JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Colorado (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #6)
There are ten congressional seats up for the 2026 election in Colorado. All of the state’s eight U.S. House of Representatives seats and one U.S. Senate seat. The Democratic Party currently holds four of the eight House seats and both U.S. Senate seats in a state that has trended Democratic of late.
Montana Youth Return to Court to Block Laws Weakening Climate Protections (Environment Policy Brief #186)
A group of young activists from the landmark Held v. Montana case filed a new challenge against recent state laws. The filed petition challenges several statutes passed by Republicans that threaten the activist group’s victory in the Montana Supreme Court in 2024. According to the group, the new changes are violations of the state’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” The youth plaintiffs are preparing for a renewed legal fight and highlighting that climate harms are a constitutional issue.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #224)
Latin America’s shift towards the political right has continued following the recent elections in both Chile and Honduras. In Chile the election of the far-right Jose Antonio Kast marked the country’s most significant shift rightward since the former Chilean dictator, Agusto Pinochet. The election of Kast now makes three neighboring South American states formerly at odds, Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, firmly in control by the rightwing and all seeking closer relations with the United States. In Honduras the Trump backed candidate, Nasry Asfura has been declared the winner after a more than two week long vote count left those in the small Central American country in suspense. Following the election results, the opposing Liberal Party candidate, Salvador Nasralla refused to concede and alleged interference in the election process by the United States after President Trump conditioned continued aid to the country on whether the right-wing candidate won. Trump also pardoned the former Honduran President found guilty of trafficking drugs to the United States.
U.S. Deports Russian Dissidents who Face Prison or Draft in Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #223)
In October 2025, U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported on its official website that more than 2 million undocumented immigrants had already left the United States — including 1.6 million who voluntarily self-deported and more than 527,000 who were forcefully deported. “This is just the beginning,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin proudly stated.
Arizona (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #3)
There are ten federal seats up for election in Arizona in 2026. All nine of Arizona’s U.S. House of Representatives seats and one of two Senate seats. Arizona’s Federal congressional delegation reflects its status as a pivotal battleground state. Multiple House districts and a Senate seat are held by Democrats in a state that has historically leaned Republican.
The Final Bill: The Economics, Ethics, and Ecology of American Death Care
Death in the United States has evolved from a community-centered rite into a sprawling, multi-billion-dollar commercial sector often dubbed the funeral industrial complex. With approximately three million Americans dying annually, a figure projected to rise as the baby boomer generation ages, the logistics of disposition have become a pressing socioeconomic challenge. For decades, the default American way of death involved embalming, heavy metal caskets, and concrete vaults, a practice that is historically an anomaly and environmentally taxing. However, economic pressures and shifting cultural attitudes have catalyzed a massive transition toward cremation. In 2024, the cremation rate surpassed 61 percent, with projections suggesting it will exceed 80 percent by 2045.
Trump’s AI Executive Order and the Federal–State Power Struggle (Technology Policy Brief #161)
The Federal-State battle over AI regulation has heated up after President Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11 that blocks states from enforcing their own regulations on artificial intelligence. The order seeks to create a “single national framework” for AI. However state lawmakers, tech experts, and civil rights organizations are worried about what this means for the country. Many believe that federal regulations could slow down America’s competitiveness in the global AI race and will have serious implications for national security.
Breaking the Chains: Niger’s Pivot from Neocolonialism to Sovereignty (Foreign Policy Brief #224)
The July 2023 military takeover in Niger, led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani and the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), marked a significant setback for democratic governance in the Sahel. However, the removal of President Mohamed Bazoum must be viewed not merely as an isolated authoritarian power grab, but as a catalyst for a profound geopolitical realignment. In the two years since the coup, the CNSP has systematically dismantled long-standing security frameworks, resulting in the expulsion of French forces in late 2023 and the complete withdrawal of United States military personnel and the closure of key drone bases by September 2024.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #223)
Ukraine’s government has agreed to the core parts of a peace deal brokered by the Trump administration to end the now nearly four year long war. US officials have been meeting with both the Russians and Ukrainians in order to secure an end to the war. The plan was presented as a 28 point peace plan but upon revision by the Ukrainian side has been revised to a 19 point peace plan that no longer includes items such as amnesty regarding acts committed during the war. Ukraine as part of the deal has agreed not to increase the size of its military and will not join NATO under the updated plan.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #223)
Foreign Policy Brief #223 | Abran C. | December 15, 2025
President Zelenskyy addressed the Swedish Parliament on Monday morning. www.president.gov.ua
Ukraine Peace deal?
Ukraine’s government has agreed to the core parts of a peace deal brokered by the Trump administration to end the now nearly four year long war. US officials have been meeting with both the Russians and Ukrainians in order to secure an end to the war. The plan was presented as a 28 point peace plan but upon revision by the Ukrainian side has been revised to a 19 point peace plan that no longer includes items such as amnesty regarding acts committed during the war. Ukraine as part of the deal has agreed not to increase the size of its military and will not join NATO under the updated plan.
However, the main criticism of the proposed plan is the legitimation of Russian control over captured Ukrainian territory in Dobas and does not have popular support from Ukraine or its European allies. European officials have called for the inclusion of a demilitarized zone and the inclusion of an article of defense for Ukraine similar to NATO’s article 5 which calls for mutual defense of all members. The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskky recently stated as part of whether he would accept succeeding territory to Russia, “Are we considering giving up any territory? We have no legal right, under Ukrainian law, under our constitution, under international law, and honestly, we have no moral right, either”. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region or Russia would seize it, rejecting any compromise over handing captured territory back to Ukraine and throwing a wrench in any prospects for peace that require concessions from the Russian side over captured land.
Escalating tensions between the US and Venezuela
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro addresses a crowd flanked by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello (left) and his wife Cilia Flores during a rally in Caracas, Jan. 23, 2025.
Pedro Rances Mattey/Anadolu/Getty
Amid the buildup of US military forces in the Caribbean the Trump administration has now moved to designate Cartel de los Sols as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) with Nicolas Maduro as the head. The new designation by the Trump administration is thought to be another indication that the administration is seeking to conduct strikes inside of Venezuela. Secretary of War/Defense Pete Hegseth recently said the FTO designation “gives more tools” to the Defense Department and “gives options” to the President.
The “Cartel de Los Soles” or Cartel of the Suns is a term used to describe groups within Venezuela’s armed forces implicated in a wide range of criminal activities, including gasoline smuggling, illegal mining, drug smuggling and other corruption schemes. It has only recently been used to describe an official formal drug cartel. Labelling an organisation as a terrorist group gives US law enforcement and military agencies broader powers to target and dismantle it. Over the last few days the Trump administration has declared the skies over Venezuela closed and airlines have halted flights in and out of the country. The Maduro government has criticized the moves by the US and dismissed drug trafficking accusations. Venezuela’s foreign ministry stated that it absolutely rejected the designation, which it describes as a “new and ridiculous lie”. Last week for the first time the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and President Trump has repeatedly raised the likelihood of US military intervention in Venezuela.
Deadly Floods in Asia
A drone view of an area hit by deadly flash floods following heavy rains in Palembayan, Agam regency, West Sumatra province, Indonesia [Willy Kurniawan/Reuters]
Catastrophic floods and landslides have hit multiple countries leaving over a thousand dead and hundreds more missing. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Thailand have all been affected, with over 800 people reported missing and more than 1,400 declared dead. In Indonesia, the worst-hit country, washed-out roads and collapsed bridges have left rescuers struggling to reach some of the hardest-hit areas in North and Western Sumatra. Though unlike middle income countries such as Indonesia or Thailand, Sri Lanka has been less able to react to the floods devastation. Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister, Harini Amarasuriya, met with diplomats from the region to appeal to them to support the country’s relief and reconstruction efforts. Countries such as India, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates have launched efforts to provide aid.
