Columns
House bill a shot in the arm for Schools of Choice law
February 20 ,2026
New legislation would allow students across Michigan to enroll tuition-free in the public school that works best for them.
:
Molly Macek
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
New legislation would allow students across Michigan to enroll tuition-free in the public school that works best for them.
House Bill 5310 would strengthen Michigan’s Schools of Choice law, which the Reason Foundation ranked 38th among the states last year based on flexibility and transparency. The bill’s provisions would raise the law’s letter grade to an ‘A+’ — “making it the best school transfer law in the nation,” according to testimony submitted by Reason. The legislation would make it easier for students to access the public school that’s the right fit for them, which was the intent behind the state’s original choice law.
Michigan’s Schools of Choice law, passed in 1996, allows some students to attend a public school outside their district of residence without paying tuition. About 10% of K-12 students participate in the state’s open enrollment program. But their ability to do so depends on whether the receiving district opts into the program.
According to state law, districts can choose to participate by either enrolling non-resident students who live in the same intermediate school district or in a neighboring intermediate school district. They can also choose not to participate at all and charge tuition for any non-resident student they accept. Districts that opt in can decide which grade levels or programs will be open to Schools of Choice students and how many seats will be allocated for them.
While many students have benefited from Schools of Choice, some of the state’s neediest students are unable to access better schools through the program. That’s because some districts still refuse to receive students who live outside their boundaries. Grosse Pointe Public Schools, for example, has never participated, turning away students from nearby Detroit and poorer neighborhoods seeking a better education. Meanwhile, more than 130 residents of Grosse Pointe use Schools of Choice to enroll in neighboring districts, mostly Harper Woods and Detroit.
The new House bill would help the state’s neediest students by requiring every district to accept non-resident students tuition-free as long as it has enough open seats to do so. Districts would maintain the ability to determine their capacity for each grade level. If they have available seats, they would be prohibited from denying any non-resident students based on their characteristics or abilities.
This provision is especially important for students with disabilities who are entitled to special education services documented in an individualized education program. Under current state law, districts can refuse to serve non-resident students with IEPs. But the proposed legislation would prevent this type of discriminatory behavior. It would require districts to give students with individualized education programs the same opportunity to attend a better school as other students.
The bill would also help families access better schools by improving transparency requirements. Districts would be required to post their capacity, enrollment policies and student transfer data. Making this information public would help parents find better schools with open seats and appeal decisions if they are denied enrollment.
HB 5310 would empower parents to send their children to the public school that works best for them, regardless of its location or their place of residence. Whether parents are seeking stronger academics, advanced courses, innovative programming, better special education services or a respite from bullying, they would gain access to more diverse options for meeting their children’s needs.
As government entities, public schools ought to be open to all students, regardless of where they happen to reside. Current law benefits some students while neglecting others who are in need of better options. HB 5310 would strengthen the Schools of Choice law by providing Michigan families with greater transparency and access to schools statewide.
—————
Dr. Molly Macek is the director of education policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
House Bill 5310 would strengthen Michigan’s Schools of Choice law, which the Reason Foundation ranked 38th among the states last year based on flexibility and transparency. The bill’s provisions would raise the law’s letter grade to an ‘A+’ — “making it the best school transfer law in the nation,” according to testimony submitted by Reason. The legislation would make it easier for students to access the public school that’s the right fit for them, which was the intent behind the state’s original choice law.
Michigan’s Schools of Choice law, passed in 1996, allows some students to attend a public school outside their district of residence without paying tuition. About 10% of K-12 students participate in the state’s open enrollment program. But their ability to do so depends on whether the receiving district opts into the program.
According to state law, districts can choose to participate by either enrolling non-resident students who live in the same intermediate school district or in a neighboring intermediate school district. They can also choose not to participate at all and charge tuition for any non-resident student they accept. Districts that opt in can decide which grade levels or programs will be open to Schools of Choice students and how many seats will be allocated for them.
While many students have benefited from Schools of Choice, some of the state’s neediest students are unable to access better schools through the program. That’s because some districts still refuse to receive students who live outside their boundaries. Grosse Pointe Public Schools, for example, has never participated, turning away students from nearby Detroit and poorer neighborhoods seeking a better education. Meanwhile, more than 130 residents of Grosse Pointe use Schools of Choice to enroll in neighboring districts, mostly Harper Woods and Detroit.
The new House bill would help the state’s neediest students by requiring every district to accept non-resident students tuition-free as long as it has enough open seats to do so. Districts would maintain the ability to determine their capacity for each grade level. If they have available seats, they would be prohibited from denying any non-resident students based on their characteristics or abilities.
