Columns
Local governments provide proof that polarization is not inevitable
February 11 ,2026
When it comes to national politics, Americans are fiercely divided
across a range of issues, including gun control, election security and
vaccines. It’s not new for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds over
issues, but things have reached a point where even the idea of
compromising appears to be anathema, making it more difficult to solve
thorny problems.
:
Lauren Hall
Rochester Institute of Technology
(THE CONVERSATION) — When it comes to national politics, Americans are fiercely divided across a range of issues, including gun control, election security and vaccines. It’s not new for Republicans and Democrats to be at odds over issues, but things have reached a point where even the idea of compromising appears to be anathema, making it more difficult to solve thorny problems.
But things are much less heated at the local level. A survey of more than 1,400 local officials by the Carnegie Corporation and CivicPulse found that local governments are “largely insulated from the harshest effects of polarization.” Communities with fewer than 50,000 residents proved especially resilient to partisan dysfunction.
Why this difference? As a political scientist, I believe that lessons from the local level not only open a window onto how polarization works but also the dynamics and tools that can help reduce it.
—————
Problems are more concrete
Local governments deal with concrete issues – sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.
By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.
Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them – imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.
These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.
Local officials, however, live among the human beings they represent, whose complexity defies caricature. Living and interacting in the same communities leads to greater recognition of shared interests and values, according to the Carnegie/CivicPulse survey.
Meaningful interaction with others, including partisans of the opposing party, reduces prejudice about them. Local government provides a natural space where identities overlap.
—————
People are complicated
In national U.S. politics today, large groups of individuals are divided not only by party but a variety of other factors, including race, religion, geography and social networks. When these differences align with ideology, political disagreement can feel like an existential threat.
Such differences are not always as pronounced at the local level. A neighbor who disagrees about property taxes could be the coach of your child’s soccer team. Your fellow school board member might share your concerns about curriculum but vote differently in presidential elections.
These cross-cutting connections remind us that political opponents are not a monolithic enemy but complex individuals. When people discover they have commonalities outside of politics with others holding opposing views, polarization can decrease significantly.
Finally, most local elections are technically nonpartisan. Keeping party labels off ballots allows voters to judge candidates as individuals and not merely as Republicans or Democrats.
—————
National implications
None of this means local politics are utopian.
Like water, polarization tends to run downhill, from the national level to local contests, particularly in major cities where candidates for mayor and other office are more likely to run as partisans. Local governments also see culture war debates, notably in the area of public school instruction.
Nevertheless, the relative partisan calm of local governance suggests that polarization is not inevitable. It emerges from specific conditions that can be altered.
Polarization might be reduced by creating more opportunities for cross-partisan collaboration around concrete problems. Philanthropists and even states might invest in local journalism that covers pragmatic governance rather than partisan conflict. More cities and counties could adopt changes in election law that would de-emphasize party labels where they add little information for voters.
Aside from structural changes, individual Americans can strive to recognize that their neighbors are not the cardboard cutouts they might imagine when thinking about “the other side.” Instead, Americans can recognize that even political opponents are navigating similar landscapes of community, personal challenges and time constraints, with often similar desires to see their roads paved and their children well educated.
The conditions shaping our interactions matter enormously. If conditions change, perhaps less partisan rancor will be the result.
But things are much less heated at the local level. A survey of more than 1,400 local officials by the Carnegie Corporation and CivicPulse found that local governments are “largely insulated from the harshest effects of polarization.” Communities with fewer than 50,000 residents proved especially resilient to partisan dysfunction.
Why this difference? As a political scientist, I believe that lessons from the local level not only open a window onto how polarization works but also the dynamics and tools that can help reduce it.
—————
Problems are more concrete
Local governments deal with concrete issues – sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.
By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.
Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them – imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.
These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.
Local officials, however, live among the human beings they represent, whose complexity defies caricature. Living and interacting in the same communities leads to greater recognition of shared interests and values, according to the Carnegie/CivicPulse survey.
Meaningful interaction with others, including partisans of the opposing party, reduces prejudice about them. Local government provides a natural space where identities overlap.
—————
People are complicated
In national U.S. politics today, large groups of individuals are divided not only by party but a variety of other factors, including race, religion, geography and social networks. When these differences align with ideology, political disagreement can feel like an existential threat.
Such differences are not always as pronounced at the local level. A neighbor who disagrees about property taxes could be the coach of your child’s soccer team. Your fellow school board member might share your concerns about curriculum but vote differently in presidential elections.
These cross-cutting connections remind us that political opponents are not a monolithic enemy but complex individuals. When people discover they have commonalities outside of politics with others holding opposing views, polarization can decrease significantly.
Finally, most local elections are technically nonpartisan. Keeping party labels off ballots allows voters to judge candidates as individuals and not merely as Republicans or Democrats.
—————
National implications
None of this means local politics are utopian.
Like water, polarization tends to run downhill, from the national level to local contests, particularly in major cities where candidates for mayor and other office are more likely to run as partisans. Local governments also see culture war debates, notably in the area of public school instruction.
Nevertheless, the relative partisan calm of local governance suggests that polarization is not inevitable. It emerges from specific conditions that can be altered.
Polarization might be reduced by creating more opportunities for cross-partisan collaboration around concrete problems. Philanthropists and even states might invest in local journalism that covers pragmatic governance rather than partisan conflict. More cities and counties could adopt changes in election law that would de-emphasize party labels where they add little information for voters.
Aside from structural changes, individual Americans can strive to recognize that their neighbors are not the cardboard cutouts they might imagine when thinking about “the other side.” Instead, Americans can recognize that even political opponents are navigating similar landscapes of community, personal challenges and time constraints, with often similar desires to see their roads paved and their children well educated.
The conditions shaping our interactions matter enormously. If conditions change, perhaps less partisan rancor will be the result.
Trump’s plan to wipe out U.S. climate rules relies on EPA rescinding its 2009 endangerment finding – but will courts allow it?
February 11 ,2026
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that
greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power
plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the
endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has
underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.
:
By Gary W. Yohe
Wesleyan University
(THE CONVERSATION) — In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.
The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.
But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. But on Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.
There’s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.
Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.
To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.
—————
The Supreme Court started it
The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.
The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.
The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”
That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.
Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.
On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.
This latest challenge is different.
It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s
dismissive perspective on climate risk.
—————
Trump’s burden of proof
To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.
That’s a tough task.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.
All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.
Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.
For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.
The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”
In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.
In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”
—————
What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding
As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.
It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.
Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.
I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.”
Wesleyan University
(THE CONVERSATION) — In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.
The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.
But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. But on Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.
There’s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.
Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.
To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.
—————
The Supreme Court started it
The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.
The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.
The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”
That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.
Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.
On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.
This latest challenge is different.
It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s
dismissive perspective on climate risk.