Three Typhoon storms hit the region in quick succession, Typhoon Koto which moved from the Philippines towards Vietnam, Cyclone Senyar, a rare storm that spun up in the narrow Strait of Malacca and lashed Indonesia, Malaysia, and southern Thailand and Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which crossed Sri Lanka and India’s south-east coast. All of these storms in unison cause the massive flooding and loss of life witnessed in recent days. Water temperatures are reported to be warmer than normal in the region, warmer ocean temperatures provide more energy for storms. Climate scientists expect the frequency and ferocity of these storms to be a new normal.
Congo-Rawanda peace deal
U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he hosts the signing ceremony of a peace deal with the President of Rwanda Paul Kagame (L) and the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Felix Tshisekedi (R) at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on Dec. 4, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds—AFP/Getty Images
Last week, President Donald Trump hailed a “historic” peace deal dubbed the “Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity” between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. The deal brokered by the US and Qatar is a reaffirmed commitment to a US brokered deal signed in June which itself had failed to quell fighting. The two nations have had brewing conflicts over the past 30 years, but the violence sharply escalated in early 2025 after Rwanda-backed M23 rebels seized large parts of mineral-rich eastern DRC. The Trump administration has spearheaded talks between DR Congo and Rwanda, hoping that resolving the fighting would allow the US to increase investments in the resource rich region. However, even after the signing of the deal deadly clashes have marred efforts to begin implementing the terms of the agreement. The United States has accused Rwanda of fueling the instability and continued fighting. More than 400 civilians have been killed following the recent surge in fighting as the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group continues its offensive in South Kivu province in the eastern DRC.
Australia social media ban for minors
The teen social media ban will come into effect for some platforms today. (ABC News: Lindsay Dunbar)
Australia has become one of the first countries in the world to ban social media platforms from allowing children 16 and under from having accounts. While the law officially kicks in on December 10, Meta has already begun removing Instagram, Threads and Facebook accounts in order to comply with the new law. At the time of writing, the law applies to only ten major sites and platforms Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick and Threads. These companies, should they fail to comply with the removal of underaged accounts, would face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars or $33 million USD.
The companies have been provided with a number of options for determining the age of users, the most common being an online scan of a users ID such as a drivers license. The Australian eSafety Commissioner will be sending the 10 platforms notices on Dec. 11 demanding information on the numbers of accounts removed. The Malaysian government has followed suit and said it would also ban social media accounts for children younger than 16 starting in 2026. Additionally the European Commission, France, Denmark, Greece, Romania and New Zealand have all also expressed interest in setting a minimum age for social media.
An Analysis of the California – Texas Re-Districting Fight (Civil Rights Brief #249)
Civil Rights Brief #249 | Rod Maggay | December 9, 2025
Policy Summary: After the State of Texas’ approval of a re – drawn state congressional map that would be used in 2026 to give them five more likely Republican districts, the State of California decided to respond.
California and Governor Gavin Newsom (D) placed on the 2025 state ballot Proposition 50, known as the Election Rigging Response Act. Since California uses an independent re – districting commission to draw its congressional and state legislative districts, it couldn’t simply have the state legislature pass a bill for a new map and have it signed by the governor like in Texas. The Election Rigging Response Act first re – affirmed its commitment to continue using an independent re – districting commission for future elections. However, the bill authorized a temporary situation where the Legislature would be permitted to re – draw the state map. The new map would make and add the same number of Democratic leaning districts that Texas allowed in their new map – in this case five. The Act was then placed on the ballot for approval from California voters. On November 4, 2025, the act was approved overwhelmingly – 64% voted yes to temporarily allow the Legislature to re – draw the map while 36% voted against. For the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections California would be using a re – drawn map that will likely give it five more Democratic leaning districts.
That was not the end of the re – districting war between the two states.
After the Election Rigging Response Act was approved by California voters, the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit in California to block implementation of the act and the new map. The Department of Justice intervened to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. That case is now set to be heard in early 2026.
While in Texas, the situation took an unexpected turn. On November 18, 2025 the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas barred the use of the newly re – drawn Texas congressional map and ordered the state to use the prior state legislative district map. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On December 5, 2025, the Court in an unsigned opinion agreed to temporarily pause the order from the federal district court, in effect allowing Texas to use their newly drawn map for the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections.
Policy Analysis: The twists and turns during the re – districting war have seen head – scratching comments and an unlikely twist that weakens Texas’ rationale for re – districting while strengthening California’s efforts to push back on Texas’ efforts.
Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to California’s Proposition 50 by calling it “a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process.” Additionally, DOJ responded to California’s efforts with “we will stop your DEI districts for 2026.” The Department’s intervention in the California lawsuit to prevent implementation of Prop. 50 also claimed that the California map was re – drawn to favor one race over another. These comments are questionable with a closer examination of the facts.
First, for the Attorney General to call Prop. 50 a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights while mocking the democratic process is non – sensical. California did not initiate this re – districting war – Texas did by re – drawing their maps first in a year when it didn’t have to. Texas only did so at the behest of President Donald Trump because of his rumored fears about being impeached. California even made efforts to not go through with their re – districting efforts – with Proposition 50 only going into effect if Texas did and with Governor Newsom calling Texas officials to let them know that they didn’t have to go forward with re – districting. If there was any alleged power grab or mockery of the democratic process, that likely is the fault of Texas and not California. And the claims of DEI and race as a motivation is even more non – sensical. California had no racial motivation to re – draw their maps and even the Supreme Court acknowledged that in their December 5 order written by none other than Justice Samuel Alito. The Justice wrote that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” The Supreme Court here is unquestioningly rebuking the AG and the DOJ’s claims of racial motivation in the re – drawing of the California map and calling it exactly what it is – a partisan reason. For senior government Trump officials to get the motivation to re – draw the map completely wrong questions whether they are truly aware of how this re – districting war is playing out or are trying to mislead citizens.
Finally, the decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal of the El Paso district court decision on December 5 likely may have weakened the Republicans’ lawsuit in California while strengthening California’s legal defense of Proposition 50. The Republicans and DOJ claim in their lawsuit that California re – drew their map with the intent of depriving racial minorities of equal representation in Congress. However, the facts demonstrate that the only reason California put forth Proposition 50 was to counter Texas’ purely partisan reason to re – draw their state map. The proposition even had an escape clause that re – districting in California would only go forward if Texas did. The stated purpose of the proposition in ballot materials was to counter Texas which demonstrates that the bill was designed for partisan purposes and not race. There is no hint of race as being a factor at all. Even Justice Alito called California and Texas efforts “for partisan advantage” which is permitted under law. So, Texas and DOJ’s lawsuit in California to block Prop. 50 has essentially been undermined, no less than with words from the Supreme Court. It is difficult to argue that Prop. 50 had a racial motivation when all the facts demonstrate otherwise. And California gets a boost as their legal defense of the case against it puts their efforts on the right side of the law – that they crafted Proposition 50 for permitted partisan reasons and not racial terms.
These cases are likely not the last word on this re – districting battle as the case in California is still scheduled for a full trial as well as likely appeals to the Supreme Court. Not to mention that there are other re – districting battles going on in other red and blue states that have not been determined yet.
