it especially responsive to national political trends & candidate quality. By contrast, Iowa’s 2nd & 4th Districts remain more structurally Republican due to their rural composition & recent voting patterns, leaving IA-01 & IA-03 as Democrats’ clearest paths to House gains.

Most Competitive Iowa Democrats in 2026

Christina Bohannan: IA-01
A law professor & former state legislator, Bohannan ran a razor-thin race in 2024, losing to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks by just 799 votes. She has announced she is running again in 2026, giving her a significant advantage in name recognition, campaign infrastructure, & donor familiarity in a district Democrats view as highly competitive. Among potential Democratic challengers, Bohannan stands out as the most proven vote-getter in IA-01, though she will again need a strong turnout & national support to overcome the incumbent advantage.

Sarah Trone Garriott: IA-03
Trone Garriott, a state senator representing part of the Des Moines metro, has emerged as the leading Democratic contender in IA-03. Recent campaign developments, including former House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst suspending her campaign & endorsing Trone Garriott, have helped consolidate Democratic support behind her, reducing the risk of a divided primary. In a district trending more competitive due to suburban realignment, Trone Garriott’s legislative experience & growing party support position her as Democrats’ clearest path to reclaiming the seat, though she still faces an uphill general election against an incumbent Republican. Together, Bohannan & Trone Garriott represent Democrats’ strongest opportunities to flip Iowa House seats in 2026, combining district fit, electoral credibility, & early signs of party consolidation.

Engagement Resources:

Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Hawaii,_2026
Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness: https://www.cookpolitical.com/
Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa Political News: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/
Zach Whals Interview- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-q46u-K3g
Josh Turek Interview- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s1_b0nFqlsc

US Incursion in Venezuela: Review, Reactions, and What Happens Next (Foreign Policy Brief #226)

Foreign Policy Brief #226 | Abran C. | January 29, 2026

In the early hours of Jan. 3, 2026 the United States carried out an attack in Venezuela that saw the removal and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The incursion followed months of military operations in the Caribbean Sea, targeting small boats and oil tankers along the Venezuelan coast. The operation dubbed, Operation Absolute Resolve, saw US forces enter Venezuelan territory, carry out strikes on military sites around the country and in the capital Caracas. Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken by US forces from Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s largest military complex. Maduro was first flown to a US military base and then transported aboard the USS Iwo Jima, which brought Maduro and his wife to a detention centre in New York, where he is being held and indicted on charges of narcoterrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States.

How did we get here?

Back in his first term, Donald Trump sought to replace Maduro by recognizing Juan Guaidó, the leader of the opposition-led National Assembly in Venezuela, as the new replacement president of the South American country. Ultimately there was little international support for Guaidó and the attempt to replace Maduro proved ineffective. Now in his second term, Trump and his administration switched gears to military action. Beginning in August 2025, the US began deploying Navy destroyers, along with thousands of military personnel, to the edge of Venezuelan territorial waters claiming to be attempting to thwart drug trafficking.

Beginning in September, 2025 the Trump Administration began strikes on more than 30 boats that killed at least 115 in the Caribbean and the Pacific alleged to be transporting drugs to the US. In November 2025, the administration designated Maduro as the head of what it called the “Cartel de los Soles” as a terrorist organisation. In December 2025, The US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela after the ship left that country with about 2 million barrels of crude. The culmination of months of pressure and use of the military force resulted in the US invading Venezuela and forcefully removing Maduro from the country.

Domestic and International reactions

Domestically, once disapproving of using the US military to invade Venezuela, the vast majority of Republicans, at least 78% per a recent Yougov poll, now say they approve of President Trump’s military action and the capture of Nicolas Maduro. In contrast just 14% of Democrats supported the military invasion of Venezuela. Democratic leaders responded with anger to the Trump administration’s military intervention in Venezuela, with multiple members of congress slamming it as an illegal act carried out in the absence of required congressional approval. On January 8, 2025, the Senate backed the War Powers Resolution with a vote 52-47, to curb President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out further military action against Venezuela without congressional approval. Several senators claimed they felt misled by earlier briefings in which administration officials suggested they did not intend to carry out strikes on Venezuelan territory.

International reaction to the incursion into Venezuela has also been mixed but largely negative. Many Latin American leaders have condemned the US actions. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva said that the actions “cross an unacceptable line… and were a flagrant violation of international law”. Colombian President Gustavo Petro called the strikes an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America. Chile’s President Gabriel Boric expressed “concern and condemnation”. Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel accused the US of a “criminal attack”. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum characterized the attack as an “unacceptable violation of Venezuelan sovereignty”.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was “deeply shocked” by what it described as a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president”. A statement from The United Nations said it was “deeply alarmed” by the US attacks and capture of Maduro, suggesting it violated international law. In contrast, the US’ European allies did not express condemnation but straddled the fence, instead calling for a transition of government in Venezuela. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that , “the EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition”. French President Emmanuel Macron said he “neither supported nor approved” of the US military operation and stated Frances’ readiness to support a transition.