This provision is especially important for students with disabilities who are entitled to special education services documented in an individualized education program. Under current state law, districts can refuse to serve non-resident students with IEPs. But the proposed legislation would prevent this type of discriminatory behavior. It would require districts to give students with individualized education programs the same opportunity to attend a better school as other students.
The bill would also help families access better schools by improving transparency requirements. Districts would be required to post their capacity, enrollment policies and student transfer data. Making this information public would help parents find better schools with open seats and appeal decisions if they are denied enrollment.
HB 5310 would empower parents to send their children to the public school that works best for them, regardless of its location or their place of residence. Whether parents are seeking stronger academics, advanced courses, innovative programming, better special education services or a respite from bullying, they would gain access to more diverse options for meeting their children’s needs.
As government entities, public schools ought to be open to all students, regardless of where they happen to reside. Current law benefits some students while neglecting others who are in need of better options. HB 5310 would strengthen the Schools of Choice law by providing Michigan families with greater transparency and access to schools statewide.
—————
Dr. Molly Macek is the director of education policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Exiled Iranians and Venezuelans may well support regime change – but diasporas don’t always reflect the politics back home
February 20 ,2026
As protest and military action raised the prospect of regime change in
Iran and Venezuela, the voices of both countries’ diasporas were heard
loud and clear through the media of their host nations.
:
Michael Pearlberg
Virginia Commonwealth University
(THE CONVERSATION) — As protest and military action raised the prospect of regime change in Iran and Venezuela, the voices of both countries’ diasporas were heard loud and clear through the media of their host nations.
Venezuelan exiles in the U.S. were, according to the popular narrative, broadly behind President Donald Trump and his plan to “run Venezuela,” as the nickname “MAGAzuelans” suggests. Meanwhile, the Iranian diaspora rallied behind the Prince Reza Pahlavi as he positioned himself as a leader-in-waiting, projecting an image of unified exile support.
Diasporas are often treated by media and policymakers as monolithic blocs — politically unified, ideologically coherent and ready to be mobilized for regime change. But as a scholar of migration and security in Latin America, I know this assumption fundamentally misunderstands how diaspora communities form, evolve and engage politically.
Iranian and Venezuelan émigrés might broadly oppose their current governments — having left them, this is unsurprising. But they are far from unified on what should replace those governments, who should lead or how change should come about.
—————
Migration waves shape politics
Diasporas are not uniform because their constituent populations did not arrive all at once, from the same places or for the same reasons. Each migration wave carries distinct political orientations shaped by the circumstances of departure.
Consider the Turkish diaspora in Europe. It has a reputation for religious conservatism and nationalism favoring the ruling party of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — seemingly paradoxical given that most live in liberal democracies and support center-left parties in their host countries.
The explanation lies in history, as diaspora scholar Eva Østergaard-Nielsen has detailed. Turkish migration to Europe came in successive waves, each marginalized by Turkey’s longtime secular establishment that dominated the country’s politics until the rise of Erdogan in the early 2000s. Religious conservatives fled discrimination, Kurds fled persecution, and later came economic migrants. Erdogan’s ruling AKP has capitalized on this with active outreach to these established diaspora communities.
Only recently have those fleeing the AKP government itself begun to establish a foothold in the diaspora. In a working paper, Gülcan Sa?glam and I found that sentiment toward the Turkish ruling party is not predictable by demographic profile, nor is it counteracted by integration or support for liberal European Union parties. Rather, members of the diaspora’s politics are informed by individual personal beliefs and perceptions of discrimination.
The Turkish experience also speaks to the tendency of diasporas to become politically frozen at the moment of departure from their home countries. The same pattern appears across contexts. For example, El Salvador’s diaspora in the United States, which first left during the 1980s civil war, developed a reputation for being “stuck in the ‘80s” — mentally still fighting battles that had long since ended at home.
This temporal displacement has consequences. Iranian-American sociologist Asef Bayat, writing about the Iranian diaspora, argues that exile opposition to the ruling government back home “suffers from a political disease, positioning itself against the movement it claims to support.”
In other words, diaspora activists may advocate positions that resonate with Western audiences, but find little support among those actually living under authoritarian rule. This lack of accountability to political consequences back home can rankle the constituencies on whose behalf they seek to advocate.
Research on the Venezuelan diaspora reflects similar dynamics. A 2022 study found that Venezuelan exiles hold more extreme anti-Venezuelan government views than those who remained.
—————
The myth of diaspora influence
Yet despite the presumed disconnection of diaspora groups, homeland politicians often devote disproportionate attention to those who have left. The logic is simple: Emigrants send money home — accounting for as much as 25% of gross domestic product in some Central American and Caribbean countries. Politicians assume that this financial power translates into political influence over remittance-receiving relatives.