Should Transgender Athletes be Allowed to Compete? (Foreign Policy Brief #225)
Foreign Policy Brief #225 | Reilly Fitzgerald | December 3, 2025
Policy Summary
Recently the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been considering the idea of altering their policies on inclusion of transgendered athletes in the Olympic Games. Currently, and since 2004, the IOC’s rules have allowed for each nation’s federation to determine inclusivity of transgendered athletes (or not to include them). In the history of the Olympic Games, there has only ever been one transgender athlete compete and it was New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard (Olympic weightlifting); and a transgender athlete has NEVER won a medal in the Olympic Games.
The proposal is seeking a uniform policy that the IOC would apply across all Olympic competitions, taking power from each federation’s ability to determine who is, or is not, included in an Olympic delegation. The IOC has yet to decide on whether or not to move this policy forward; however, it is heavily reported across all media platforms that this policy will become real. It should be noted that this policy only seems to be applicable to women’s sports as it aims to target transgender athletes and potentially test athletes to confirm their gender as females.
This Brief describes the background and history of the challenging issue of testing for transgender athletes.
Background
Gender identity and sports has become a household topic both in the United States and abroad. In the United States local, state, and federal policymakers, including the President, have weighed in on the issues; some states have even passed legislation either targeting or promoting inclusion in sports. Based on reporting from The Hill, in December 2024, the NCAA President Charlie Baker told the US Senate that there were ‘ less than 10 transgender student-athletes in the NCAA (out of over 500,000 student-athletes)..
The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Dr. Jane Thornton has spoken about some early research findings that are pointing toward a physical and competitive advantage for transgender athletes who transitioned after experiencing male puberty, even after suppressing testosterone in their bodies, according to The Ministry of Sport. This is furthering the desires of the IOC’s president, Kirsty Coventry, who is calling for a more uniform and blanket policy for the inclusion, or rejection, of transgender athletes in the Olympics. Currently, each nation’s sporting federations get to decide whether or not to include transgender athletes in their nation’s delegations. The IOC’s potential shift in policy would make it so that each federation would have to follow one policy and not have the freedom to include these athletes.
The policy shift is one that would encourage further testing and scrutiny of transgender athletes to confirm their gender. Some sporting federations are already conducting tests to confirm gender. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS) has been utilizing cheek swabs and blood testing to verify gender in their ski and snowboard competitions. The International Boxing Association (IBA) is also conducting testing of their own; however, there has been controversy regarding their practices. The IBA is a Russian-led association, and they were at the forefront of the Imane Khelif case. Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 World Championships after tests supposedly revealed XY chromosomes and higher levels of testosterone; however, the IOC cleared her to compete in the 2024 Paris Olympics, and these results were never officially revealed. The IBA did not reveal their testing methods. The timing of the disqualification came just a few days after Imane Khelif defeated Russian boxer Azelia Amineva, who had been undefeated before their fight. This is just one example of the use of gender confirming testing, or supposed testing, being used against athletes in unethical ways.
World Athletics, which oversees track and field events globally, instituted new rulings this summer ahead of the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo in September. The rulings required all female athletes to be subjected to genetic testing to confirm the presence of XY chromosomes, suggesting that it would detect whether an athlete was male or female genetically. It appears to be a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ test; however, according to the BBC some countries have outlawed genetic testing for non-medical reasons. This type of law and ban in countries like France and Norway have meant that athletes from these countries must conduct these genetic tests abroad, and not within the borders of their own countries. This decision was sparked by champion athlete Caster Semenya’s gender being questioned due to her successes. She was determined to be an athlete who was born with “differences in sex development” (or DSD). Semenya always competes as a female due to externally having female reproductive organs, but also has internal testes.
This has been called into question in the past too, in 2016’s Olympics in Rio, all three podium finishers in the women’s 800m were athletes with DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development)conditions (and Semenya won gold at that race), according to the BBC.
History
The idea of gender confirmation testing in athletics is not a new concept. Women’s sports was brought into the Olympic Games in 1924. By the 1950s and 1960s, concerns regarding doping and gender fraud became more prevalent (oftentimes, these rumors were based on visual stereotypes). The 1936 Olympics in Berlin had several issues related to gender. In the 100 meters, Helen Stephen defeated Stella Walsh (Stanisława Walasiewicz). Helen defeated Walsh in the 100 meter dash. A Polish publication accused Helen Stephens of being a man due to her impressive performance. Olympic officials carried out a physical examination to confirm Helen’s gender as a female, and it was confirmed, and she was awarded her medal. However, Stella Walsh was killed in the 1980s in a shooting in Ohio; and the autopsy revealed that she had a genetic condition with “ambiguous genitalia” known as mosaicism. Mosaicism is a condition that is created when a single egg is fertilized and creates an error when cells begin to divide. It should be stated that Walsh’s gender identity, that she lived with her entire life, was female.
After the 1936 Olympics, gender testing continued to evolve. In the 1960s and 1970s, physical exams were commonplace across all international sports; ironically, one competitor was disqualified, at the 1967 Pan-American Games in Winnipeg, for not having large enough breasts to be considered feminine. Physical exams were as invasive, at times, as they sound; they ranged from a hands-off examination, to a physically manipulative exam, and other methods all of which were humiliating and degrading. Chromosomal testing became quite popular after being introduced at the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble, however, a false positive was not an uncommon occurrence. In a 2010 study Vanessa Huggie wrote “this test for chromosomal sex does not necessarily map on to physiological or phenotypic sex, which are the only kinds of sexual identity that confer a sporting advantage (and there are many confounding conditions, as people can be born with just one or three or more sex chromosomes …”
The organization that led the charge in the 1940s for more gender testing was the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF). The IAAF was insistent on conducting more tests to sort out cases of accused gender fraud. By the 1980s, the IAAF dropped its usage of chromosomal testing and genetic tests for physical examinations. All testing was dropped by 1992 due to new urine tests for doping control, and the idea that minimal clothing in sports would help reveal one’s gender. By 1999, the IOC ended the requirement for any blanket testing policies, and the 2000 Olympics in Sidney were the first to be done since 1936 without gender confirmation testing.
The goal for the IOC now is to create a blanket gender testing policy for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. President Trump has been one of the most ardent supporters of policies limiting or erasing the participation, of transgender athletes in sports at all levels; and has even called for more testing by the IOC ahead of the 2028 Games. President Trump has also made mention of Title IX , a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination, as his means of ‘protecting women in women’s sports’ while excluding and perhaps discriminating against transgender athletes.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers around the country have fought to create more inclusionary policies. California, currently, allows transgender athletes to participate in sports through the high school level; and their policy is based on gender identity rather than genetics. The Olympics in LA in 2028 are going to be a contentious one to watch on this issue as the stage is being set for inclusive California to be hosting the Olympics which, under the IOC, may very well end the inclusionary practices that have been in place since 2000.
Conclusion
The American people also seem to have moved closer toward President Trump’s positioning on this issue with a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that 66% of Americans believe that transgender athletes ought to participate on sports teams, or in sporting divisions, that match the sex that was assigned to them at birth. This positioning though seems to lack nuance that historical perspective may provide such as stories like Stella Walsh whose own gender was a bit more complicated than just “male” or “female.”
Though a decision has yet to be made, it does seem that the IOC is interested in repeating history by bringing back these gender confirmation tests – even though there are decades worth of false positives, mixed results, and conflicting bodies of evidence in the research literature. It seems unfair and hypocritical that this policy is only regarding women’s sports and does not appear to be an expectation on the men’s side of the Olympics. There is a lot that is going to be decided in 2026 as we move closer to Los Angeles 2028; but the IOC would be wise to review some of their own history and decisions.