What Happens Now?

Nicolas Maduro and his wife have pleaded not guilty in court appearances in New York on January 5, 2026. They remain in US custody, with the next court hearing set for March 17, 2026. As of time of writing, the government in Venezuela remains the same. The country’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president on Jan. 5. Rodríguez, a longtime Maduro ally and oil minister, has received the public backing of the Trump Administration for the time being. Although Trump threatened that she would pay a very heavy price, if she does not comply with US demands. It is unclear whether the new Venezuelan President will play along with the United States, and if she does not, will the Trump administration be willing to engage in a longer-term war in order to achieve their aims.

Trump has held meetings with oil executives and suggested that his administration could subsidize US oil companies moving into the country. Additionally, following the operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration has redirected its attention to Cuba. Donald Trump has urged Cuba to “make a deal” or face dire consequences, and warned that the flow of Venezuelan oil and other aid would stop, leaving the already difficult situation to grow even worse. Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel stated that his government will stand against US threats. “Nobody tells us what to do… Cuba is prepared to defend the homeland until the last drop of blood” he said.

The Trump administration in recent weeks has expressed its interest in further regime change and territorial expansion. Along with intervention in Venezuela and Cuba, the Trump administration and allies have made comments on possible strikes in Colombia and Mexico, seeking regime change in Iran and acquiring Greenland, whether forcibly or otherwise. The administration’s attempt at intervention involves a more quick actioned “in and out” style of military force rather than full scale invasion. That may be more of what we see occur in the other countries where military action is being discussed, and it also demonstrates the administration’s understanding of how unpopular new multiyear wars are with the American public. Yet it appears likely the US will engage in further military conflicts in 2026, the newly dubbed “Donroe Doctorine” all but guarantees it.

Georgia (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series)

2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series | Nate Iglehart | 1/29/2026

Georgia is set to be one of the biggest battleground states in 2026, with one senator, Democrat Jon Ossoff, up for election. Alongside the Senate race, there are 14 House races that almost all include Democrat underdogs or incumbents that could see this state further blue-shift. Given Georgia’s shifting demographics and status as one of the keystone battleground states, a blue wave here could shift the balance in Democrats’ favor, and the results of these races will reveal just how blue Georgia is becoming. The primary elections will take place on May 19, 2026, with races in which no candidate receives over 50% in a primary going to a runoff election on June 16. The general election will take place on November 3rd

For the Senate race, Jon Ossoff stands as a very popular congressman and a Democratic bright spot in Georgia. His bipartisan work and his success in getting funding and successful infrastructure projects to Georgia have built him a bit of a safety net from potential challengers, especially from within his party. However, the Republican primary has three main challengers who could pose a real threat, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, former football coach Derek Dooley, and U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter. But with his strong position, Ossoff is likely to retain his seat, especially if a blue wave really does come to fruition.

For the House races, most of the seats are safe within their own party due to how the districts have been drawn in recent years and the relative popularity of many of the incumbents. But notably, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation from her seat in the 14th district could provide a route for a Democratic challenger to flip the seat. Additionally, some of the Democratic incumbents like David Scott are facing insurgent progressive campaigns in their districts, highlighting the generational rift within the Democratic Party and perhaps also serving as a testing ground for these ideas in a historically red state. Out of the 14 races, these are the names to look out for:

District 1: Michael McCord and Amanda Hollowell
District 2: Sanford Bishop Jr. (incumbent)
District 3: Adrienne Buhacoff
District 4: Hank Johnson (incumbent)
District 5: Nikema Williams (incumbent) and Andres Castro
District 6: Lucy McBath (incumbent) and Sonya Halpern
District 7: Case Norton
District 8: James Cooper III
District 9: Nick Alex
District 10: Lexy Doherty
District 11: Chris Harden and Barry Wolfert
District 12: Brianna Woodson, Ceretta Smith, and Chris Stephens
District 13: David Scott (incumbent)
District 14: Shawn Harris

Senate

Jon Ossoff, 38, is the youngest Democrat elected to the Senate since Joe Biden in 1973 and the incumbent Senator for the seat that is up for election this year. He, along with Ralph Warnock, are the two main bulwarks of Democratic control in Georgia, and this race is set to be a close one. Before Congress, Ossoff was a national security staffer before working as a managing director of an investigative journalism production company. His policy platform in Congress has been largely successful, revolving around healthcare improvements like capping insulin prices for seniors at $35/month, protecting social security, expanding Medicaid, and expanding mental health services across the state. He has also championed infrastructure and veteran care services. His work on bipartisan issues has earned him a 51% approval rating and a 34% disapproval rating, and he is frequently cited as one of the most bipartisan politicians in Congress. This popularity, compared with a gargantuan $54,052,215 raised through September, has put him in a prime position to retain his seat, with many polls slightly leaning his way. With popularity, youth, money, and demographics all on his side, Ossoff is set to remain the youngest incumbent Senator.