—————
Trump’s burden of proof
To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.
That’s a tough task.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.
All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.
Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.
For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.
The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”
In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.
In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”
—————
What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding
As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.
It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.
Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.
I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.”
U.S. exit from the World Health Organization marks a new era in global health policy – here’s what the U.S., and world, will lose
February 10 ,2026
The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in
late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of
his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his
intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19
pandemic.
:
Jordan Miller
Arizona State University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The U.S. departure from the World Health Organization became official in late January 2026, according to the Trump administration – a year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day of his second term declaring that he was doing so. He first stated his intention to do so during his first term in 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.
—————
Why is the U.S. leaving the WHO?
The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.
The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.
The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.
The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.
However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain.
—————
What does U,S, withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?
In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. Some public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.
The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.
As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.
In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”
—————
What are the longer-term impacts of U.S. withdrawal?
By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.
Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.
While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza.
Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.
This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.
Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.
I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.
As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.
Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.
—————
Could the U.S. return under a new president?
In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.
In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.
The U.S. severing its ties with the WHO will cause ripple effects that linger for years to come, with widespread implications for public health. The Conversation asked Jordan Miller, a public health professor at Arizona State University, to explain what the U.S. departure means in the short and long term.
—————
Why is the U.S. leaving the WHO?
The Trump administration says it’s unfair that the U.S. contributes more than other nations and cites this as the main reason for leaving. The White House’s official announcement gives the example of China, which – despite having a population three times the size of the U.S. – contributes 90% less than the U.S. does to the WHO.
The Trump administration has also claimed that the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was botched and that it lacked accountability and transparency.
The WHO has pushed back on these claims, defending its pandemic response, which recommended masking and physical distancing.
The U.S. does provide a disproportionate amount of funding to the WHO. In 2023, for example, U.S. contributions almost tripled that of the European Commission’s and were roughly 50% more than the second highest donor, Germany. But health experts point out that preventing and responding quickly to public health challenges is far less expensive than dealing with those problems once they’ve taken root and spread.
However, the withdrawal process is complicated, despite the U.S. assertion that it is final. Most countries do not have the ability to withdraw, as that is the way the original agreement to join the WHO was designed. But the U.S. inserted a clause into its agreement with the WHO when it agreed to join, stipulating that the U.S. would have the ability to withdraw, as long as it provided a one-year notice and paid all remaining dues. Though the U.S. gave its notice when Trump took office a year ago, it still owes the WHO about US$260 million in fees for 2024-25. There are complicated questions of international law that remain.
—————
What does U,S, withdrawal from the WHO mean in the short term?
In short, the U.S. withdrawal weakens public health abroad and at home. The WHO’s priorities include stopping the spread of infectious diseases, stemming antimicrobial resistance, mitigating natural disasters, providing medication and health services to those who need it, and even preventing chronic diseases. Some public health challenges, such as infectious diseases, have to be approached at scale because experience shows that coordination across borders is important for success.
The U.S. has been the largest single funder of the WHO, with contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually over the past decade, so its withdrawal will have immediate operational impacts, limiting the WHO’s ability to continue established programs.
As a result of losing such a significant share of its funding, the WHO announced in a recent memo to staff that it plans to cut roughly 2,300 jobs – a quarter of its workforce – by summer 2026. It also plans to downsize 10 of its divisions to four.
In addition to a long history of funding, U.S. experts have worked closely with the WHO to address public health challenges. Successes stemming from this partnership include effectively responding to several Ebola outbreaks, addressing mpox around the world and the Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Both the Marburg and Ebola viruses have a 50% fatality rate, on average, so containing these diseases before they reached pandemic-level spread was critically important.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement in January 2026 describing the move as “a shortsighted and misguided abandonment of our global health commitments,” noting that “global cooperation and communication are critical to keep our own citizens protected because germs do not respect borders.”
—————
What are the longer-term impacts of U.S. withdrawal?
By withdrawing from the WHO, the U.S. will no longer participate in the organization’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, which has been in operation since 1952. This will seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to plan and manufacture vaccines to match the predicted flu strains for each coming year.
Annual flu vaccines for the U.S. and globally are developed a year in advance using data that is collected around the world and then analyzed by an international team of experts to predict which strains are likely to be most widespread in the next year. The WHO convenes expert panels twice per year and then makes recommendations on which flu strains to include in each year’s vaccine manufacturing formulation.
While manufacturers will likely still be able to obtain information regarding the WHO’s conclusions, the U.S. will not contribute data in the same way, and American experts will no longer have a role in the process of data analysis. This could lead to problematic differences between WHO recommendations and those coming from U.S. authorities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year in the U.S. millions of people get the flu, hundreds of thousands of Americans are hospitalized and tens of thousands die as a result of influenza.
Diminishing the country’s ability to prepare in advance through flu shots will likely mean more hospitalizations and more deaths as a result of the flu.
This is just one example of many of how the U.S.’s departure will affect the country’s readiness to respond to disease threats.
Additionally, the reputational damage done by the U.S. departure cannot be overstated. The U.S. has developed its position as an international leader in public health over many decades as the largest developer and implementer of global health programs.
I believe surrendering this position will diminish the United States’ ability to influence public health strategies internationally, and that is important because global health affects health in the U.S. It will also make it harder to shape a multinational response in the event of another public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public health and policy experts predict that China will use this opportunity to strengthen its position and its global influence, stepping into the power vacuum the U.S. creates by withdrawing. China has pledged an additional US$500 million in support of the WHO over the next five years.
As a member of the WHO, the United States has had ready access to a vast amount of data collected by the WHO and its members. While most data the WHO obtains is ultimately made available to the public, member nations have greater access to detailed information about collection methods and gain access sooner, as new threats are emerging.
Delays in access to data could hamstring the country’s ability to respond in the event of the next infectious disease outbreak.
—————
Could the U.S. return under a new president?
In short, yes. The WHO has clearly signaled its desire to continue to engage with the U.S., saying it “regrets the U.S. decision to withdraw” and hopes the U.S. will reconsider its decision to leave.
In the meantime, individual states have the opportunity to participate. In late January, California announced it will join the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network, which is open to a broader array of participants than just WHO member nations. California was also a founding member of the West Coast Health Alliance, which now includes 14 U.S. states that have agreed to work together to address public health challenges.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also launched an initiative designed to improve public health infrastructure and build trust. He enlisted national public health leaders for this effort, including former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention leaders Susan Monarez and Deb Houry, as well as Katelyn Jetelina, who became well known as Your Local Epidemiologist during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I think we will continue to see innovative efforts like these emerging, as political and public health leaders work to fill the vacuum being created by the Trump administration’s disinvestment in public health.