Engagement Resources
- Testing sex and gender in sports; reinventing, reimagining and reconstructing histories (Heggie, 2010) –https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3007680/#:~:text=For%20men%20there%20is%20no,the%20phrase%20’sex%20testing‘
- Pew Research Polls – https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
- Decision to Abolish Gender Testing at Sydney Olympics Supported By Yale Physician (Yale School of Medicine, 2000) – https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/
Is Trump trying to dig up the ocean? And what does the rest of the world think? “Seabed Mining” (Environment Policy Brief #185)
Environment Policy Brief #185 | Charlie Sweeney | December 12, 2025
In keeping with the administration’s bull-in-a-China-shop approach to the environment, foreign policy, tariffs, and just about every other domestic and international issue, the Trump team now wants to dig up the bottom of the sea.
Though it might sound more like a dystopian science fiction film premise— enormous machines crawling across the seafloor, scooping up mineral-rich rocks, sending clouds of sediment drifting for miles, smothering deep-sea life, changing water chemistry, leaving deep trench-like scars on the seabed that remain visible decades— this could be reality with the Trump administration’s new seabed mining initiative.
In late April 2025, the president signed a directive telling federal agencies to “unleash” America’s offshore mineral resources. The bold language calls for the relevant US government apparatus to take an active lead in deep-sea exploration and encourage private companies to get into the game.
Trump’s seabed mining EO tells NOAA to get permits moving faster, pushes the Interior Department to map offshore areas where valuable metals might be found, an extreme break with the current international agreements governing exploitation of the sea bed in international waters.
The idea is familiar, and in keeping with Trump‘s single-minded pursuit of the building blocks of our modern technological economy— minerals needed for batteries, electronics, and the defense industry, which are often processed in China.
Trump’s seabed mining EO defies established convention, acting unilaterally despite long-standing international agreements protecting the seabed from commercial exploitation until fully fleshed-out guidelines can be agreed upon by the international community.
From the administration’s point of view, waiting for years of international negotiation is too slow, so the United States should act first. That includes the possibility of approving mining in waters outside the US’s EEZ (exclusive economic zone).
Not surprisingly, alarms went off around the world.
Foreign governments, scientists, and ocean advocates reacted immediately. China warned that no nation should treat the deep seabed as its own property. The International Seabed Authority — the body that oversees activity in international waters — said American permits issued outside its system could undermine decades of work.
Environmental groups went further. Many see the policy as a reckless push to open a barely understood ecosystem to industrial extraction. They point to research showing how long damage can last.
One of the sharpest criticisms came from Earthjustice, which called the policy “a life raft for an untested, opaque industry that science is telling us poses enormous threats to ocean ecosystems for little gain.”
Private mining companies have taken notice. A Canadian firm, The Metals Company, has already begun discussions with U.S. officials about exploiting a swath of the Pacific, a move that drew intensive protests from island nations, environmental groups, and deep-sea ocean life researchers.
What are the rules in place, and how does Trump’s EO circumvent those protections?
The current international system for decades has held that the deep seabed beyond national borders be treated as a shared trust — the “common heritage of mankind.”
International rules were created through the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which established the International Seabed Authority.
That body has issued exploration licenses, but it has never approved commercial mining. Final rules for full-scale operations are still being negotiated.
Today, dozens of countries and many corporations support a moratorium or pause until more science is done. They argue the risks are too great, and recovery is too slow.
Deep-sea animals are slow-growing, fragile, and often found nowhere else on Earth. If we scrape them away, the wounds may outlast us.
Engagement Resources
- Earthjustice quote and press release: https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/earthjustice-statement-on-trump-administrations-deep-seabed-mining-executive-order
- Reuters: China reaction https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-urges-us-follow-international-law-reported-deep-sea-metals-stockpile-plan-2025-04-14/
- International Seabed Authority statement https://isa.org.jm/news/statement-on-the-us-executive-order-unleashing-americas-offshore-critical-minerals-and-resources/
- CSIS analysis of mining politics https://www.csis.org/analysis/trumps-deep-sea-mining-executive-order-race-critical-minerals-enters-uncharted-waters
How low will he go? President Trump’s penchant for debasing himself undermines U.S. Credibility (Elections & Politics Brief #201)
Elections & Politics Brief #201 | Nicholas Gordon | December 15, 2025
Summary
If you were new to President Trump’s Oval Office press conferences with world leaders, you might have found his meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) on Tuesday, November 18, to be an astonishingly low moment for a U.S President. As though determined to debase himself and weaken U.S. credibility, Trump dismissed U.S. intelligence findings linking the crown prince to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, while savagely attacking the reporter who asked about it. And, per usual, Trump went out of his way to denigrate past presidents and brag about himself ad nauseum.
The moment was grim, and all too familiar. Time and again, Trump subjects his Oval Office guests to degrading behavior—from ambushing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to presenting false claims of “white genocide” to the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The pattern makes a mockery of the office and undermines the American people. It’s beyond time for Republican leaders to show respect for the citizens they serve by taking a stand against Trump’s Oval Office depravity.
Analysis
Last February, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an Oval Office meeting which quickly soured, setting the tone for the egregious encounters that followed. Zelenskyy, visiting with the aim of forging a minerals deal that would help ensure further U.S. support as he defends his country against the ongoing Russian war, instead found himself ambushed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In their attack on the leader of a U.S. ally, Trump and Vance accused Zelenskyy of failing to show proper gratitude for U.S. aid. The American leaders then took turns berating and humiliating Zelenskyy, calling him disrespectful and pointing out that Ukraine was losing soldiers on the battlefield. This dismal exchange came on the heels of Trump wrongly accusing Ukraine of starting the war, when in fact Russia invaded Ukraine more than three years ago. After being tossed from the Oval Office and having his subsequent events in Washington canceled, Zelenskyy showed grace and diplomacy, thanking both the administration and the American people.
In May, Trump ambushed President Ramaphosa with false claims of “white genocide” and “land seizures” during another disastrous meeting that rivaled the indignity of Trump’s ambush of Zelenskyy. Deeply misinformed by debunked race-based conspiracy theories, Trump played a video showing rows of white crosses lining a rural road, and claimed, “These are burial sites right here. Burial sites. Over a thousand of white farmers.” But Trump was dead wrong. The crosses do not mark graves. The clip depicted a protest against the murder of a white farming couple in 2020.
“Have they told you where that is Mr. President?” Ramaphosa asked calmly. “I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.” Trump responded, wrongly, “These people are officials, and they’re saying ‘kill the white farmer and take his land.’”—and brandished a copy of a random blog post he asserted was about “white farmers being burned.” The image on the blog post was in fact from the Democratic Republic of Congo, not South Africa.
Ramaphosa was praised for his composure and diplomatic skill in handling Trump’s bullying and false allegations, while Trump was widely denounced for his bigotry and ignorance. “There is criminal activity in our country,” Ramaphosa explained, expertly modulating his tone and content to meet the comprehension level of his deluded interlocutor. “People who do get killed unfortunately through criminal activity, are not only white people. The majority of them are black people,” Ramaphosa said, in a statement backed by facts.
Following the meeting, Rep. Yvette Clarke wrote on social media, “The president’s ignorance of history and reality is an embarrassment to our nation. South Africa’s Black population was subjugated, segregated, and murdered for decades. Trump and Musk can lie and cry all day, but their hoax has no comparison to the brutality of Apartheid.”