Recent Interviews

Sen. Ossoff: ‘We really are talking about life and death’

Jon Ossoff Bluntly Calls Out Trump For Corruption and Unpopularity

House

District 1

Michael McCord, 36, has long been involved in Democratic politics. Growing up in South Carolina, he worked multiple jobs often, eventually working on many Democratic races across the state since 2008. By 2020, he was running Southern strategy for Tim Ryan’s presidential bid. On top of this, McCord is a business consultant focused on serving small businesses. He likely views this race as an incredible opportunity, given the incumbent Representative, Republican Buddy Carter, is going to be running for a Senate seat this year. McCord will be hoping that his platform of Rural Healthcare Stabilization, ending price gouging, expanding veteran care, ending congressional stock trading, and using all available energy production technologies to improve Georgia’s energy supply will resonate with the fairly rural district. So far, he has raised $112,540, the most out of any Democrat in the race so far and respectable compared to his potential Republican counterparts. While the district is fairly red, with the Cook Political Report giving it a +8 Republican leaning, Buddy Carter’s shift to the Senate means that his opponent won’t be an incumbent who can rely on their track record as well. Additionally, this district has a healthcare and infrastructure crisis at the moment, both of which McCord is looking to address. This means that McCord still has a shot at flipping this seat blue, and depending on how much Republican donors pay attention to this race, his fundraising numbers may be enough to win.

Amanda Hollowell, 47, is an experienced political organizer and the Chief of Campaigns at Color Of Change, the country’s largest online racial justice organization. Her affiliations are myriad, including When We All Vote, 9to5 Savannah, the Savannah, GA Chapter of The Links, Inc., League of Women Voters of Coastal Georgia, and Savannah Federation of Democratic Women. These connections have all indelibly given her vast local support, although her fundraising numbers are yet to be published. Hollowell’s platform focuses on climate resilience, healthcare for all, public education, port and worker advocacy, and affordability. With these focuses, she is likely to win over the younger populations, as well as progressives. Climate resilience is a real issue in this district, given its coastal location. But with the district leaning red and her primary opponent having a lot of money already, Hollowell is facing an uphill battle.

District 2

Sanford Bishop Jr., 78, is the incumbent representative and has been since 1993. Practically a permanent fixture in Georgia politics ever since, Bishop Jr. has also been one of the most reliable advocates for the agricultural, infrastructural, and military health of his district. Each of these areas are huge in the 2nd district, and both its blue electorate and Bishop Jr. ‘s popularity (he won his 17th term in office with 55.9% of the vote will make him an extremely tough candidate to beat. His track record also speaks for itself, having secured over $10 billion in federal grants and loans for his district, including funds for rural development and disaster relief. Finally, his funding is hearty, having raised $517,573 through September. With the wind blowing hard at his back, his electorate supporting him, and his political acumen, it is hard to bet against him.

District 3

Adrienne Buhacoff, 49, is a seasoned social worker with a bachelor’s and master’s degree in social work. With this background, she aims to take her expertise, compassion, and dedication to Washington, D.C. and restore faith in government. Her platform is focused on healthcare expansion, term limits, campaign finance reform, affordable healthcare, and protecting individual rights. Given just how red this district has been over the past few elections, Buhacoff’s approach of focusing more on government reform and less on typical Democrat policies is a solid bet. Her opponent in the general election, Republican Brian Jack, is a staunch supporter of the current administration, and disaffected voters may be willing to look past Buhacoff’s Democrat tag and vote across party lines. It will still be a tough battle, however. Jack has won nearly 63% of the vote and nearly every county in the district in the last election, was endorsed by Donald Trump, and has a perfect attendance record in Congress, all lending legitimacy to his campaign. Additionally, Jack has raised $929,776 already, and Buhacoff has yet to publish any fundraising data. If she wants to win, Buhacoff is going to have to rely on a blue wave, more disillusionment from Republicans, and Democratic donors lending her aid.

District 4

Hank Johnson, 71, is the incumbent representative and a tour-de-force in Democratic politics. Sitting on the House Judiciary Committee and as the ranking member of its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, Johnson has been a national leader on court reform and accountability. This is largely driven by his 27-year-long career as a lawyer before spending 12 years as a magistrate judge. Since his first election in 2007, he has helped bring more than $5 billion in federal investments back to Georgia, including more than $1 billion specifically for his district, and has stayed relevant with legislation fighting the militarization of police recently. Outside of judicial reform, Johnson also is focusing his campaign on the environment, education, and worker safety, and healthcare. His seat is the safest in Georgia, sitting at +27 in favor of Democrats. With $199,516 raised so far and his popularity remaining high after his win in 2022 netted him 75% of the vote, Johnson will likely not have to worry much about this race.