Certain brain injuries may be linked to violent crime – identifying them could help reveal how people make moral choices
February 10 ,2026
On Oct. 25, 2023, a 40-year old man named Robert Card opened fire with a
semi-automatic rifle at a bowling alley and nearby bar in Lewiston,
Maine, killing 18 people and wounding 13 others.
:
By Christopher M. Filley, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
Isaiah Kletenik, Harvard University
and Patricia Churchland, University of California, San Diego
(THE CONVERSATION) — On Oct. 25, 2023, a 40-year old man named Robert Card opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle at a bowling alley and nearby bar in Lewiston, Maine, killing 18 people and wounding 13 others. Card was found dead by suicide two days later. His autopsy revealed extensive damage to the white matter of his brain thought to be related to a traumatic brain injury, which some neurologists proposed may have played a role in his murderous actions.
Neurological evidence such as magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, is widely used in court to show whether and to what extent brain damage induced a person to commit a violent act. That type of evidence was introduced in 12% of all murder trials and 25% of death penalty trials between 2014 and 2024. But it's often unclear how such evidence should be interpreted because there's no agreement on what specific brain injuries could trigger behavioral shifts that might make someone more likely to commit crimes.
We are two behavioral neurologists and a philosopher of neuroscience who have been collaborating over the past six years to investigate whether damage to specific regions of the brain might be somehow contributing to people's decision to commit seemingly random acts of violence – as Card did.
With new technologies that go beyond simply visualizing the brain to analyze how different brain regions are connected, neuroscientists can now examine specific brain regions involved in decision-making and how brain damage may predispose a person to criminal conduct. This work may in turn shed light on how exactly the brain plays a role in people's capacity to make moral choices.
—————
Linking brain and behavior
The observation that brain damage can cause changes to behavior stretches back hundreds of years. In the 1860s, the French physician Paul Broca was one of the first in the history of modern neurology to link a mental capacity to a specific brain region. Examining the autopsied brain of a man who had lost the ability to speak after a stroke, Broca found damage to an area roughly beneath the left temple.
Broca could study his patients' brains only at autopsy. So he concluded that damage to this single area caused the patient's speech loss – and therefore that this area governs people's ability to produce speech. The idea that cognitive functions were localized to specific brain areas persisted for well over a century, but researchers today know the picture is more complicated.
As brain imaging tools such as MRI have improved since the early 2000s it's become increasingly possible to safely visualize people's brains in stunning detail while they are alive. Meanwhile, other techniques for mapping connections between brain regions have helped reveal coordinated patterns of activity across a network of brain areas related to certain mental tasks.
With these tools, investigators can detect areas that have been damaged by brain disorders, such as strokes, and test whether that damage can be linked to specific changes in behavior. Then they can explore how that brain region interacts with others in the same network to get a more nuanced view of how the brain regulates those behaviors.
This approach can be applied to any behavior, including crime and immorality.
—————
White matter and criminality
Complex human behaviors emerge from interacting networks that are made up of two types of brain tissue: gray matter and white matter. Gray matter consists of regions of nerve cell bodies and branching nerve fibers called dendrites, as well as points of connection between nerve cells. It's in these areas that the brain's heavy computational work is done. White matter, so named because of a pale, fatty substance called myelin that wraps the bundles of nerves, carries information between gray matter areas like highways in the brain.
Brain imaging studies of criminality going back to 2009 have suggested that damage to a swath of white matter called the right uncinate fasciculus is somehow involved when people commit violent acts. This tract connects the right amygdala, an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain involved in emotional processing, with the right orbitofrontal cortex, a region in the front of the brain involved in complex decision-making. However, it wasn't clear from these studies whether damage to this tract caused people to commit crimes or was just a coincidence.
In a 2025 study, we analyzed 17 cases from the medical literature in which people with no criminal history committed crimes such as murder, assault and rape after experiencing brain damage from a stroke, tumor or traumatic brain injury. We first mapped the location of damage in their brains using an atlas of brain circuitry derived from people whose brains were uninjured. Then we compared imaging of the damage with brain imaging from more than 700 people who had not committed crimes but who had a brain injury causing a different symptom, such as memory loss or depression.
In the people who committed crimes, we found the brain region that popped up the most often was the right uncinate fasciculus. Our study aligns with past research in linking criminal behavior to this brain area, but the way we conducted it makes our findings more definitive: These people committed their crimes only after they sustained their brain injuries, which suggests that damage to the right uncinate fasciculus played a role in triggering their criminal behavior.
These findings have an intriguing connection to research on morality. Other studies have found a link between strokes that damaged the right uncinate fasciculus with loss of empathy, suggesting this tract somehow regulates emotions that affect moral conduct. Meanwhile, other work has shown that people with psychopathy, which often aligns with immoral behavior, have abnormalities in their amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex regions that are directly connected by the uncinate fasciculus.
Neuroscientists are now testing whether the right uncinate fasciculus may be synthesizing information within a network of brain regions dedicated to moral values.
—————
Making sense of it all
As intriguing as these findings are, it is important to note that many people with damage to their right uncinate fasciculus do not commit violent crimes. Similarly, most people who commit crimes do not have damage to this tract. This means that even if damage to this area can contribute to criminality, it's only one of many possible factors underlying it.
Still, knowing that neurological damage to a specific brain structure can increase a person's risk of committing a violent crime can be helpful in various contexts. For example, it can help the legal system assess neurological evidence when judging criminal responsibility. Similarly, doctors may be able to use this knowledge to develop specific interventions for people with brain disorders or injuries.
More broadly, understanding the neurological roots of morality and moral decision-making provides a bridge between science and society, revealing constraints that define how and why people make choices.
Isaiah Kletenik, Harvard University
and Patricia Churchland, University of California, San Diego
(THE CONVERSATION) — On Oct. 25, 2023, a 40-year old man named Robert Card opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle at a bowling alley and nearby bar in Lewiston, Maine, killing 18 people and wounding 13 others. Card was found dead by suicide two days later. His autopsy revealed extensive damage to the white matter of his brain thought to be related to a traumatic brain injury, which some neurologists proposed may have played a role in his murderous actions.
Neurological evidence such as magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, is widely used in court to show whether and to what extent brain damage induced a person to commit a violent act. That type of evidence was introduced in 12% of all murder trials and 25% of death penalty trials between 2014 and 2024. But it's often unclear how such evidence should be interpreted because there's no agreement on what specific brain injuries could trigger behavioral shifts that might make someone more likely to commit crimes.
We are two behavioral neurologists and a philosopher of neuroscience who have been collaborating over the past six years to investigate whether damage to specific regions of the brain might be somehow contributing to people's decision to commit seemingly random acts of violence – as Card did.
With new technologies that go beyond simply visualizing the brain to analyze how different brain regions are connected, neuroscientists can now examine specific brain regions involved in decision-making and how brain damage may predispose a person to criminal conduct. This work may in turn shed light on how exactly the brain plays a role in people's capacity to make moral choices.