And yet, it gets worse
Sitting with the crown prince—a man with a growing list of human rights abuses—Trump sunk to new lows. When ABC News reporter Mary Bruce asked MBS about his alleged involvementin the murder of Khashoggi in 2018, Trump savagely attacked Bruce. “You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” Trump said. “Your crappy company, your news is so fake we should look at that. The way you ask a question with the anger and meanness is terrible. You ought to go back and learn how to be a reporter.” Accusing Bruce of “insubordination,” Trump stated that the crown prince knew nothing about Khashoggi’s murder. “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen,” said Trump, who has a history of trashing U.S. intelligence conclusions in favor of tyrants.
If undermining the U.S. intelligence community and the free press, two pillars of democracy, were not enough, Trump then took his customary potshots at his presidential predecessors and boasted about his voting numbers, all of which comments were utterly out of context. After claiming that “Obama treated Saudi very badly,” and “Biden didn’t have any idea where the hell the country was,” Trump turned to his guest and asked, “Does Trump blow them all away?” Smiling sheepishly, the crown prince replied, “We’ve worked with all presidents.” Later, apropos of nothing, Trump stated, “I won Indiana by record numbers. I won many states by record numbers.” While the crown prince’s smile oozed embarrassment throughout the meeting, it’s unclear whether he was smiling because he got away with murder or because of Trump’s vulgarity. Perhaps both.
Conclusion
Americans want their president to do well. We want Trump to honor the democratic principles that the world looks to United States to uphold. But by constantly attacking our allies, reporters, intelligence agencies, and past U.S. presidents—often while siding with dictators and serial human rights’ abusers—Trump undermines and disrespects the very people he was elected to serve and protect. Ironically, for a president obsessed with trying to project strength and emulate a strongman, Trump personifies weakness and insecurity in his Oval Office behavior. Republican leaders who have been complicit in Trump’s act for a decade by kowtowing to his demonstrable falsehoods and abject racism need to hold him accountable to a higher standard of leadership if we hope to restore U.S. credibility.
Engagement Resources:
- org
- A nonprofitthat “aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics by providing original research on misinformation and hoaxes.”
- The Hoover Institute
- A public policy think tank that “seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind”
- The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
- An independent, nonprofit foundation “dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.”
The Need for a US Technology Policy
USRESIST NEWS GROUP OP ED
It is a technological age, but America lacks the semblance of a policy to regulate our use of technology. We have so far failed to develop policies to help assure us that our economic and social well-being is not being picked apart by our use of unregulated technological platforms.
The US has enacted regulations that more or less effectively guide our use of mass media communications; why not technology? Is it in part because of the enormous power that technology companies hold in our economy; because of their lobbying efforts? because our politicians are frightened of losing funding support from technology billionaires? Because of fears that regulating technology also would be a violation of free speech?
Whatever the reasons, we at USRESIST NEWS believe our country needs to take greater action. The abuses that technology causes have begun to outweigh their benefits. We propose that Congress and the administration take immediate action and enact policies to regulate our use of technology. Such policires would cover the following issues.
1.Regulating cell phone use by children
The major focus for regulating the use of technology by children , mainly cell phones, has been at the school and classroom level. While major federal legislation has yet to be enacted, a great many US states have put in place legislation banning cell phone use. As of late 2025, a majority of U.S. states—at least 37—have enacted laws or policies that ban or restrict student cellphone use in schools to improve academic focus and mental health.
The push for these laws is largely bipartisan, driven by a growing consensus that cell phones are a major source of academic distraction and contribute to youth mental health problems. Research suggests that bans can lead to improved test scores and increased social interaction among students. For example, a proposed Danish law would give victims, who are primarily girls and women, removal and compensation rights.
At the Federal level some, including the Department of Education, believe that cell phone use is a matter of local control, and does not come under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction. However, there recently has been an encouraging initiative at the federal level. The Focus on Learning Act is bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and Tim Kaine The Act aims to: (a)require the U.S. Department of Education to study the effects of cell phones on academic performance, mental health, and other student outcomes; and (b) create a pilot program to award grants to school districts that implement cellphone-free policies. The Focus on Learning Act has yet to be passed and is currently being reviewed by a Senate Committee. However policy like this would go a long way to helping our country identify what best practice is in relation to the disruptive use of cell phones in schools.
- Banning the promotion of hate speech and violence
Technology is used to promote hate speech and violence through platforms like social media, which can amplify aggressive language and ideologies that lead to offline harm. This includes online harassment, which can escalate to physical violence, and the creation of deepfakes or other manipulated content that spreads disinformation. The ease of online communication allows hateful ideologies to find and connect like-minded people, creating a sense of normalcy around prejudice and potentially leading to radicalization.
So far the Federal government has done little to regulate the use of online hate speech. There have been no effective efforts to establish digital governance that include principles of transparency and algorithmic accountability to prevent violence. Many politicians take refuge in the belief that efforts to curb online hate speech are a violation of first amendment (freedom of speech rights). However, it is useful to recognize that the use of 21st century online communications is much different than face to face proclamations. A message posted on the Internet can indiscriminately reach large numbers of people across the world some of whom may be motivated to react violently or in self-destructive ways
.The European Union provides an example we could learn from. It has implemented significant legislative initiatives, most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), which impose a duty of care and due diligence obligations on large online platforms to mitigate systemic risks like the dissemination of illegal content, including hate speech. The EU also established a Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online in partnership with tech companies, which led to commitments to review and remove illegal content quickly.
- Protecting the right to privacy
In the US the lone existing federal technology privacy law is outdated. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 was an early attempt to protect digital communications but is now considered outdated given modern technology. Lawmakers and civil liberties advocates are pushing for a federal privacy law specific to emerging technologies like facial recognition, or broader legislation that addresses general data collection practices.
A new “Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act” has been introduced in (but not yet passed by) the U.S. Congress. It seeks to ban federal law enforcement from using such technologies and withholding funds from state and local agencies that do. There are also ongoing discussions about a federal “Delete Act” to allow consumers a one-step mechanism to have data brokers delete their information.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is worth looking at. It is considered one of the world’s toughest privacy laws. It broadly prohibits data collection and use by default unless it falls under specific legal exceptions. The EU has also introduced the AI Act, which places restrictions on certain high-risk AI and biometric technologies.
The need for a new regulatory agency
We also believe there is a need for a Federal Technology Commission — a new agency that can carry out Congressional mandates in the three areas targeted above and help ensure the safe, effective and equitable use of information and education technologies. Given the common use of algorithms and other technology tools, there is wisdom in having a single agency oversee efforts in all three areas. Existing agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission, already have extensive agendas that would limit their abilities to serve in this new capacity.
A Congressional Bill to Improve the Nation’s Water Infrastructure (Environment Policy Brief #185)
Environment Policy Brief #185 | Haley Gabrielle Lloyd | December 4, 2025
Policy
The official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report states that about 240,000 water main breaks occur each year in the United States. This highlights the urgent state of the nation’s water infrastructure. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., introduced the Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act (H.R. 5566) on Sept. 26, 2025. Rep. Carbajal, introduced the bill to modernize the aging water systems across the nation.The bill seeks to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The bill would reauthorize and expand programs to strengthen water infrastructure. Oversight would come from the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill’s goal is to help communities improve drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems. The legislation aims to protect water systems from the impacts of climate change, natural disasters, and other risks. Federal funding would help local governments maintain safe, reliable water systems.