One party official in El Salvador told me: “If we get one Salvadoran in Washington to support us, that gives us five votes in El Salvador — and it doesn’t even matter if the one in Washington votes.”
My own research tested this assumption using polling and voting data across Latin America and found it to be exaggerated. Remittances and family communication mostly reinforce existing, mutual partisan sympathies rather than swing votes.
But the belief in diaspora influence matters politically. And the diaspora voters can be weaponized by authoritarian leaders.
El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, in his successful and plainly unconstitutional 2024 reelection bid, expanded external voting through online balloting, increasing diaspora votes by 87-fold over the previous election.
He then directed all diaspora votes to count in San Salvador, despite more emigrants coming from the eastern departments of San Miguel and La Unión. This helped swamp the remaining opposition parties in the capital.
—————
Diasporas in opposition
What happens when diasporas oppose rather than support authoritarian governments? The scholarship offers sobering lessons.
Diasporas can influence home country politics through several channels: direct voting, financial support for opposition movements, lobbying host governments and transmitting democratic values through what sociologist Peggy Levitt calls “social remittances” — the ideas, practices and norms that flow alongside money transfers.
Other research has found that remittances can undermine dictatorships by helping fund opposition activities.
Yet authoritarian governments have developed sophisticated countermeasures. Research on Arab diaspora activism documents shows how governments deter dissent through transnational repression. Freedom House, the democracy and good governance nongovernmental organization, recorded over 1,200 incidents of “physical transnational repression” against dissidents – including assassinations, abductions, assaults and unlawful deportation – between 2014 and 2024 involving 48 governments.
—————
The Cuban example
The Cuban exile community offers, perhaps, the most studied example of diaspora political mobilization. For decades, the Cuban American lobby shaped — some would say dictated — U.S. Cuba policy.
Yet even this influence is easily overstated. The exiles who fled immediately after the 1959 revolution for political reasons constitute a smaller share of the overall Cuban diaspora than commonly assumed.
Subsequent migration waves included far more working-class economic migrants with different political orientations. By 2014, polls showed 52% of Cuban Americans opposed the U.S. embargo that their lobby had championed.
The lobby’s influence waned after founder Jorge Mas Canosa’s death in 1997, and the Elián González affair – a messy international custody battle involving a 6-year-old Cuban boy – further fractured the community.
—————
The limits of exile politics
For Venezuela and Iran, these lessons counsel caution. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled their homeland — the largest displacement crisis in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, Iranian emigration accelerated after the 2022 protests.
Both diasporas contain passionate activists, wealthy donors and would-be leaders positioning themselves for future rule. But passion does not equal unity, and visibility does not equal representation.
The loudest voices on social media — or those amplified by U.S. government officials and media — may represent narrow slices of diverse communities. Certain figures project unified support they do not actually command. There may be a rough consensus on opposing the hated government back home, but far less consensus on what should be done — or how to achieve change.
Nor does diaspora opposition necessarily translate into government vulnerability. Authoritarian states have learned to insulate themselves from diaspora pressure while simultaneously using emigration as a safety valve, turning potential dissidents into remittance-senders – as Cuba did by abolishing exit visas in 2013.
Diasporas can contribute to democratic change through funding, advocacy and the slow work of transmitting democratic values. But ultimately, the path to democratic change in Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere will be determined by those who remain, not those who left. Diasporas can support that struggle; they cannot substitute for it.
Venezuelan exiles in the U.S. were, according to the popular narrative, broadly behind President Donald Trump and his plan to “run Venezuela,” as the nickname “MAGAzuelans” suggests. Meanwhile, the Iranian diaspora rallied behind the Prince Reza Pahlavi as he positioned himself as a leader-in-waiting, projecting an image of unified exile support.
Diasporas are often treated by media and policymakers as monolithic blocs — politically unified, ideologically coherent and ready to be mobilized for regime change. But as a scholar of migration and security in Latin America, I know this assumption fundamentally misunderstands how diaspora communities form, evolve and engage politically.
Iranian and Venezuelan émigrés might broadly oppose their current governments — having left them, this is unsurprising. But they are far from unified on what should replace those governments, who should lead or how change should come about.
—————
Migration waves shape politics
Diasporas are not uniform because their constituent populations did not arrive all at once, from the same places or for the same reasons. Each migration wave carries distinct political orientations shaped by the circumstances of departure.
Consider the Turkish diaspora in Europe. It has a reputation for religious conservatism and nationalism favoring the ruling party of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — seemingly paradoxical given that most live in liberal democracies and support center-left parties in their host countries.