—————
Linking brain and behavior
The observation that brain damage can cause changes to behavior stretches back hundreds of years. In the 1860s, the French physician Paul Broca was one of the first in the history of modern neurology to link a mental capacity to a specific brain region. Examining the autopsied brain of a man who had lost the ability to speak after a stroke, Broca found damage to an area roughly beneath the left temple.
Broca could study his patients' brains only at autopsy. So he concluded that damage to this single area caused the patient's speech loss – and therefore that this area governs people's ability to produce speech. The idea that cognitive functions were localized to specific brain areas persisted for well over a century, but researchers today know the picture is more complicated.
As brain imaging tools such as MRI have improved since the early 2000s it's become increasingly possible to safely visualize people's brains in stunning detail while they are alive. Meanwhile, other techniques for mapping connections between brain regions have helped reveal coordinated patterns of activity across a network of brain areas related to certain mental tasks.
With these tools, investigators can detect areas that have been damaged by brain disorders, such as strokes, and test whether that damage can be linked to specific changes in behavior. Then they can explore how that brain region interacts with others in the same network to get a more nuanced view of how the brain regulates those behaviors.
This approach can be applied to any behavior, including crime and immorality.
—————
White matter and criminality
Complex human behaviors emerge from interacting networks that are made up of two types of brain tissue: gray matter and white matter. Gray matter consists of regions of nerve cell bodies and branching nerve fibers called dendrites, as well as points of connection between nerve cells. It's in these areas that the brain's heavy computational work is done. White matter, so named because of a pale, fatty substance called myelin that wraps the bundles of nerves, carries information between gray matter areas like highways in the brain.
Brain imaging studies of criminality going back to 2009 have suggested that damage to a swath of white matter called the right uncinate fasciculus is somehow involved when people commit violent acts. This tract connects the right amygdala, an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain involved in emotional processing, with the right orbitofrontal cortex, a region in the front of the brain involved in complex decision-making. However, it wasn't clear from these studies whether damage to this tract caused people to commit crimes or was just a coincidence.
In a 2025 study, we analyzed 17 cases from the medical literature in which people with no criminal history committed crimes such as murder, assault and rape after experiencing brain damage from a stroke, tumor or traumatic brain injury. We first mapped the location of damage in their brains using an atlas of brain circuitry derived from people whose brains were uninjured. Then we compared imaging of the damage with brain imaging from more than 700 people who had not committed crimes but who had a brain injury causing a different symptom, such as memory loss or depression.
In the people who committed crimes, we found the brain region that popped up the most often was the right uncinate fasciculus. Our study aligns with past research in linking criminal behavior to this brain area, but the way we conducted it makes our findings more definitive: These people committed their crimes only after they sustained their brain injuries, which suggests that damage to the right uncinate fasciculus played a role in triggering their criminal behavior.
These findings have an intriguing connection to research on morality. Other studies have found a link between strokes that damaged the right uncinate fasciculus with loss of empathy, suggesting this tract somehow regulates emotions that affect moral conduct. Meanwhile, other work has shown that people with psychopathy, which often aligns with immoral behavior, have abnormalities in their amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex regions that are directly connected by the uncinate fasciculus.
Neuroscientists are now testing whether the right uncinate fasciculus may be synthesizing information within a network of brain regions dedicated to moral values.
—————
Making sense of it all
As intriguing as these findings are, it is important to note that many people with damage to their right uncinate fasciculus do not commit violent crimes. Similarly, most people who commit crimes do not have damage to this tract. This means that even if damage to this area can contribute to criminality, it's only one of many possible factors underlying it.
Still, knowing that neurological damage to a specific brain structure can increase a person's risk of committing a violent crime can be helpful in various contexts. For example, it can help the legal system assess neurological evidence when judging criminal responsibility. Similarly, doctors may be able to use this knowledge to develop specific interventions for people with brain disorders or injuries.
More broadly, understanding the neurological roots of morality and moral decision-making provides a bridge between science and society, revealing constraints that define how and why people make choices.
Cooking with Love: Aash-e-Berinj (Rice Soup)
February 09 ,2026
When it comes to soups, I think Iranian Aash(es) are the best. They are
nutritious and hearty. Their alluring smell lingers in the air even on
the second day of cooking. I was introduced to this aash in Shiraz. This
ancient city of Iran is the resting place of the 13th and 14th century
revered Persian poets, Saddi and Hafez. Hospitality and friendliness of
Shirazis is renowned throughout Iran.
:
Majida Rashid
When it comes to soups, I think Iranian Aash(es) are the best. They are nutritious and hearty. Their alluring smell lingers in the air even on the second day of cooking. I was introduced to this aash in Shiraz. This ancient city of Iran is the resting place of the 13th and 14th century revered Persian poets, Saddi and Hafez. Hospitality and friendliness of Shirazis is renowned throughout Iran.
During my stay in Iran, I learned that each city in a region had their own specialties and version of cooking a particular dish. Shirazi cooks use more herbs than other regions.
Iranians soak their rice for up to six hours prior to cooking. Beans can be soaked overnight. But soaking them for a few hours would also work.
Kashk is dried yoghurt and it is sold in solid chunks in Iran. The Middle Eastern stores in America sell the creamy version of kashk. Its flavor is a little different from regular yoghurt. Flour prevents curdling of kashk.
Making this aash, at first glance, looks elaborate but after making it once it becomes easier. Herbs and spinach can be cleaned and chopped a day in advance. Meat and beans can also be cooked a day earlier. Some cooks mix very little kashk and then use the remaining to lavishly garnish the soup before serving. People also blend everything together before mixing in kashk. The soup can last for a few days and its flavor improves.
I learned this aash without meat but meat is also added, especially the outlets where they sell just the aash. Whole lamb shank is the best. Sauté an onion in a few tablespoons of oil over medium high heat. Add a pound of lamb, half a teaspoon of turmeric powder, salt and black pepper and stir over high heat so the meat doesn’t leave juices. Pour 6-8 cups water and bring to a boil. Simmer, uncovered, for a couple of hours or longer. Remove the bones and mix the meat in the aash when rice is added.
Aash-e-Berinj
(Rice Soup)
(Serves 3-4)
Ingredients
3/4 cup yellow split peas
3/4 cup black-eyed beans
3/4 cup chickpeas
3/4 cup whole green lentils
1 cup short grain rice
1-1 ½ teaspoons salt
3/4-1 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 cup each of finely chopped fresh chives, coriander, dill and flat-leaved parsley
2 bunches fresh spinach leaves, finely chopped
3 tablespoons all-purpose flour, optional
1-2 cups kashk
For the garnish:
3 tablespoons cooking oil
1 medium onion, finely chopped
2-3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced
1-2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh mint leaves
Or
1/2-1 teaspoon dried mint
Directions
Separately soak all the beans and lentils overnight.