The risks of not passing this legislation are growing. U.S. water infrastructure is aging and not built for current climate challenges. More frequent droughts, flooding, and contamination threaten both cities and rural areas. Without urgent federal funding, widespread service failures, unsafe drinking water, and soaring emergency expenses are inevitable.
The Trump administration reduced federal involvement in environmental protection, increasing water system risks. EPA cuts weakened oversight by reducing staff and limiting enforcement of clean-water standards. Rollbacks to water protections have restricted the tools available to states and local governments. Environmental studies show that climate change poses substantial risks to these systems. As federal support declines, communities face growing climate pressures with fewer resources.
Passing H.R. 5566 is needed to maintain national water protection standards as climate risks escalate and federal support decreases. Surprisingly enough, the bill has 6 sponsors, 5 of which are Republicans and a single Democrat. This bill has gained support with national water and environmental organizations. With Republicans holding the House majority, H.R. 5566 faces a shocking path to victory if more GOP members join. Many water and environmental groups note that bipartisan water-infrastructure bills do well when they are framed as natural disaster prevention, clean water initiatives and ways to protect rural communities.
Analysis
Opponents of H.R. 5566 argue that federal involvement in water should not replace state and local control, and some resist expanding the EPA’s role. These arguments reflect limited-government views despite rising climate risks.
Supporters say state and local governments cannot meet these challenges without reliable federal help. Most have limited budgets and need support to upgrade systems to safe standards. In the Mississippi Delta, small towns depend on federal funds to repair outdated water systems they cannot afford to repair on their own. For example, in Holly Springs, Mississippi, the city used federal funds to repair broken lines and damaged pumps after several interruptions left residents with boil-water notices and low pressure. Nearby in Clarksdale, Miss., the Delta Regional Authority used federal funds to upgrade systems, improve water treatment, and reduce contamination risks. Without federal assistance, officials said, these improvements would not be possible. Groups including the American Public Works Association, American Rivers, the American Water Works Association, and the U.S. Water Alliance has supported H.R. 5566 for these reasons. Examples like these show that both rural and urban areas have interest in this bill. This gives this bill a better chance of being bipartisan and broader with support.
Without strong federal support, many water systems will not keep up with the impacts of climate change. Drought reduces supplies, storms cause flooding, and sewage overflows raise contamination risks. These can cause public-health issues and strain hospitals and emergency services. The CDC estimates that 1 million to 7 million waterborne disease cases occur each year. Improved systems could help prevent health emergencies. Vulnerable communities face greater risks, especially low-income and rural areas that need federal funding for upgrades.Due to the fact that historically Republican-leaning rural areas will be impacted negatively failing at the worst outcome of (H.R. 5566) not passing, there is a chance we may get a vote on this. On Dec. 1, 2025 the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Conclusion
The future of water systems depends on whether Congress chooses to maintain a federal role in water infrastructure or continue rolling back environmental protections and oversight. H.R. 5566 would not reverse broad rollbacks but would provide state and local governments with support to manage water systems amid a climate crisis. It would help reduce inequities and better prepare communities for water challenges and public-health threats.
Resources
- https://dra.gov/delta-regional-authority-invests-over-1-5-million-to-address-infrastructure-needs-in-13-communities Delta Regional Authority announcement on more than $1.5 million invested in rural water infrastructure projects across 13 Communities.
- https://www.govern1.com/US/Holly-Springs/117674288828820/City-of-Holly-Springs-Utility-Department Information from the City of Holly Springs Utility Department documenting local water-system needs and upgrades.
- https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5566 Official Congress.gov page for H.R. 5566
The Challenges to Federal Vaccination Policy (Health & Gender Policy Brief #182)
Health & Gender Policy Brief #182 | Haley Gabrielle Lloyd | December 9, 2025
Summary
The Protecting Free Vaccines Act (H.R. 5448) aims to preserve stable vaccine coverage by freezing ACIP recommendations as of 2024 and requiring all major insurance programs to continue covering those vaccines without cost-sharing until 2030. H.R. 5448 was introduced on Sept. 18, 2025, by Rep. Frank Pallone D-NJ-6. Since this is a Democrat-sponsored bill in a Republican-controlled House, its chances of passing are currently low unless bipartisan support grows.
Background
For years, the United States followed a clear rule: If the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine advisory group, recommended a vaccine, insurance had to cover it without out-of-pocket costs. This became the national standard for private insurance, employer plans, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Routine immunizations became free. Coverage was reliable and accessible across all states. This was federally implemented through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It required that the majority of private Medicaid insurance plans cover ACIP-recommended vaccines. This also included no cost-sharing under Section 2713. Eventually individual states started to have similar requirements for Medicaid and CHIP.
Under the Trump administration, vaccine coverage and policy are becoming unstable. Government-promoted “vaccine hesitancy,” the dismissal of scientific advisers, and budget cuts to the CDC have weakened national vaccine recommendations. Additionally, the reduced emphasis on the central roles of scientific groups, such as ACIP, is weakening their influence on public health policy.
If federal standards weaken, insurers can reintroduce cost-sharing, and states may reduce Medicaid and CHIP vaccine coverage. Lower coverage would increase the risk of preventable outbreaks and place additional strain on health care systems. These changes would affect not only individuals but entire communities.
Analysis
Opponents of the Protecting Free Vaccines Act believe freezing ACIP’s 2024 recommendations limits future officials’ ability to revise vaccine policy. Some lawmakers view the bill as federal overreach, objecting to requirements on private insurers and limits on state authority over Medicaid. They emphasize local control and medical freedom, highlighting a divide among lawmakers and differing views on the federal role in health policy.
Supporters argue that these objections overlook the current health policy environment. Without a stable federal standard, insurers can quickly change coverage, and states facing budget pressures may reduce preventive care. Employer plans could reintroduce costs for vaccines that were previously free, and families on Medicaid would risk losing access. This would deepen health inequities, especially for low-income children and older adults.
Without strong federal standards, long-term risks to public health preparedness will grow. Vaccines depend on public trust, clear guidance, and stable access. When vaccine policy becomes politicized, uptake declines and vaccination rates fall. This increases the risk of disease outbreaks and public health crises. The 2019 measles outbreak showed how quickly vaccination gaps can widen. Diseases like measles, influenza, and COVID-19 could resurge, straining health care systems, raising costs for families, and weakening preparedness for future threats.
Conclusion
H.R. 5448 would maintain no-cost coverage of all vaccines recommended in 2024 through 2030, preventing insurers and states from increasing or reducing costs for these vaccines, even if federal policy changes. While the bill does not address broader political polarization, it establishes a clear federal safeguard for vaccine access during a period of rapid change.
The future of vaccine access will depend on how the Trump administration changes health agency policies and interacts with scientific groups. Cuts to the CDC, weakened federal guidance, and reduced roles for advisory groups like ACIP indicate that vaccine policy is becoming more politicized. Without federal protections, vaccine coverage will remain vulnerable to further cuts. The Protecting Free Vaccines Act would not reverse the administration’s broader health policy direction, but it would provide a safety net for the next four years. Maintaining a stable foundation now helps ensure that future administrations are not left to rebuild a weakened public health system.