Recent Interviews

Congressman Hank Johnson | Full interview

District 5

Nikema Williams, 47, is the incumbent representative since 2020 for the district that covers three quarters of Atlanta. Having previously served as the Chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia State Committee, she is well connected within the party and enjoys robust support as a result. Already she has raised $312,462, and given her margins of victory over the past few elections (upwards of a 71% margin), she is also super popular. Williams’ platform focuses on universal family and healthcare, environmental protection, voting rights, social justice, and public education. While none of her policies are incredibly progressive, they are all progressive enough to attract support in Atlanta while hitting all of the main areas of concern for voters. She also has a lot of experience running campaigns, including fundraising for Obama’s presidential campaigns. With all of this in mind, Williams is more than likely to retain her seat here.

Recent Interviews

Rep. Nikema Williams talks government shutdown

Andres Castro, 33, is a newcomer to the political scene in comparison to Williams. His mother was an undocumented immigrant and he himself was a first-generation college student who studied computer science from Kennesaw State University. After spending around a decade in the tech sector, Castro is now aiming to launch a political career focused on progressive values. His platform has three main pillars: Universal public health, affordable housing, and a 25$ minimum wage. He also is pro-AI, pro-immigration, pro-government accountability, and pro-Palestine. In this race, he is looking to capitalize on policies that are increasingly popular with younger generations that make up a decent chunk of Atlanta. His funding is fairly meager so far, with only $23,280 raised, but his district is extremely blue. If Castro is able to win the primary, he will more than likely win the seat, but that condition will be hard to fulfill. This race is one that represents a larger trend across the party, that being the battle between old and the new progressive wave. It will be interesting to see just how close this race is, and if Castro is able to leverage more local support, he may just snatch the seat from Williams.

District 6

Lucy McBath, 65, is the incumbent representative for the district, having won her election in 2024. Previously, she earned her bachelor’s degrees in political science and English from Virginia State University before working as a flight attendant, a professional advocate for Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, and an author. McBath has championed gun safety reform following her son’s death in 2012, and having survived breast cancer twice, McBath advocates for lowering prescription drug costs and protecting coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. She also is pushing for revitalizing Metro Atlanta’s infrastructure, codifying reproductive rights, and increasing resources for teachers. Much like the previous case, while none of her policies are incredibly progressive, they are meaningful for the district that also represents a chunk of Atlanta and many of its northern and western suburbs. So far, she has raised $419,294, with no other challengers having raised anything yet. With her margins of victory growing every election to a 75%-25% victory in 2024, she is undoubtedly popular and is likely to remain representing Georgia’s 6th District.

Sonya Halpern, 58, is a state senator in Georgia representing the state’s 39th district. She previously worked at Cox Enterprises as an advertising executive, but she also has vast volunteer experience that includes the National Center for Civil and Human Rights, the Andrew J. Young Foundation, the YMCA of Metro Atlanta, and the National Black Arts Festival. At the state level, Halpern is the Vice Chair of the Urban Affairs Committee, and a member of the Appropriations, Banking and Financial Institutions, Education and Youth, and Health and Human Services committees. Her policies focus on expanding healthcare and education access, criminal justice reform, protecting voting rights and economic equality. With her volunteer and political experience, she is no stranger to making change through politics, and her connections will likely serve her well. But her opponent is very well funded while Halpern has yet to release any funding figures. The journey to winning the seat will be steep, but if voters want an establishment Democrat out in favor of somewhat new blood, Halpern may be capable of winning the primary, and thus the district.

District 7

Case Norton, 36, is a union camera technician who’s spent 19 years in the industry and wants to run a campaign focused on the working man. His campaign revolves around economic populism, affordability, and government reform. Chief amongst his concerns is accountability in government, which he aims to achieve through ending Citizens United and introducing term limits. Norton also wants to tackle corporate loopholes, institute universal healthcare, protect union rights, lower the cost of living, and protect the film & TV industry. These are all policies that will play somewhat well in the district, given its urban makeup north of Atlanta. But the seat had been held by Republicans from 1995 until 2021 before the now-incumbent Republican Rich McCormick won his election. This does not mean it’s a lost cause, however. While some polls say the district leans Republican by 11 points, the 2018 midterm election for this seat was won by only 433. Additionally, demographic changes will favor Democrats, so despite Norton’s lack of experience, he could still be able to win the primary and become a face for Democratic voters in this district. However, the general election will be tough to win between the district’s Republican leanings and McCormick’s $830,277 raised so far.

District 8

James Cooper III, 56, has run for this seat twice as a candidate for the Green Party in 2018 and 2020, but now he is trying his hand with the Democratic Party behind him. A longtime activist who worked on both the local and federal level, notably for Bernie Sanders’s and Jill Stein’s presidential campaigns, Cooper is a proud progressive. He supports it all: universal healthcare, a universal basic income, the Green New Deal, protecting civil rights and consumer protections, criminal justice reform, police reform, and campaign reform. His campaign thus far, however, is flagging. As of September 30, he had only raised $101, and his opponent, incumbent Republican Austin Scott, had raised $464,857. Additionally, his district has backed Scott by respectable margins since 2011, and still leans quite red. If Cooper is to mount a miraculous comeback, he will need to leverage every volunteer and progressive connection he has to even stand a chance. These connections may yield him enough to win the primary, but the general election will be degrees of magnitude harder, so his race may be more of a test for progressive ideas in rural Georgia.