Soak the rice for several hours.
The next day, boil together the peas and the beans in 10 cups water.
In another pan mix the lentils with 5 cups of water and cook for half an hour.
Drain and discard the liquid from both pans.
In a pan, mix together the lentils and beans with 12 cups water.
Cover and cook over low heat for 2 hours, stirring occasionally.
Add pepper and 1 teaspoon salt and cook for another half hour. Add boiling water, if required.
Mix in the herbs and spinach and cook for another half an hour, stirring occasionally.
Drain the rice and add to the soup and cook for an hour, stirring frequently.
Aash can be blended at this stage.
Heat the flour in a dry pan over low heat.
Cool it and mix it with 1/2 cup water. Add to the aash.
Gradually mix about 1 cup of soup with 1 cup of kashk and pour back to the aash.
Taste and adjust seasoning and pour the Aash into a serving bowls and leave aside.
For the garnish
Heat 2 tablespoons oil and fry the onion until golden brown, drain and leave aside.
Fry the garlic in the remaining oil until golden brown.
Mix in the mint, stir a little and pour over the soup in the serving bowls. Sprinkle with the browned onions and garlic.
Serve immediately with hot naan.
During my stay in Iran, I learned that each city in a region had their own specialties and version of cooking a particular dish. Shirazi cooks use more herbs than other regions.
Iranians soak their rice for up to six hours prior to cooking. Beans can be soaked overnight. But soaking them for a few hours would also work.
Kashk is dried yoghurt and it is sold in solid chunks in Iran. The Middle Eastern stores in America sell the creamy version of kashk. Its flavor is a little different from regular yoghurt. Flour prevents curdling of kashk.
Making this aash, at first glance, looks elaborate but after making it once it becomes easier. Herbs and spinach can be cleaned and chopped a day in advance. Meat and beans can also be cooked a day earlier. Some cooks mix very little kashk and then use the remaining to lavishly garnish the soup before serving. People also blend everything together before mixing in kashk. The soup can last for a few days and its flavor improves.
I learned this aash without meat but meat is also added, especially the outlets where they sell just the aash. Whole lamb shank is the best. Sauté an onion in a few tablespoons of oil over medium high heat. Add a pound of lamb, half a teaspoon of turmeric powder, salt and black pepper and stir over high heat so the meat doesn’t leave juices. Pour 6-8 cups water and bring to a boil. Simmer, uncovered, for a couple of hours or longer. Remove the bones and mix the meat in the aash when rice is added.
Aash-e-Berinj
(Rice Soup)
(Serves 3-4)
Ingredients
3/4 cup yellow split peas
3/4 cup black-eyed beans
3/4 cup chickpeas
3/4 cup whole green lentils
1 cup short grain rice
1-1 ½ teaspoons salt
3/4-1 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 cup each of finely chopped fresh chives, coriander, dill and flat-leaved parsley
2 bunches fresh spinach leaves, finely chopped
3 tablespoons all-purpose flour, optional
1-2 cups kashk
For the garnish:
3 tablespoons cooking oil
1 medium onion, finely chopped
2-3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced
1-2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh mint leaves
Or
1/2-1 teaspoon dried mint
Directions
Separately soak all the beans and lentils overnight.
Soak the rice for several hours.
The next day, boil together the peas and the beans in 10 cups water.
In another pan mix the lentils with 5 cups of water and cook for half an hour.
Drain and discard the liquid from both pans.
In a pan, mix together the lentils and beans with 12 cups water.
Cover and cook over low heat for 2 hours, stirring occasionally.
Add pepper and 1 teaspoon salt and cook for another half hour. Add boiling water, if required.
Mix in the herbs and spinach and cook for another half an hour, stirring occasionally.
Drain the rice and add to the soup and cook for an hour, stirring frequently.
Aash can be blended at this stage.
Heat the flour in a dry pan over low heat.
Cool it and mix it with 1/2 cup water. Add to the aash.
Gradually mix about 1 cup of soup with 1 cup of kashk and pour back to the aash.
Taste and adjust seasoning and pour the Aash into a serving bowls and leave aside.
For the garnish
Heat 2 tablespoons oil and fry the onion until golden brown, drain and leave aside.
Fry the garlic in the remaining oil until golden brown.
Mix in the mint, stir a little and pour over the soup in the serving bowls. Sprinkle with the browned onions and garlic.
Serve immediately with hot naan.
LEGAL PEOPLE
February 09 ,2026
Butzel continues to expand its Intellectual Property (IP) Practice
Department with the addition of attorney and shareholder Gregory L.
Ozga. He is a registered patent attorney with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office.
:
Butzel Long
Butzel continues to expand its Intellectual Property (IP) Practice Department with the addition of attorney and shareholder Gregory L. Ozga. He is a registered patent attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
For more than 20 years, Ozga has helped domestic and international clients, in a variety of industries, navigate numerous IP issues. His practice encompasses the full lifecycle inherent to IP, including brand development, global IP prosecution, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, joint development agreements, patent and trademark validity and infringement opinions, prosecution, and litigation.
Ozga is known for reducing IP risks and strengthening protection of stakeholders’ innovations and brands. He has prepared and prosecuted hundreds of patent and trademark applications across various industries.
His experience includes collaborating with businesses at all levels to identify and establish new products and brands for monetization. Ozga assesses client products and services to identify trade secrets, patents, trademarks, and copyrights and then works with the client to develop groups of IP that will meet their long-term goals. His specific areas of experience include a variety of sectors: automotive, robotics, medical, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence (AI), clothing/fashion brands, cannabis, and food industries.
Ozga’s experience in brand development and enforcement further include trademark and copyright law matters encompassing the evaluation and filing of trademark and copyright registrations, management of trademark portfolios, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings, investigation and response to infringement claims, and issuing online takedown notices, cease-and-desist letters, and filing trademark complaints with a variety of major online platforms.
Ozga litigates matters involving intellectual property infringement. He has represented appellants and appellees in matters pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the United States District
Court for the Sixth Circuit. He also has represented clients before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
He is a member of the State Bar of Michigan – IP Law Section, Michigan IP Law Association (MIPLA), and the American Bar Association.
Ozga earned a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Albion College and a law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.
In addition, Butzel is pleased to announce that attorney and shareholder Blaine Veldhuis is one of 27 attorneys named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s “Go To Lawyers for Employment Law” 2025.
For more than a decade, Veldhuis has guided employers through complex workplace challenges and litigation. Veldhuis advises on employee relations, disciplinary matters, and compliance with federal and state employment laws.
He also helps businesses craft policies that minimize legal risks and foster a compliant workplace.