Engagement Rersources
- Official Congress.gov page for H.R. 5448 with full bill text, sponsors and legislative history. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5448
- CDC surveillance report on adult vaccination coverage in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6501a1.htm
- Peer-reviewed BMC Public Health study examining how politics and misinformation affected COVID-19 vaccination patterns. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12432-x
- CDC report on the 2019 measles outbreaks across the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/pdfs/mm6840e2-H.pdf
Rideshare Drivers Organize As Earnings Decline (Technology Policy Brief #160)
Technology Policy Brief #160 | Mindy Spatt | December 9, 2025
Summary
When Uber and Lyft came on the scene, taxi drivers protested vociferously. Now it’s the rideshare drivers protesting, as their earnings go down and the threat of autonomous vehicles looms. Organizing by rideshare drivers has had some success, but how effective hard-won changes will be remains to be seen. Workers scored an apparent victory in securing collective bargaining rights in California. But a similar law in Massachusetts has yet to yield results and the California law was a compromise that included enormous giveaways to the companies.
Analysis
The news is mostly bad for Uber and Lyft drivers, who have staged a series of protests across the country as they see their already minimal earnings decrease and work without any employment protections. Here in San Francisco, automated Waymos are everywhere. The pricing is similar to Lyft and Uber, but costs to consumers may be lower since no tip is necessary. Analysts say Waymo’s earnings are already cutting into Uber’s
There is worse to come for drivers. Uber and Lyft have made no secret of their intention to move toward automated vehicles as well. Rollouts will begin in 2026 and eventually will replace drivers altogether. Some drivers have already gotten side gigs training the AI vehicles that will supplant them.
Still, the companies have been able to crush efforts by drivers to obtain meaningful employment protections. Organizing drives have had some success, but it may be too little too late.
In New York, the Taxi Workers Alliance sponsored a protest that attracted hundreds of Uber and Lyft drivers. They claimed the companies were locking them out of the apps for hours or days at a time in a deliberate attempt to avoid the city’s minimum pay regulations by keeping them off the road for extended periods. Their protests were heard as the Taxi Commission eventually voted to restrict such lockouts, requiring advance notice to affected drivers and forbidding lockouts for at least 16 hours after a first trip, but failing to stop the practice entirely.
In Nashville, protesters were less successful. Five drivers from the Tennessee Drivers Union were banned from Nashville International Airport after leading a protest for better pay and working conditions there. That means those drivers, who get most of their business from Airport rides, have lost most of their income.
Shrinking earnings led Uber and Lyft drivers at Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport to stage a strike of sorts against the two rideshare companies by gathering at the staging lot for the apps and shutting off their apps. The drivers hope that action will spark an organizing campaign.
Massachusetts drivers won that right through Question 3, a ballot measure that passed in November 2024. But the law does not reclassify drivers as employees, which would allow them to benefit from the rights afforded by the National Labor Relations Law; it only allows collective bargaining. A campaign is underway to certify a bargaining unit. Critics say that as long as drivers are classified as independent contractors, they cannot have fair employment rights and point out that Uber and Lyft didn’t bother to oppose Question 3.
The same is true for a recently passed law enabling rideshare workers to organize in California, where the companies spent a record-breaking $200 million to pass a ballot measure preventing drivers from being classified as employees. Not only did they not oppose AB 1340, a law allowing collective bargaining for rideshare drivers, but they actually signed off on the bill. In exchange, they were gifted a reduction in insurance coverage, lowering their costs while severely limiting recovery for individual Californians harmed by uninsured or underinsured drivers.
The California law was lauded as a huge expansion of collective bargaining rights and a historic step in empowering over 800,000 rideshare drivers working for companies like Uber and Lyft. But Rideshare Drivers United, a Los Angeles-based advocacy group of 20,000 drivers, said in a blog post that they were not at the table for the final version of the bill, which represented a compromise between the companies and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is vying to represent California drivers.
According to Drivers United, “The bill …will force drivers to negotiate from a pay floor far below minimum wage, lacks substantial protections for drivers who engage in taking action such as striking, and has no adequate measures to hold companies accountable if they ignore or violate the established rules.
Still, they say, “Whether the law is too weak or strong enough is up to us as drivers! In Massachusetts, SEIU passed a similar law in 2024, but has yet to deliver a union or contract. But if California drivers build real power through public action, and fight together for a strong first contract, we can change our future forever under this law.”
Engagement Resources
- Question 3 Still a Question: Massachusetts’ Experiment in Sectoral Bargaining for Gig Workers
- Question 3 Still a Question, Ted Parker, April 8, 2025, On Labor https://onlabor.org/question-3-still-a-question-massachusetts-experiment-in-sectoral-bargaining-for-gig-workers/
- AB 1340 Overview, Rideshare Drivers United, https://www.drivers-united.org/ab-1340
Alaska (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #2)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #2 | Nate Iglehart | 11/29/2025
- Announced Alaska Democrat Senate Candidates: Ann Diener and Mary Peltola
- Announced Alaska Dem. House Candidates: Matt Schultz, and (potentially) Mary Peltola.
Announced Alaska House Candidates
There are two seats up for grabs this coming election season in Alaska: the first is Alaska’s single, at-large House of Representatives seat, and the second is the Senate seat of Republican Dan Sullivan. The current delegation consists of Republican Representative Nick Begich III, Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.
Alaska has long been a Republican stronghold at the federal level, and while that still remains the case, the grip that the Republican party has on the state has begun to wane over the past few election cycles. In 2000, Democrats only received 27.7% of the vote, but that number has risen to 43% and 41% in the 2020 and 2024 elections respectively. Anchorage’s legislature and mayor have both slowly shifted to the center, and with affordability being one of the key issues this election season, Democrats may have a rare opportunity to gain some ground. The potential expiration of ACA subsidies at the end of this year is also a main sticking point, and some polls suggest that Senator Dan Sullivan’s seat may be less secure than previously thought.
Alaska is an exceedingly rural state outside of Anchorage, and takes the title of least densely populated state. However, its population of roughly 733,391 people with a median age of 35.6 years makes it one of the youngest states in the nation. This dichotomy of rural life and a young population will be a test of the Democratic platform, which has often focused more on the latter than the former. It will also make the issues of affordability more prevalent, while the ACA subsidy issue may carry less weight. The primary will be held on August 18th, with the general election following on November 3.
Announced Senate Candidates
Anna Diener
Ann Diener, 52, seems to be the main candidate for Democrats in Alaska. She is a journalist, having worked for the newspaper sales executive at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and only arrived in Alaska in 2021. Without experience in governance, she relies on her background in media and her time working with Les Gara’s campaign for Governor in 2022, which ultimately lost. Diener’s platform prioritizes workers’ rights, infrastructure, housing, natural gas expansion, and foreign policy. While Alaska’s Senate races rarely draw many eyes, Democrats may see this seat as one with potential to flip, as polls show that Sen. Dan Sullivan is not particularly popular. Diener may not have name recognition or an extensive resume in government, but she may have just enough relatability, bipartisan policies, and political tailwind to take the general election as the sole Democratic candidate at the moment.
Platform Priorities
- Infrastructure: Building adequate roads, with a focus on improving the Dalton Highway and a full extension of the Alaska Railroad to Alberta, Canada.
- Housing: Focus on building and refurbishing housing, making use of the new proposed infrastructure projects.
- Agriculture and Tourism: Expanding the Alaska Grown program, which establishes farms and agriculture across the state. Also promoting tourism to the state.
- Energy: Expanding the use of LNG (natural gas) along with its pipelines and other sustainable mining operations. The focus here is on lowering energy costs for Alaska’s citizens, as well as an “all-in” approach on energy that seeks to make LNG, clean coal, and other mining pursuits as sustainable and affordable as possible.
Voter & Donor Support
- No data yet on available donor support, nor on Diener’s voter appeal in comparison to Sullivan.