The explanation lies in history, as diaspora scholar Eva Østergaard-Nielsen has detailed. Turkish migration to Europe came in successive waves, each marginalized by Turkey’s longtime secular establishment that dominated the country’s politics until the rise of Erdogan in the early 2000s. Religious conservatives fled discrimination, Kurds fled persecution, and later came economic migrants. Erdogan’s ruling AKP has capitalized on this with active outreach to these established diaspora communities.
Only recently have those fleeing the AKP government itself begun to establish a foothold in the diaspora. In a working paper, Gülcan Sa?glam and I found that sentiment toward the Turkish ruling party is not predictable by demographic profile, nor is it counteracted by integration or support for liberal European Union parties. Rather, members of the diaspora’s politics are informed by individual personal beliefs and perceptions of discrimination.
The Turkish experience also speaks to the tendency of diasporas to become politically frozen at the moment of departure from their home countries. The same pattern appears across contexts. For example, El Salvador’s diaspora in the United States, which first left during the 1980s civil war, developed a reputation for being “stuck in the ‘80s” — mentally still fighting battles that had long since ended at home.
This temporal displacement has consequences. Iranian-American sociologist Asef Bayat, writing about the Iranian diaspora, argues that exile opposition to the ruling government back home “suffers from a political disease, positioning itself against the movement it claims to support.”
In other words, diaspora activists may advocate positions that resonate with Western audiences, but find little support among those actually living under authoritarian rule. This lack of accountability to political consequences back home can rankle the constituencies on whose behalf they seek to advocate.
Research on the Venezuelan diaspora reflects similar dynamics. A 2022 study found that Venezuelan exiles hold more extreme anti-Venezuelan government views than those who remained.
—————
The myth of diaspora influence
Yet despite the presumed disconnection of diaspora groups, homeland politicians often devote disproportionate attention to those who have left. The logic is simple: Emigrants send money home — accounting for as much as 25% of gross domestic product in some Central American and Caribbean countries. Politicians assume that this financial power translates into political influence over remittance-receiving relatives.
One party official in El Salvador told me: “If we get one Salvadoran in Washington to support us, that gives us five votes in El Salvador — and it doesn’t even matter if the one in Washington votes.”
My own research tested this assumption using polling and voting data across Latin America and found it to be exaggerated. Remittances and family communication mostly reinforce existing, mutual partisan sympathies rather than swing votes.
But the belief in diaspora influence matters politically. And the diaspora voters can be weaponized by authoritarian leaders.
El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, in his successful and plainly unconstitutional 2024 reelection bid, expanded external voting through online balloting, increasing diaspora votes by 87-fold over the previous election.
He then directed all diaspora votes to count in San Salvador, despite more emigrants coming from the eastern departments of San Miguel and La Unión. This helped swamp the remaining opposition parties in the capital.
—————
Diasporas in opposition
What happens when diasporas oppose rather than support authoritarian governments? The scholarship offers sobering lessons.
Diasporas can influence home country politics through several channels: direct voting, financial support for opposition movements, lobbying host governments and transmitting democratic values through what sociologist Peggy Levitt calls “social remittances” — the ideas, practices and norms that flow alongside money transfers.
Other research has found that remittances can undermine dictatorships by helping fund opposition activities.
Yet authoritarian governments have developed sophisticated countermeasures. Research on Arab diaspora activism documents shows how governments deter dissent through transnational repression. Freedom House, the democracy and good governance nongovernmental organization, recorded over 1,200 incidents of “physical transnational repression” against dissidents – including assassinations, abductions, assaults and unlawful deportation – between 2014 and 2024 involving 48 governments.
—————
The Cuban example
The Cuban exile community offers, perhaps, the most studied example of diaspora political mobilization. For decades, the Cuban American lobby shaped — some would say dictated — U.S. Cuba policy.
Yet even this influence is easily overstated. The exiles who fled immediately after the 1959 revolution for political reasons constitute a smaller share of the overall Cuban diaspora than commonly assumed.
Subsequent migration waves included far more working-class economic migrants with different political orientations. By 2014, polls showed 52% of Cuban Americans opposed the U.S. embargo that their lobby had championed.
The lobby’s influence waned after founder Jorge Mas Canosa’s death in 1997, and the Elián González affair – a messy international custody battle involving a 6-year-old Cuban boy – further fractured the community.
—————
The limits of exile politics
For Venezuela and Iran, these lessons counsel caution. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled their homeland — the largest displacement crisis in the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, Iranian emigration accelerated after the 2022 protests.
Both diasporas contain passionate activists, wealthy donors and would-be leaders positioning themselves for future rule. But passion does not equal unity, and visibility does not equal representation.