Veldhuis focuses on defending employers against wage and hour, discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to accommodate, and whistleblower claims, as well as handling commercial and general employment litigation. He provides counsel on employee relations, disciplinary actions, and discharge matters, while also assisting in drafting employment policies. Additionally, he has experience in defending complex Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) litigation, including single-plaintiff ERISA cases.
Veldhuis has experience representing defendants and respondents in response to administrative complaints and administrative and governmental investigations including U.S. Department of Labor and Michigan Wage and Hour Division audits, and investigations conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Michigan Department of Civil Rights, National Labor Relations Board, and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
Veldhuis earned his law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and his B.A. in Criminology from Central Connecticut State University.
—————
Warner, Norcross, + Judd LLP
Warner Norcross + Judd LLP has welcomed several new attorneys to the firm’s Detroit office: Cade M. Bunton, Harsh D. Patel, John H. Schulte, and Alexis N. Tillery. They are gaining experience in a variety of legal matters before selecting a practice group.
Bunton received his law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He earned a bachelor’s degree in management from Western Michigan University. Prior to joining Warner, he served as a judicial intern for U.S. District Court Jonathan J.C. Grey, Eastern District of Michigan.
Patel received his law degree from Michigan State University College of Law. He earned a bachelor’s degree in biopsychology, cognition and neuroscience from the University of Michigan. Before joining Warner, he served as a law clerk at Credit Acceptance in Southfield and as a legal workflow specialist at a financial services company in Troy.
Schulte received his law degree from MSU College of Law. He earned a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Baldwin Wallace University. Before joining Warner, he worked as a technology commercialization intern at MSU Innovation Center and as a scientific intern at the Gilbert Family Foundation. Schulte is a registered patent attorney.
Tillery received her law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. She earned a master’s degree in social work from Wayne State University and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Albion College. Before joining Warner, Tillery was a judicial intern at the Oakland County Circuit Court Family Division and a law clerk in the Office of Legal Counsel for the governor of Michigan. She was also a judicial extern for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Tillery also worked as a clinical therapist for Great Lakes Psychology Group in Southfield.
—————
McKeen & Associates PC
McKeen & Associates is pleased to announce the hiring of four new associates: John Carley, Angela Hammoud, Rachel Jump, and Ian Wendrow.
Following tenures as law clerks for the firm, Carley, Jump, and Wendrow passed the bar examination and transitioned to licensed attorneys. During their time as clerks, all three gained experience working on complex medical malpractice matters.
Hammoud, an attorney specializing in medical malpractice litigation, brings insight that strengthens the firm’s ability to handle high-stakes, complex cases. As an Arabic speaker, she enhances the firm’s capability to continue its service to a diverse range of clients.
—————
Office of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced appointments to the following boards and commissions:
—Workers’ Compensation Board of Magistrates
Sean Shearer is a partner and attorney at Charters, Tyler, Zack, & Shearer PC. Shearer earned a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and economics from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and a law degree from Detroit College of Law. Shearer is appointed for a term commencing February 2, 2026, and expiring January 26, 2029. He succeeds Lenny Segel, who has passed.
The Workers’ Compensation Board of Magistrates has been established as an autonomous entity within the Workers’ Disability Compensation Agency per Executive Order No. 2019-13. Only workers’ compensation magistrates can hear cases for which an application for hearing has been filed with the Workers’ Disability Compensation Agency. The Board of Magistrates currently consists of 14 members appointed by the governor. All members of the board shall be members in good standing of the State Bar of Michigan and have been an attorney licensed to practice in the courts of this state for 5 years or more.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Michigan State Transportation Commission
John Peracchio is a managing member of Peracchio & Company LLC, the regional director of the Naval War College Foundation for Michigan and the Great Lakes, and a board member for Feonix, a mobility network for underserved communities. Peracchio is also a member of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, the International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Association, and the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council. Peracchio earned a Bachelor of Arts in economics and history from Brown University and a law degree from Columbia Law School. Peracchio is appointed for a term commencing February 2, 2026,?and expiring December 21, 2028. He succeeds Rhonda Welburn, whose term has expired.
The Michigan State Transportation Commission establishes policy for the Michigan Department of Transportation in relation to transportation programs and facilities and other such works as related to transportation development, as provided by law. Responsibilities of the Commission include the development and implementation of comprehensive transportation plans for the entire state, including aeronautics, bus and rail transit, providing professional and technical assistance, and overseeing the administration of state and federal funds allocated for these programs.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—MEDC Executive Committee
Amanda Pontes is the general counsel and corporate secretary for Lear Corporation. Prior to joining Lear, Pontes was a partner at Bodman PLC where she specialized in business law, mergers and acquisitions, and automotive industry matters. During her time at Lear, Pontes has held a variety of leadership positions across the organization, including global divisional counsel, chief compliance officer, and deputy general counsel. Pontes earned a Bachelor of Arts in economics and English from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Wayne State University Law School. Pontes is appointed to represent business for a term commencing February 2, 2026, and expiring April 5, 2027. She succeeds Gina Thorsen, who has resigned.
The MEDC Executive Committee provides policy direction and guidance to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation regarding economic development program and initiatives, approves the MEDC corporate budget, and appoints the chief executive officer who administers all programs, funds, personnel, and all other administrative transactions of the MEDC. The MEDC Executive Committee assists the MEDC through governance, support to enable results-based action and advocacy for the organization and economic development in Michigan.
This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—————
Plunkett Cooney
Plunkett Cooney partner Frank T. Mamat recently joined National Arbitration and Mediation (NAM) as a hearing officer.
NAM is one of the nation’s full-service providers of Alternative Dispute Resolution services and as a member of their panel, Mamat will be available to arbitrate and mediate cases throughout Michigan.
A partner of Plunkett Cooney, Mamat utilizes his more than 50 years of experience to help companies, contractors, employers, lawmakers, and trade associations resolve union matters. His expertise includes contract negotiations, elections, union avoidance and labor arbitrations. He also advises clients on noncompete agreements, unfair labor practice litigation, harassment suits, wage and hour issues, OSHA-MIOSHA safety matters, and entertainment law.
He is also a registered lobbyist.
In addition, Mamat’s experience includes the resolution of National Labor Relations Board matters, attempted union organization, mass picketing and violence, and secondary boycotts and pressure. His clients also rely on his counsel and advice on ERISA trust funds and related fiduciary liabilities.
Mamat has been honored by several other media and peer review platforms, including Best Lawyers in America, Michigan Super Lawyers, DBusiness magazine’s Top Lawyers, the Labor Relations Institute, American Lawyer magazine and the American Registry, as well as to the 2025 class of Go To Lawyers in employment law as determined by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Mamat received his undergraduate degree from the University of Rochester in 1971 and his law degree from Syracuse University College of Law in 1974.