District 9

Nick Alex, 61, is a retired banking technology product executive eyeing an upset against incumbent Republican Andrew Clyde. Nick graduated from Virginia Tech University majoring in business and finance before working with banks including Bank of America, Truist Bank, and U.S. Bank. Now, he wants to leverage his professional experience in politics to bring affordability back to the district. Alex’s race is a prime example of Democratic candidates leaning on affordability wherever they can, even in a heavily Republican district. His platform focuses on fair wages, affordable housing, and stronger economic security, alongside expanding access to public services and increasing government transparency. But his platform is relatively narrow and not particularly deep, and with his relatively small campaign funds barely reaching $46,840, it will be hard to galvanize and connect with voters. Still, his chances are not zero, and with all of his policies grounded in reality and modern issues, there is still a path for Alex to potentially win the general election.

Recent Interviews

William Daughtry interviews Nick Alex, LIVE!

District 10
Lexy Doherty, 31, is familiar with running in this district. Her last campaign here happened in 2024, where she garnered 37% of the vote. With a Master’s degree in Economic Geology and having previously worked as a teaching assistant at the University of Georgia and as an educational consultant with Doherty Educational Consultants, she is looking to build on her modest success last cycle. Doherty’s big five policy pillars are rural economic development, healthcare, protecting natural resources, protecting bodily autonomy, and restoring good representation and governance (guided by her time working as a poll worker). The focus on rural economic development will land well in a district that is 44% rural, and her connections in the Democratic stronghold of Athens will also help her here. Additionally, incumbent Republican Representative Mike Collins is running for Senate, meaning she will be fighting new blood. However, that Republican opponent, State Representative Houston Gaines, is gaining support fast in a district that leans heavily red. If a tsunami-level blue wave hits as forecasted, Doherty may just be able to ride it across the finish line.

District 11

Chris Harden, 47, just recently declared his candidacy for this race, but he seems to be one of the frontrunners in the primary. An attorney from Cherokee County, he labels himself as a moderate Democrat who is first in his family to graduate from college. Harden’s platform revolves around affordability, public education, healthcare access, women’s health, and addressing the constitutional crisis. His billing as a moderate Democrat will help him in the heavily red district, but the incumbent Republican Representative Barry Loudermilk is fairly popular. The district is also 96% urban, meaning that there will likely be at least some Democratic voters in those areas. But it is still an uphill climb in the general election. In the primary, he may win a lot of support given his moderate status and his local roots, having grown up poor in Georgia. Harden could very well be a dark-horse candidate if he can raise funds quickly enough.

Barry Wolfert, 60, is bringing a New York attitude and a lifetime of hard work to the race. After studying at Cornell’s School of Hotel Administration, Wolfert worked in the hospitality industry before co-founding the Wolfert & Wrenn Real Estate Team at Keller Williams in 2013. He’s lived in Georgia for over 20 years, and has seen how rising housing prices affect people. This is why he is focused on three areas: bringing down housing costs, protecting healthcare and social security, and expanding the ACA. Wolfert’s rhetoric leans pretty right for a Democrat, citing waste and fraud in the healthcare industry, which could help win over many voters in this district. His narrow focus on mainly affordability and social services will also allow him to present a very coherent message to voters in a district that may want new leadership. No funding data is available for any of the Democratic candidates, but Wolfert does have business acumen and connections in Atlanta. If he is able to leverage those connections and endear himself to the local population, Wolfert could possibly coast to a primary victory.

District 12

Brianna Woodson, 31, is a mental health professional and a political organizer. Boasting a large online following that stems from her Instagram page covering social issues, Black history, and policy, she is a local Georgian looking to unseat incumbent Republican Rick Allen. Her platform centers heavily on healthcare and addiction, given her own personal past struggles with the latter, but she also seeks better public education, housing assistance, justice reform, and community safety. Many of these issues, along with her identity and her connections, will garner a lot of support in this district. While it leans red, 36% of the district is African American, and her focus on Black history and social issues are extremely relevant in Georgia. Through September, Woodson had only reportedly raised $5,799, but that could have changed much since then. But she faces a tough road ahead, given the incumbent has won every election since 2014 and has raised a considerable amount of money. This race could be one with potential to surprise Allen, given he hasn’t had to run a close race since his first. With this in mind, if Georgia were to experience a blue wave, this district could be one to watch.

Ceretta Smith, 57, is a veteran of the U.S. Army, a former union official, and a substitute teacher. Faith is a large part of her identity, as she studied at the Minnesota Graduate School of Theology before pursuing a graduate degree from the Calvary Bible Institute and another degree from Deeper Bible College in 2024. Smith also has affiliations with organizations like the American Federation of Government Employees, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Sistah Soldiers United Organization. In terms of policy, her platform is fairly standard for a Democrat this election. Affordability, government accountability and election reform, and healthcare access all play major parts. But Smith also wants to focus on veterans affairs, labor protections, and infrastructure. These will all land well in this district, and her connections with organizations, veterans, and the religious community will all help aid her in this election. Through September, she has only raised $3,095, so she will need to get moving on the fundraising front, but in the primary race, all of the other candidates have raised less than $6,000 through the same period, so she’s not in bad shape here. She has lots of experience running campaigns, having run twice at the state level. Additionally, the demographics of this district (largely religious and black) will earn her some goodwill from the electorate. If she’s able to make a name for herself, she could also be a candidate set to surprise Allen in the general election.