The loudest voices on social media — or those amplified by U.S. government officials and media — may represent narrow slices of diverse communities. Certain figures project unified support they do not actually command. There may be a rough consensus on opposing the hated government back home, but far less consensus on what should be done — or how to achieve change.
Nor does diaspora opposition necessarily translate into government vulnerability. Authoritarian states have learned to insulate themselves from diaspora pressure while simultaneously using emigration as a safety valve, turning potential dissidents into remittance-senders – as Cuba did by abolishing exit visas in 2013.
Diasporas can contribute to democratic change through funding, advocacy and the slow work of transmitting democratic values. But ultimately, the path to democratic change in Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere will be determined by those who remain, not those who left. Diasporas can support that struggle; they cannot substitute for it.
Why the ‘Streets of Minneapolis’ have echoed with public support – unlike the campus of Kent State in 1970
February 20 ,2026
The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large
groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire
and kill protesters.
:
Gregory P. Magarian
Washington University in St. Louis
(THE CONVERSATION) The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire and kill protesters.
All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.
In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses – and even the protest songs the two events inspired.
—————
Protests and shootings, then and now
In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.
In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.
With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four students and wounding nine others.
After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students. Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”
Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.
As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.
Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.
The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.
—————
Different public reactions
After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat the students in what became known as the “hard hat riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.
In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.
The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.
—————
Free speech in protests, recordings and songs
What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.
The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.
Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.
In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.
In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.
Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.
In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.
Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.
Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.
Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 – just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.
The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”
Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.
At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.
All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.
In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses – and even the protest songs the two events inspired.
—————
Protests and shootings, then and now
In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.
In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.
With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four students and wounding nine others.
After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students. Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”
Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.
As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.
Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.
The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.
—————
Different public reactions
After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat the students in what became known as the “hard hat riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.
In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.
The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.
—————
Free speech in protests, recordings and songs
What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.
The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.
Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.
In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.
In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.
Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.
In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.
Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.
Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.
Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 – just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.
The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”
Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.
At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.
Swarms of AI bots can sway people’s beliefs – threatening democracy
February 18 ,2026
In mid-2023, around the time Elon Musk rebranded Twitter as X but before
he discontinued free academic access to the platform’s data, my
colleagues and I looked for signs of social bot accounts posting content
generated by artificial intelligence.
:
Filippo Menczer
Indiana University
(THE CONVERSATION) — In mid-2023, around the time Elon Musk rebranded Twitter as X but before he discontinued free academic access to the platform’s data, my colleagues and I looked for signs of social bot accounts posting content generated by artificial intelligence. Social bots are AI software that produce content and interact with people on social media. We uncovered a network of over a thousand bots involved in crypto scams. We dubbed this the “fox8” botnet after one of the fake news websites it was designed to amplify.
We were able to identify these accounts because the coders were a bit sloppy: They did not catch occasional posts with self-revealing text generated by ChatGPT, such as when the AI model refused to comply with prompts that violated its terms. The most common self-revealing response was “I’m sorry, but I cannot comply with this request as it violates OpenAI’s Content Policy on generating harmful or inappropriate content. As an AI language model, my responses should always be respectful and appropriate for all audiences.”
We believe fox8 was only the tip of the iceberg because better coders can filter out self-revealing posts or use open-source AI models fine-tuned to remove ethical guardrails.
The fox8 bots created fake engagement with each other and with human accounts through realistic back-and-forth discussions and retweets. In this way, they tricked X’s recommendation algorithm into amplifying exposure to their posts and accumulated significant numbers of followers and influence.
Such a level of coordination among inauthentic online agents was unprecedented – AI models had been weaponized to give rise to a new generation of social agents, much more sophisticated than earlier social bots. Machine-learning tools to detect social bots, like our own Botometer, were unable to discriminate between these AI agents and human accounts in the wild. Even AI models trained to detect AI-generated content failed.
—————
Bots in the era of generative AI
Fast-forward a few years: Today, people and organizations with malicious intent have access to more powerful AI language models – including open-source ones – while social media platforms have relaxed or eliminated moderation efforts. They even provide financial incentives for engaging content, irrespective of whether it’s real or AI-generated. This is a perfect storm for foreign and domestic influence operations targeting democratic elections. For example, an AI-controlled bot swarm could create the false impression of widespread, bipartisan opposition to a political candidate.
The current U.S. administration has dismantled federal programs that combat such hostile campaigns and defunded research efforts to study them. Researchers no longer have access to the platform data that would make it possible to detect and monitor these kinds of online manipulation.
I am part of an interdisciplinary team of computer science, AI, cybersecurity, psychology, social science, journalism and policy researchers who have sounded the alarm about the threat of malicious AI swarms.