Plunkett is also pleased to announce that associate attorney Danielle Chidiac was recently named to the 2026 Class of Up & Coming Lawyers by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Chidiac, along with 23 other Michigan attorneys, will be honored at a recognition luncheon on March 27 at The Mint at Michigan First Conference Center in Lathrup Village.
A member of Plunkett Cooney’s Bloomfield Hills office, Chidiac practices primarily in the area of insurance coverage, representing leading property and casualty insurance companies in coverage cases throughout the Midwest. Her work as a member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage Practice Group includes the handling of complex coverage issues, including insurance coverage for underlying environmental contamination, construction defect and product liability claims. She also has experience in resolving extra-contractual claims on behalf of insurance providers.
In addition to the MiLW honor, Chidiac, who is a co-leader of Plunkett Cooney’s Associate Development Committee, was named to the Lawyers of Color’s DEI Hot List in 2023.
Chidiac received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2020 and her undergraduate degree from Oakland University in 2017.
—————
Honigman LLP
Honigman LLP recently announced that Jonathan Schwartz joined the firm’s Litigation Department and Supply Chain and Commercial Transactions Practice Group in its Detroit office.
Schwartz’s practice spans high-stakes commercial litigation, supply chain and complex contract matters, and media and entertainment disputes and transactions. He represents clients in state and federal courts across the United States and advises on sensitive, business-critical matters where operational continuity, reputation, intellectual property, and constitutional interests may be at risk.
Schwartz litigates and resolves complex disputes involving commercial contracts, employment and restrictive covenants, trade secrets and confidential information, real estate and property claims, business breakups, and related business torts. He is also trusted to draft, negotiate, and enforce sophisticated agreements in support of business formation, growth, strategic partnerships, acquisitions, and asset sales, bringing a practical, litigation-informed approach to risk allocation and deal execution.
Schwartz earned his law degree from Wayne State University Law School and his B.A. from the University of Michigan.
Honigman also announced that Jacob “Jake” Rambeau joined the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group of the firm’s Intellectual Property Department in its Bloomfield Hills office. Rambeau’s hire marks the second Kirkland & Ellis litigator and the sixth partner to join Honigman this year.
Rambeau is a trial-tested litigator that guides clients big and small through complex intellectual property and commercial litigation, with a focus on patent infringement, trade-secret misappropriation, and contract disputes. He practices in courts and agencies nationwide, including federal district courts, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rambeau has experience across all phases of litigation involving a range of technologies, including in the automotive, electronics, wireless communications, software, medical device, industrial equipment, and consumer products industries. He also brings trial experience, having served on nearly a dozen trial teams in federal courts and the ITC and obtained complete wins for plaintiffs and defendants alike.
Rambeau earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and his B.S. from Kettering University.
In addition, Honigman Partner Don Kunz was recently recognized by Michigan Lawyers Weekly in its 2026 Hall of Fame class.
Kunz concentrates his practice on corporate finance and governance matters, with a particular emphasis on representing publicly traded companies. He advises clients on capital raising, including acquisitions and dispositions, IPOs, and follow-on offerings; corporate governance issues, including counseling boards of directors, board committees, and officers on executive compensation planning and wide-ranging day-to-day issues; and public-company reporting and disclosure matters.
—————
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip PLLC
Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC congratulates Matt McCann on his selection as co-editor of the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Quarterly. McCann will serve alongside Samantha Orvis of Secrest Wardle in this leadership role with the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel.
The Michigan Defense Quarterly is distributed to justices, Court of Appeals judges, and trial judges throughout Michigan and provides insight on developments impacting the defense bar.
McCann is an associate principal with FBMJ. He has experience leading the research, investigation, and litigation of complex commercial, administrative, civil rights and white-collar criminal proceedings. His career before joining FBMJ spanned many years at firms in the New York City metropolitan area where he litigated against the New York City Department of Education in both administrative and federal proceedings to ensure the implementation of a free appropriate public education for students with special needs in all five boroughs of New York City.
—————
Dobrusin IP Law
Dobrusin IP Law is proud to announce that attorneys Erin Klug and Rebecca Wilson have again been recognized in the WTR 1000 by the World Trademark Review for 2026. The two earned the Gold designation for another year—an honor held by only seven individuals in Michigan. Alongside their individual honors, the firm has been awarded the Silver designation by WTR.
Klug, an intellectual property attorney, represents clients spanning industries such as cannabis, automotive, and real estate.
Wilson’s practice focuses on trademarks and copyrights for diverse clients, including fashion brands, craft breweries, and medical device companies.
—————
Kemp Klein Law Firm
Kemp Klein Law Firm is proud to announce that Ralph A. Castelli has been named to the 2026 Michigan Lawyers Weekly Hall of Fame. An induction event will take place on Friday, March 27, at The Mint at Michigan First Conference Center in Lathrup Village.
Castelli’s legal practice has spanned decades and involves a range of business matters, including business planning and structuring, exit planning, shareholder and partner separations, and the full spectrum of real estate and business transactions.
In addition to his legal practice, Castelli served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Kemp Klein Law Firm for 26 years, playing a central role in guiding the firm through significant growth while reinforcing a culture of professionalism, collaboration, and integrity.
Castelli is also a board member and former president of the Kemp Klein Foundation, which sponsors Common Ground and supports numerous local and national charitable causes, reflecting his long-standing commitment to community service.
—————
Reising Ethington PC
Reising PC is pleased to announce that President Rick Hoffmann has become a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America
Hoffmann has experience in IP litigation and has litigated IP disputes at every court level from state district court through the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also litigated cases at the International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Hoffmann is a coauthor of the seventh edition of the textbook “Cases and Materials on Patent Law: Including Trade Secrets,” published by West Academic. He also is an adjunct faculty member at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law teaching Patent Law.
Hoffmann received his Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Michigan Technological University and his law degree from the Detroit College of Law (now Michigan State University College of Law). He has also served as president of the Saginaw Valley Patent Law Association and as a council member to the Intellectual Property Law section of the State Bar of Michigan.
—————
Varnum LLP
Varnum partner Jacob Whately has been recognized as an Up & Coming Lawyer by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Whately and other Up & Coming honorees will be recognized at a luncheon on March 27.
Whately is a member of Varnum’s Business and Corporate Practice Team. With a focus on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), he counsels both buyers and sellers on transactions of all sizes. His practice also covers a full range of general corporate work across diverse industries.
Whately is also a member of Varnum’s Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Practice Team and an active participant in Varnum’s MiSpringboard program, a firm initiative that helps remove barriers to starting a business by providing free legal services to startups.
Beyond his legal practice, Whately serves on Varnum’s Associate Recruiting Committee and participates in the firm’s law student outreach activity. He is also active in the Detroit Chapter of the Association for Corporate Growth and helps coordinate Varnum’s support for local investor groups.