Chris Stephens, 47, is a former police officer and emergency dispatcher who also has experience running an LGBTQ+ community center. He’s built his own small business, while juggling degrees in political science and a Master’s in Public Administration. This focus on community service is now bringing Stephens into the race for this seat with a platform hyperfocused on the smaller-scale. Infrastructure improvements, boosts to education and trade schools, tax reform, veterans affairs, healthcare access, and agricultural support all make appearances on his platform. He’s raised $4,457 so far, better than Smith but not quite enough to run a full campaign just yet, but time will tell if he is able to raise more given his relatively limited connections with politics and organizations across the district. Much of his appeal comes from being an “everyman” who owns a small business, worked as a police officer, and went to trade school. With this in mind, he will likely have decently moderate support from voters in the primary, but he may have better chances as the Democratic candidate in the general election, given his moderate appeal in a majority white and Republican area. If he is able to escape the primary, he could force Allen to refocus on holding his seat in a surprisingly competitive election.

District 13

David Scott, 80, has held this seat since 2002 and has no doubt that he will be able to retain it. He has won each election by increasing margins, winning almost 80% of the voteshare in the last few. He earned an MBA from Wharton before moving to Atlanta and starting his own advertising business, Dayn-Mark Advertising. Throughout the 70s and into the early 2000s, he also became a state level representative, eventually becoming a federal representative in 2002. Since then, he has become a high-level Democrat. He serves as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, a Senior Member of the Financial Services Committee, and a Member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. For Scott, healthcare and constituent services are key policy successes of his, but he also prioritizes bringing federal community project funds back to local areas, boosting the rural agricultural sector, and backing environmental conservation efforts. His popularity speaks to his success on these fronts, and he has raised a warchest of $373,566. But this district is largely urban, meaning his agricultural policies will have less district-level pull, and in a primary field as packed as this one, with 11 Democratic candidates, he will have attacks coming from all directions. His age and decreasing engagement with politics worry some voters, but he has a long list of successes to draw on. For now, this seat seems to be safely Scott’s, and unless a challenger is able to pull support from a bunch of the other challengers and present a unified opponent, Scott will likely still be the representative come November.

Jasmine Clark, 43, is a Georgia State Representative and microbiologist running on a platform built around science-driven policy, active engagement, and progressive issue leadership. Within politics, her career has long been an uphill battle. Despite facing a powerful incumbent Republican who outspent her more than 2:1 in 2018, Clark won, and then defended the seat again three more times. Her experience outside of politics is largely in medicine, having served as an Emory University professor and as an assistant clinical professor at its nursing school. This background has brought her focus to science-driven policy, namely in regards to public health and scientific fact in government, but also to taxing the rich, protecting healthcare, election reform, affordability, and education at all levels. Social issues are also relevant, having served as a member of the Georgia Alliance for Social Justice. For this election Clark has raised $318,381, placing her third in terms of funding but well above the rest of the field. But her experience in politics, her connections in organizations and in the scientific community, and her name recognition all will likely make her a formidable opponent for Scott and any eventual Republican challengers.

Recent Interviews:
1-on-1 with State Rep. Jasmine Clark | Full interview

Everton Blair Jr., 32, is certainly bringing the youth to this fight, but is also equally bringing experience. Born and raised in Gwinnett County, Blair taught high school math in Atlanta Public Schools before becoming Chair of the Gwinnett County School Board. He holds a bachelor’s in applied mathematics (B.A.) and a Doctor of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.) from Harvard University and a Master’s in Policy, Organization, and Leadership (M.A.) from Stanford University. Blair’s platform is fairly progressive, with a focus on public education, government accountability, healthcare, civil rights, and affordability. What is exceptionally notable about his campaign is that despite refusing corporate PAC money, he has raised the second highest amount of money out of any Democratic candidate at $342,144. This seems to imply that donors see him as a worthy successor to Scott, and Blair’s focus on bringing “generational change” could lean into that and garner a lot of momentum going into the election. He is also a native Georgian, a public educator, and despite having limited government experience, Blair has educational certifications from highly-ranked schools that could make up the district. With the winds blowing at his back like they are, Blair may just be set to take this seat from Scott and bring about a new generation of Georgian politicians.