We believe that current AI technology allows organizations with malicious intent to deploy large numbers of autonomous, adaptive, coordinated agents to multiple social media platforms. These agents enable influence operations that are far more scalable, sophisticated and adaptive than simple scripted misinformation campaigns.
Rather than generating identical posts or obvious spam, AI agents can generate varied, credible content at a large scale. The swarms can send people messages tailored to their individual preferences and to the context of their online conversations. The swarms can tailor tone, style and content to respond dynamically to human interaction and platform signals such as numbers of likes or views.
—————
Synthetic consensus
In a study my colleagues and I conducted last year, we used a social media model to simulate swarms of inauthentic social media accounts using different tactics to influence a target online community. One tactic was by far the most effective: infiltration. Once an online group is infiltrated, malicious AI swarms can create the illusion of broad public agreement around the narratives they are programmed to promote. This exploits a psychological phenomenon known as social proof: Humans are naturally inclined to believe something if they perceive that “everyone is saying it.”
Such social media astroturf tactics have been around for many years, but malicious AI swarms can effectively create believable interactions with targeted human users at a large scale, and get those users to follow the inauthentic accounts. For example, agents can talk about the latest game to a sports fan and about current events to a news junkie. They can generate language that resonates with the interests and opinions of their targets.
Even if individual claims are debunked, the persistent chorus of independent-sounding voices can make radical ideas seem mainstream and amplify negative feelings toward “others.” Manufactured synthetic consensus is a very real threat to the public sphere, the mechanisms democratic societies use to form shared beliefs, make decisions and trust public discourse. If citizens cannot reliably distinguish between genuine public opinion and algorithmically generated simulation of unanimity, democratic decision-making could be severely compromised.
—————
Mitigating the risks
Unfortunately, there is not a single fix. Regulation granting researchers access to platform data would be a first step. Understanding how swarms behave collectively would be essential to anticipate risks.
Detecting coordinated behavior is a key challenge. Unlike simple copy-and-paste bots, malicious swarms produce varied output that resembles normal human interaction, making detection much more difficult.
In our lab, we design methods to detect patterns of coordinated behavior that deviate from normal human interaction. Even if agents look different from each other, their underlying objectives often reveal patterns in timing, network movement and narrative trajectory that are unlikely to occur naturally.
Social media platforms could use such methods. I believe that AI and social media platforms should also more aggressively adopt standards to apply watermarks to AI-generated content and recognize and label such content. Finally, restricting the monetization of inauthentic engagement would reduce the financial incentives for influence operations and other malicious groups to use synthetic consensus.
—————
The threat is real
While these measures might mitigate the systemic risks of malicious AI swarms before they become entrenched in political and social systems worldwide, the current political landscape in the U.S. seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The Trump administration has aimed to reduce AI and social media regulation and is instead favoring rapid deployment of AI models over safety.
The threat of malicious AI swarms is no longer theoretical: Our evidence suggests these tactics are already being deployed. I believe that policymakers and technologists should increase the cost, risk and visibility of such manipulation.
We were able to identify these accounts because the coders were a bit sloppy: They did not catch occasional posts with self-revealing text generated by ChatGPT, such as when the AI model refused to comply with prompts that violated its terms. The most common self-revealing response was “I’m sorry, but I cannot comply with this request as it violates OpenAI’s Content Policy on generating harmful or inappropriate content. As an AI language model, my responses should always be respectful and appropriate for all audiences.”
We believe fox8 was only the tip of the iceberg because better coders can filter out self-revealing posts or use open-source AI models fine-tuned to remove ethical guardrails.
The fox8 bots created fake engagement with each other and with human accounts through realistic back-and-forth discussions and retweets. In this way, they tricked X’s recommendation algorithm into amplifying exposure to their posts and accumulated significant numbers of followers and influence.
Such a level of coordination among inauthentic online agents was unprecedented – AI models had been weaponized to give rise to a new generation of social agents, much more sophisticated than earlier social bots. Machine-learning tools to detect social bots, like our own Botometer, were unable to discriminate between these AI agents and human accounts in the wild. Even AI models trained to detect AI-generated content failed.
—————
Bots in the era of generative AI
Fast-forward a few years: Today, people and organizations with malicious intent have access to more powerful AI language models – including open-source ones – while social media platforms have relaxed or eliminated moderation efforts. They even provide financial incentives for engaging content, irrespective of whether it’s real or AI-generated. This is a perfect storm for foreign and domestic influence operations targeting democratic elections. For example, an AI-controlled bot swarm could create the false impression of widespread, bipartisan opposition to a political candidate.
The current U.S. administration has dismantled federal programs that combat such hostile campaigns and defunded research efforts to study them. Researchers no longer have access to the platform data that would make it possible to detect and monitor these kinds of online manipulation.