—————
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that Aleanna Siacon (associate, Troy) has been named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2026 Up and Coming Lawyers.
“I am honored to be selected by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as a member of their 2026 Up and Coming Lawyer Class. This list is filled with such talented and accomplished attorneys, and it’s a privilege to be included among their ranks,” Siacon said.
Siacon focuses her practice on commercial litigation and works on a variety of complex business disputes. She has a passion for civil litigation and all its intricacies and has experience defending and counseling companies, municipalities, and school districts in a wide array of legal matters from investigation to matter resolution. She is recognized as a leader in her field by Best Lawyers in America “Ones to Watch.”
Siacon is vice president and former treasurer of the Michigan Asian Pacific American Bar Association and in 2025 was appointed to the State Bar of Michigan’s Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee. She is a Fellow of the Oakland County Bar Foundation and a member of Federal Bar Association – Eastern District of Michigan Chapter.
Siacon received her B.A. from Wayne State University and her law degree from Wayne State University Law School.
—————
Dykema
Dykema recently announced that Michael P. Cooney was selected as an inductee to the Michigan Lawyers Weekly Hall of Fame.
Trained as an engineer and seasoned in intellectual property and product liability litigation, Cooney is known for his ability to translate complex technical concepts into clear, persuasive courtroom presentations. His trial record includes defense verdicts in numerous high-stakes cases across the country, frequently in jurisdictions viewed as difficult for corporate defendants. His experience spans industries including automotive, medical devices, recreational vehicles, industrial equipment, consumer products, and emerging technologies.
In addition to his trial practice, Cooney has played a leadership role within Dykema for more than a decade as director of the firm’s 200-plus-attorney Litigation Department, following earlier service as leader of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group.
Cooney is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has also served in leadership roles with the State Bar of Michigan, including on the Litigation Section Council, as programs chair, and on the Character and Fitness Committee, as well as with the Detroit Bar Association’s Litigation Section.
Cooney earned a law degree and a B.S.M.E. from the University of Notre Dame.
Dykema also announced that Andrew VanEgmond was selected for Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s “Up & Coming Lawyers” Class of 2026.
VanEgmond maintains a litigation practice focused on automotive class actions and healthcare litigation, including False Claims Act matters. In addition to his litigation practice, he created and scaled a special education pro bono program addressing suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities, in partnership with the Student Advocacy Center of Michigan. Working with the firm’s pro bono leadership, he designed a training and supervision model that enables attorneys across the firm and in-house counsel partners to handle special education due process matters.
VanEgmond earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and his B.A. from Michigan State University.
—————
Brooks Kushman P.C.
Abdulai Rashid, an associate at Brooks Kushman, has been named a 2026 LCLD Pathfinder. The LCLD Pathfinder Program provides high-potential, early-career attorneys with the opportunity to learn from top leaders in the legal profession while gaining foundational leadership skills and relationship-building resources.
Abdulai focuses on patent prosecution and litigation in the biomedical and automotive industries, while also assisting clients with trademark matters and supporting early-stage innovators in developing protectable ideas. He gained experience in dispute resolution as the founder of Penn State Law’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, coordinating student teams in negotiation and mediation competitions. He also worked in the Penn State Law IP Clinic, helping entrepreneurs connect with counsel and resources.
In addition, Bryan Hart, an associate at Brooks Kushman, has been named a 2026 LCLD Fellow. The LCLD Fellows Program offers high-potential, mid-career attorneys at LCLD Member organizations the opportunity to develop leadership skills and build meaningful relationships within the legal profession.
—————
Harness IP
Harness IP is proud to announce its continued recognition in the WTR 1000 – World Trademark Review’s 2026 ranking.
In Michigan, Harness IP earned a Bronze ranking, with WTR noting the firm’s experience and reputation in helping clients to enhance their intellectual property assets.
WTR also highlighted Lisa DuRoss as a Silver Ranked Individual. DuRoss, based in the Detroit Metro office, is recognized as a brand management trusted advisor who provides innovative, strategic counsel to clients across the United States and around the world.
—————
Taft
Taft Detroit welcomes associates David Grisa and Carla Valdes to the firm’s Detroit office.
Grisa joins Taft as an associate with a focus on complex private client matters relating to probate administration, trust administration, guardianships, and conservatorships. He is experienced in negotiating with opposing counsel to facilitate resolutions that end in obtaining favorable settlements for his clients.
Valdes joins Taft as an associate with a focus on complex environmental and eminent domain matters. With a foundation in geology and years of experience in environmental research and enforcement, Valdes brings a unique perspective to her legal practice. After earning a master’s degree in geology from the University of Utah, she worked on high-impact environmental projects, including mercury contamination in the Great Salt Lake and groundwater contamination plumes. Her tenure at the EPA honed her skills in compliance enforcement and policy analysis, which now inform her strategic approach to litigation and client advocacy.
In addition, Taft Partner Rick Kruger spoke at the State Bar of Michigan Debtor/Creditor Rights Committee meeting on Jan. 29. He was part of a panel discussion, “Beneath the Hood: Automotive Distress and Contract Disputes.” The discussion was moderated by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Lisa Gretchko, Eastern District of Michigan.
Kruger is a member of Taft’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring and Real Estate Finance practice groups, as well as a member of the Automotive industry group. He has a national practice focusing on both transactional and litigation aspects of bankruptcy law, debtor and creditor rights, workouts, corporate, and financing transactions.
Kruger’s client representations include original equipment manufacturers, borrowers, debtors, secured parties, landlords, purchasers, sellers, receivers, avoidance defendants, and unsecured creditors’ committees. His strategy and expertise span across a diverse list of industries, with a focus on Automotive and business sectors, providing creative solutions in all facets of these complex transactions.
—————
Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton, P.C.
Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton PC in pleased to congratulate attorney Lindsay Hazen who has been recognized as an “Up & Coming Lawyer” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. She will be honored on March 27 along with other members of the Michigan legal community.
Hazen is an attorney in the firm’s Education Law Group. She represents public school districts in matters of employment discrimination, constitutional litigation, general education, special education, student discipline and due process, peer-on-peer harassment, and more. Additionally, Hazen has experience in counseling and advising clients on their bargaining agreements, employment agreements, employment policies, employee issues, disciplinary actions, and compliance with laws such as FMLA, ADA, Title IX, FOIA, and the Open Meetings Act.
Hazen earned her law degree from Wayne State University Law School. Prior to entering law school, she was a paralegal for the Department of Justice.
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law back in compliance with ABA standard
- Chemerinsky: The Fourth Amendment comes back to the Supreme Court
- Reinstatement of retired judge reversed by state supreme court
- Mass tort lawyer suspended for 3 years for lying to clients
- Law firms in Minneapolis are helping lawyers, staff navigate unrest
- Federal judge faces trial on charges of being ‘super drunk’ while driving