Recent Interviews:

1-on-1 with Everton Blair, candidate for 13th District | Extended interview

District 14

Shawn Harris, 59, has a tough uphill battle ahead of him, but it is a familiar one. Harris is a 40-year veteran that served in Afghanistan, Liberia, and Israel, retiring as a Brigadier General. Harris also holds a B.S. in Agribusiness Education from Tuskegee University, a Master’s in Educational Leadership, and a Master’s in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College. His last run at this seat in 2024 ended after only garnering 35% of the vote, which is fairly respectable given his moderate appeal and the district’s +19 leaning to Republicans according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index. So putting up a decent campaign in the most Republican congressional district in Georgia is impressive, and this time he won’t be facing an incumbent with a track record to lean on and the media presence that Marjorie Taylor Greene had. Harris’ platform focuses on agriculture, affordability, healthcare, veterans, and national/border security. The latter three areas will play particularly well, and his rhetoric on the national security front focuses on standing up to China, modernizing the immigration system, and combating the fentanyl crisis by expanding port screening and Narcan access. All three of these are issues that Republicans have been quite vocal on, meaning that Harris may be able to draw many disillusioned Republicans to his campaign. His experience in running campaigns and the connections he made have shown in the massive $1,292,262 he raised through September, almost 16 times the amount the most well-funded Republican challenger raised through that same period. If this seat were to flip, it would certainly be a surprise, but given Harris’ moderate appeal, Greene’s resignation, and Harris’ huge amount of funding, he may just be able to shock analysts.

Recent Interviews:

Shawn Harris goes On The Record With Atlanta News First, Jan. 11, 2026

US Congress SHAWN HARRIS Interview

Engagement Resources:

Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels:
- United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2026 – Ballotpedia
- United States Senate election in Georgia, 2026 – Ballotpedia
Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness:
- 2026 CPR House Race ratings | Cook Political Report
- 2026 CPR Senate Race ratings | Cook Political Report
Georgia Public Broadcasting is a state network of PBS member television stations and NPR member radio stations covering local news: GPB Politics | Georgia Public Broadcasting
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a well-respected online newspaper based in Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Politics from the AJC

Democracy on the Brink: Structural Suppression and the Fight for the 2026 Midterms (Elections & Politics Brief #202)

Elections & Politics Brief #202 | Inijah Quadri | January 16, 2026

Policy Issue Summary

The concept of a free and fair election in the United States has always been more of an aspiration than a reality, but as we approach the 2026 midterms, the gap between that ideal and the ground truth is widening at an alarming rate. By definition, a “free and fair” election in the U.S. context requires three non-negotiable pillars: universal access for all eligible citizens without coercion, a transparent and secret balloting process, and an impartial tabulation and certification that reflects the genuine will of the people. Following the contentious 2024 cycle, the machinery of voter suppression has not only been maintained but aggressively upgraded. In 2025 alone, state legislatures across the country accelerated their efforts to restrict the franchise, with sixteen states enacting twenty-nine new laws designed to make voting harder, particularly for working-class communities, people of color, and young voters. These measuresrange from stricter voter ID requirements to the aggressive purging of voter rolls, all under the guise of “election integrity.”

This legislative assault is compounded by a federal landscape that has failed to provide necessary safeguards. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025, which would have restored critical protections against racial discrimination in voting, remains stalled in a divided Congress. Without these federal checks, states are free to implement discriminatory maps and procedures with little oversight. Furthermore, the information ecosystem remains a toxic battleground. The rise of AI-generated deepfakes and the unchecked spread of disinformation on corporate-owned social media platforms have created a “liar’s dividend,” where truth is easily drowned out by manufactured outrage, further alienating an already cynical electorate. The 2026 midterms, therefore, are not just a political contest but a stress test for a system that is buckling under the weight of structural inequality and authoritarian ambition.

Analysis

To understand the likelihood of a free and fair election in 2026, one must look beyond the surface-level partisan skirmishes and examine the structural rot at the core of American democracy. The “rules of the game” are a complex, overlapping patchwork found primarily in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4—the “Elections Clause”), the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This legal architecture creates a fractured hierarchy of responsibility. The federal government is tasked with setting baseline civil rights standards and providing oversight through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and cybersecurity support through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). However, the primary authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections resides with the fifty individual states. Crucially, the actual “rubber-meets-the-road” administration falls to the nation’s 3,000+ counties, which are responsible for the physical mechanics of democracy: managing voter rolls, hiring poll workers, and operating the roughly 100,000 polling places nationwide.

Although not directly triggered in the upcoming midterm cycle, the Electoral College remains the most prominent example of this structural disconnect between the popular will and political outcomes. In Presidential cycles, the winner is determined not by the national popular vote, but by a tally of 538 electors, with 270 required to win. The Constitution grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to determine how these electors are selected. In modern practice, political parties in each state nominate slates of potential electors—typically party loyalists or activists. When citizens cast a ballot for President, they are actually voting for their party’s slate of electors. Because 48 states utilize a “winner-take-all” system, a candidate can win a state’s popular vote by a razor-thin margin yet be awarded 100% of that state’s electoral influence. This mechanism allows a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote by millions, reinforcing a system where geography often outweighs the collective voice of the electorate.