Why She Might Win
- Sullivan isn’t a very popular opponent
- Trump’s endorsement of SUllivan could backfire if Trump’s popularity continues to fall
- New figures in politics often capitalize in chaotic times
- Energy policy that caters to Alaska’s strengths will be perceived as common sense
Why She Might Lose
- Alaska is still decently Republican-leaning, and while Sullivan isn’t particularly popular, incumbency carries with it some advantages in voters’ minds.
- Lack of true government experience could make Diener seem unqualified.
- Media presence is minimal, with mainly a campaign website, Facebook, and a handful of other social media accounts. Also has not done an interview yet.
Key Election Variables
- Sullivan’s sliding popularity and the nationwide perception of Republicans
- Energy and housing costs
- Extent to which dissuaded voters vote for a Democrat instead of Green or independent party candidates.
General Election Odds: Medium-low due to district partisanship, but opponent is not popular.
Primary Odds: Currently uncontested
Mary Peltola
Mary Peltola, 52, would be the other Democratic candidate for the seat, but she has yet to file to run as she navigates a lawsuit involving the death of her husband. She also may yet turn her eyes to the race for Alaska’s House of Representatives seat. Pelotla was the Alaskan Representative in the House from 2022 to 2025, after defeating Republican former Governor Sarah Palin and Republican Alaska Policy Forum board member Nick Begich III. Her win was one of many firsts, including first Alaska Native member of Congress, first woman to represent Alaska in the House of Representatives, and the first Democrat to serve as Alaska’s representative in the House since Nick Begich Sr. in 1972. If she were to run again, it’s likely that her platform would be similar to the one that she won her 2022 election with: infrastructure improvements, advocacy for Alaskan fisheries, and cooperation with the Alaska Native Communities. But without any indication that she will file for a run for the seat, it is unclear how much longer she can wait to decide if she runs for the Senate seat or for the House seat.
Platform Priorities
- Fishery Advocacy: She worked to ban predatory foreign trawlers to protect salmon and worked to revise the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
- Infrastructure Improvements: Her first term was marked by a $2 billion boon she helped secure from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act for Alaskan projects
- Aid to Native Communities: She addressed long-standing promises to Alaska Native communities, and sponsored the Native American Millennium Challenge Demonstration Act to assist remote communities with economic development.
Voter & Donor Support
- Voters and donors who are embedded in Alaska’s Democratic campaigns would know her name and know her ability to get things done.
- Her bipartisan streak may gain some independent votes, but her 2024 loss showed that Republicans and Independents disillusioned by Trump and MAGA would rather vote for a third party, and could under Alaska’s Ranked Choice Voting system.
Why She Might Win
- Name recognition and a history of service for Alaska already.
- A growing demographic shift towards the center may lend her additional support.
- Dan Sullivan is not particularly popular.
- Bipartisan stances could be a welcome sight in an election that will be extremely divisive.
Why She Might Lose
- Her refusal to start her campaign so far is costing her valuable money and time
- Voters already showed that they preferred Dan Sullivan over her in 2024.
- Alaska still remains a relatively red state.
Key Election Variables
- How popular Dan Sullivan is approaching election day.
- How late Peltola starts her campaign.
- Voter fatigue for Trump-style politics and Trump-endorsed politicians.
- The seriousness of the cost-of-living crisis, and who is blamed for it.
General Election Odds: Medium-low due to district partisanship, but opponent is not popular.
Primary Odds: High if she did run, but the later she declares, the lower her odds get.
Announced Alaska House Candidates
Matt Schultz
Matt Schultz, 53, is a progressive pastor with a decently strong online following, and he is taking his first stab at governance with this race to represent Alaska’s at-large district. As the pastor of Anchorage’s First Presbyterian Church, he has an extensive history of support for progressive policies and ideals, having spoken at Anchorage’s No Kings day rally while focusing on homelessness in Anchorage, food insecurity, and raising the minimum wage. The New York-born pastor moved to Alaska in 1997, and his work as a pastor has garnered him respect amongst Anchorage’s populace. While he has often denounced Trump, he wants to run a campaign that focuses on issues rather than people, with his key policy areas being the cost-of-living, protecting health care and medicaid, protecting LGBTQ+ rights, and growing the diversity of Alaska’s energy sector. With his name recognition alongside his progressive Christian identity, he stands out as a candidate who can reach parts of both parties while also having lived in Alaska for decades now. Both of these aspects may help him gain momentum, but that same progressive Christian identity could also backfire and make many Alaskans see him as a Democrat first.
Platform Priorities
- Healthcare: Safeguarding access to health care and clinics, cutting travel and wait times, and making medicine more affordable are all key elements of Schultz’s platform. He is also in favor of continued funding for providers like Planned Parenthood.
- Infrastructure and Energy: Schultz supports investment in infrastructure, including addressing issues at the Port of Alaska in Anchorage and exploring options for rail development. He also believes in a diversified energy sector in order to lower energy prices.
- Social Justice: His speeches at the No Kings protests go hand-in-hand with his historical support for the BLM movement and LGBTQ rights. He also has previously advocated for an ordinance banning conversion therapy for minors, and wants to fight the rise of Christian nationalism across the nation.
- Cost-Of-Living: On top of housing, Schultz says that one of the key reasons he began his campaign is the high cost of groceries, fuel, housing, and child care. He also opposes federal tax cuts for the wealthy and the cutting of social programs.
Voter & Donor Support
- There aren’t any figures regarding his fundraising yet, but his identity could draw attention from Democratic donors and voters who may see a chance to flip Alaska blue or support a more progressive brand of Christianity. He also has a good media presence, both in interviews and in speeches he’s given. Importantly, her has connections through his uncle, Tom Begich, who is running for governor as a Democrat and his other uncle, Mark Begich, is a Democratic former U.S. senator. But his lack of experience could also hinder support from all sides, and his opponent has already raised a decent war chest.
Why He Might Win
- Community service experience could go a long way in a rural state.
- Savvy media presence and his relative youth may shine, becoming an alternative to the status quo that is guided by a set of religious moral values.
- A growing demographic shift towards the center may lend him additional support.
- Dan Sullivan is not particularly popular.
Why He Might Lose
- Alaska is not a particularly religious state, so his pastor background might not carry enough weight.
- Lack of experience and proven track record could hinder voters’ opinions of his potential.
- Progressive social justice stance could alienate many voters more concerned with pocketbook issues, something that rang true in the 2024 elections.
- It is unclear how good Schultz is at fundraising, and his opponent has a headstart.
- Alaska still remains a relatively red state.
Key Election Variables
- How popular Dan Sullivan is approaching election day.
- Whether or not Peltola enters the race.
- Voter fatigue for Trump-style politics and Trump-endorsed politicians
- The seriousness of the cost-of-living crisis, and who is blamed for it.
General Election Odds: Medium-low due to district partisanship, but opponent is not popular.
Primary Odds: Medium-high, his identity is intriguing and his decorum could stand well against his opponents.
Recent Interviews:
15 minutes with Matt Schultz, new Democratic candidate for U.S. House
Mary Petola
Overall, Alaska may not be the most exciting race going up to the election, but Democratic campaign planners are actively eying developments as we inch towards the election. Shifting demographics, a rising cost-of-living, and some interesting candidates could mean Alaska regains Democratic representation. While the state won’t carry much weight in the electoral college, a Democratic win here would spell out the writing on the wall for the current Republican stronghold, and perhaps be a part of a larger blue wave in 2026.
Engagement Resources:
Ballotpedia – serves as an initial go to for candidates and races at all levels:
Alaska elections, 2026 – Ballotpedia