The current crisis is not accidental; it is the predictable result of a political system that prioritizes corporate interests and minority rule over the will of the people. Because of this decentralization, elections can be undermined at multiple levels by different actors: state legislatures use gerrymandering to insulate themselves from accountability; county-level boards can weaponize the certification process to delay or deny legitimate results; and the executive branch can exert pressure through agencies to restrict access to federal forms or equipment.

The Supreme Court, captured by reactionary forces, has played a pivotal role in this dismantling. The ongoing litigation surrounding Louisiana’s congressional maps serves as a stark warning. By signaling a willingness to further weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court is effectively greenlighting racial gerrymandering, allowing politicians to dilute the political power of Black and Brown communities to preserve their own grip on power. This judicial activism ensures that the House of Representatives remains unrepresentative of the actual electorate, insulating incumbents from public accountability.

Recent reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far the erosion of democratic norms has progressed. According to journalists Patrick Marley and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, the Trump administration is actively seeking to reshape how the 2026 midterm elections are conducted — pushing Republican state lawmakers to redraw congressional districts outside the standard post-census schedule, demanding the end of mail-in voting and the elimination of widely used voting machines, and staffing key federal agencies with officials who have openly questioned the legitimacy of past elections. These efforts are not merely rhetorical; they include lawsuits to access voter rolls and executive actions that courts have already begun to strike down as beyond presidential authority, reflecting a broader push to embed partisan advantage into the mechanics of democracy itself.

The situation is exacerbated by the “trench warfare” currently waging between the Department of Justice and recalcitrant state governments. While federal agencies attempt to enforce remaining statutes, they are often outmaneuvered by state legislatures that are willing to weaponize every lever of administrative power to suppress dissent. We are witnessing a coordinated effort to reshape the electorate itself rather than compete for its votes. This includes the strategic disenfranchisement of the millions of Americans who identify as independents, who are frequently locked out of the primary process where the vast majority of congressional races are actually decided. This “primary problem” ensures that the candidates who reach the general election are often beholden to the most extreme elements of their donor bases rather than the needs of their constituents. In fact, according to recent analysis, as few as 8% of voters effectively decide 83% of House seats during the primary stage, rendering the general election a mere formality in the vast majority of districts.

Moreover, the role of capital in our elections cannot be overstated. The flood of dark money unleashed by Citizens United continues to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, allowing billionaires and corporations to purchase influence and shape policy outcomes before a single ballot is cast. When this financial dominance is paired with a media environment driven by profit-maximizing algorithms that amplify fear and division, the result is a populace that is not only disenfranchised but deeply disoriented. The technology sector’s failure to self-regulate, coupled with the government’s inability to pass meaningful AI safeguards, leaves the 2026 election vulnerable to unprecedented levels of manipulation. The “free marketplace of ideas” has been enclosed and monopolized, turning public discourse into a commodity sold to the highest bidder.

Ultimately, the prospect of a truly free and fair election in 2026 is dim under the current conditions. The safeguards that once existed—however imperfect—have been systematically eroded. We are left with a hollowed-out democratic shell, where the mechanics of voting are increasingly weaponized against the very people they are meant to empower. Unless there is a massive, grassroots mobilization to demand structural reform—from the abolition of the Electoral College to the implementation of public financing for elections—the midterms will likely serve to entrench the power of the ruling elite rather than reflect the will of the working class.

Engagement Resources

Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/): A nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice, with extensive research on voting rights and election security.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (https://www.naacpldf.org/): The country’s premier legal organization fighting for racial justice, actively involved in litigation to protect voting rights and challenge discriminatory redistricting.
Common Cause (https://www.commoncause.org/): A watchdog group dedicated to holding power accountable, working on issues ranging from campaign finance reform to ending gerrymandering.
Voting Rights Lab (https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/): An organization that tracks election-related legislation and fights for free and fair elections through state-level advocacy.
Fight for the Future (https://www.fightforthefuture.org/): A digital rights group advocating for a web free of censorship and corporate control, focusing on the intersection of technology, AI, and democracy.
Unite America (https://www.uniteamerica.org/): A philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government, addressing the “primary problem.”
Will 2026 Be a Fair Fight?: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47xvFa3_aw) This video from The Atlantic is relevant because it discusses the looming threats to the 2026 midterms, including gerrymandering and the potential for executive overreach, aligning with the concerns raised in the article.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Latest Jobs Posts

Dangers lurk as Zeldin repeals EPA’s endangerment finding (Environment Policy Brief #189)

JD Vance Blames the Victims (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #203)

The Beijing Summit: Global Capital, Nationalist Rhetoric, and the Future of U.S.–China Coexistence (Foreign Policy Brief #227)

A Proposed Billionaire Tax Divides Democrats in California (Health & Gender Policy Brief #185)

President Trump’s Odd Proposal to “Nationalize” U.S. Elections (Civil Rights Policy Brief #250)

Indiana (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #12)

Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed

Indiana (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #12)

Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed

Along with carbon emissions, U.S. climate accords go up in smoke

Trump’s Policies to Increase Pronatalism in the U.S.