I am part of an interdisciplinary team of computer science, AI, cybersecurity, psychology, social science, journalism and policy researchers who have sounded the alarm about the threat of malicious AI swarms.
We believe that current AI technology allows organizations with malicious intent to deploy large numbers of autonomous, adaptive, coordinated agents to multiple social media platforms. These agents enable influence operations that are far more scalable, sophisticated and adaptive than simple scripted misinformation campaigns.
Rather than generating identical posts or obvious spam, AI agents can generate varied, credible content at a large scale. The swarms can send people messages tailored to their individual preferences and to the context of their online conversations. The swarms can tailor tone, style and content to respond dynamically to human interaction and platform signals such as numbers of likes or views.
—————
Synthetic consensus
In a study my colleagues and I conducted last year, we used a social media model to simulate swarms of inauthentic social media accounts using different tactics to influence a target online community. One tactic was by far the most effective: infiltration. Once an online group is infiltrated, malicious AI swarms can create the illusion of broad public agreement around the narratives they are programmed to promote. This exploits a psychological phenomenon known as social proof: Humans are naturally inclined to believe something if they perceive that “everyone is saying it.”
Such social media astroturf tactics have been around for many years, but malicious AI swarms can effectively create believable interactions with targeted human users at a large scale, and get those users to follow the inauthentic accounts. For example, agents can talk about the latest game to a sports fan and about current events to a news junkie. They can generate language that resonates with the interests and opinions of their targets.
Even if individual claims are debunked, the persistent chorus of independent-sounding voices can make radical ideas seem mainstream and amplify negative feelings toward “others.” Manufactured synthetic consensus is a very real threat to the public sphere, the mechanisms democratic societies use to form shared beliefs, make decisions and trust public discourse. If citizens cannot reliably distinguish between genuine public opinion and algorithmically generated simulation of unanimity, democratic decision-making could be severely compromised.
—————
Mitigating the risks
Unfortunately, there is not a single fix. Regulation granting researchers access to platform data would be a first step. Understanding how swarms behave collectively would be essential to anticipate risks.
Detecting coordinated behavior is a key challenge. Unlike simple copy-and-paste bots, malicious swarms produce varied output that resembles normal human interaction, making detection much more difficult.
In our lab, we design methods to detect patterns of coordinated behavior that deviate from normal human interaction. Even if agents look different from each other, their underlying objectives often reveal patterns in timing, network movement and narrative trajectory that are unlikely to occur naturally.
Social media platforms could use such methods. I believe that AI and social media platforms should also more aggressively adopt standards to apply watermarks to AI-generated content and recognize and label such content. Finally, restricting the monetization of inauthentic engagement would reduce the financial incentives for influence operations and other malicious groups to use synthetic consensus.
—————
The threat is real
While these measures might mitigate the systemic risks of malicious AI swarms before they become entrenched in political and social systems worldwide, the current political landscape in the U.S. seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The Trump administration has aimed to reduce AI and social media regulation and is instead favoring rapid deployment of AI models over safety.
The threat of malicious AI swarms is no longer theoretical: Our evidence suggests these tactics are already being deployed. I believe that policymakers and technologists should increase the cost, risk and visibility of such manipulation.
Trump’s EPA decides climate change doesn’t endanger public health — the evidence says otherwise
February 18 ,2026
The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel
America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind
the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six
greenhouse gases that drive climate change, including carbon dioxide and
methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare.
:
By Jonathan Levy, Boston University
Howard Frumkin, University of Washington
Jonathan Patz, University of Wisconsin-Madison
and Vijay Limaye, University of Wisconsin-Madison
(THE CONVERSATION) The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare.
But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.
As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health. Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.
—————
Extreme heat
Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.
Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.
Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23% from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.
Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.
—————
Extreme weather
Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.
Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.
Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a setup for wildfires.
—————
Air pollution
Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.
Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.
Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.
—————
Infectious diseases
Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.
Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.
And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.
—————
Other impacts
Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.
Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.
Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.
—————
Policy-based evidence-making
The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.
Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.
Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.
Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.
—————
It’s not just about endangerment
The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.
When governments work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air – and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.
To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.
Howard Frumkin, University of Washington
Jonathan Patz, University of Wisconsin-Madison
and Vijay Limaye, University of Wisconsin-Madison
(THE CONVERSATION) The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare.
But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.
As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health. Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.
—————
Extreme heat
Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.
Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.
Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23% from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.
Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.
—————
Extreme weather
Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.
Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.
Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a setup for wildfires.
—————
Air pollution
Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.
Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.
Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.
—————
Infectious diseases
Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.
Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.
And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.
—————
Other impacts
Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.
Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.
Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.
—————
Policy-based evidence-making
The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.
Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.
Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.
Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.
—————
It’s not just about endangerment
The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.
When governments work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air – and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.
To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.
There’s a competition crisis in America’s state legislatures – and that’s bad for democracy
February 17 ,2026
Many Americans report frustration with the two-party system, in which
the Democratic and Republican candidates are seen as the only viable
options for elective office.
:
Charlie Hunt
Boise State University
(THE CONVERSATION) — Many Americans report frustration with the two-party system, in which the Democratic and Republican candidates are seen as the only viable options for elective office.
But an alarming trend in many state legislative elections is lowering the bar even further, to something more like a one-party system. In dozens of states, an increasing number of state legislative seats are going completely uncontested by one of the two major parties.
State legislatures play a crucial role in American governance. As congressional gridlock has intensified over recent decades, state governments have increasingly picked up the slack on policymaking.
Yet in many states, competition over who serves in these legislatures has deteriorated significantly.
The result is a genuine crisis for political representation, policy innovation and candidate recruitment.
—————
Scale of the problem
In many cases, one of the only two viable parties can’t field enough candidates for the state legislature to mount a credible challenge to the other, more dominant party.
While uncontested seats for Congress remain relatively rare – approximately 3% to 4% of U.S. House districts in recent cycles were uncontested – the phenomenon has become endemic in state legislatures. In recent election cycles, between 30% and 50% of lower-chamber state legislative seats nationwide went uncontested by one of the two major parties.
Even more astounding is the lack of competition in individual states, some of which see far less competition than others. Some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, regularly field candidates for both parties in nearly all their state legislative races.
Massachusetts is a different story: In their lower legislative chamber, more than half the races have gone uncontested by one of the two major parties in every election since at least 2010. In the 2024 elections, four out of every five seats went uncontested in races for the Massachusetts House. In Mississippi, out of the 174 seats in the state Legislature, only 25 of them – 14% – had actual contests with both parties participating.
In practice, this means that for many state legislative chambers each election cycle, the party that will control the majority in the next legislative session – a major prerequisite for governing and passing legislation – is literally a foregone conclusion. In these chambers, one party or the other has fielded candidates for less than half of the legislative seats.
In other words, it’s mathematically impossible for that party to win a majority, even if its candidates win every seat they compete in.
In the 2022 cycle, for example, simple majorities were guaranteed for either the Democrats or Republicans in 22 chambers across 16 states. In some of these cases, one party was guaranteed a veto-proof majority – meaning that party had enough lawmakers to override a governor’s veto if necessary – before a single vote had even been counted in the election.
—————
What is and isn’t behind lack of competition
Several factors contribute to the prevalence of uncontested races, including the individual decision-making processes of potential candidates.
Running for office requires substantial investments of time and money, as well as major sacrifices of privacy and, in many cases, public and personal reputation. Even many individuals who are interested in serving decide that the cost isn’t worth it, especially when winning isn’t a guarantee.
The calculus is even more straightforward in heavily partisan districts, where the other party’s presidential candidate may have won by 40 or 50 percentage points in a previous election. Here, even well-qualified candidates face near-certain defeat. It’s easy to see why would-be candidates might reasonably decide to opt out.
Structural explanations for this lack of competition are more complex. For example, gerrymandering – the practice of drawing district boundaries to favor one party – is frequently cited as the main culprit.
But while gerrymandering does occur and merits concern, the evidence suggests it is not the principal driver of uncontested seats. Many states with independent redistricting commissions, such as Idaho, have experienced high rates of non-contestation despite having drawn competitive districts. Meanwhile, many states where legislatures control redistricting, such as Minnesota and Florida, maintain robust competition.
The phenomenon is also not correlated with whether a state is red, blue or somewhere in between, indicating that partisan control of redistricting alone cannot explain the trend.
Two complementary factors are more likely important. First, geographic partisan sorting – the concentration of politically like-minded people in communities – has accelerated over the past three decades. Democrats have consolidated in urban centers while losing ground in rural areas, particularly in the South and Midwest. This residential sorting creates naturally uncompetitive districts regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
Second, state and local party organizations have experienced significant decline in power and influence, particularly in states where one party holds an overwhelming advantage. These organizations historically served as recruitment and support networks for candidates challenging incumbent officeholders.
Without robust local party infrastructure, even qualified potential candidates in minority parties lack the resources and institutional backing necessary to mount viable campaigns.
—————
Competition is fundamental to a functioning democracy
Regardless of underlying causes, the consequences of uncontested races extend beyond the immediate lack of choice on the ballot.
When one party faces no meaningful electoral threat, research shows that policy innovation and responsiveness suffers. Dominant parties lack incentives to develop proposals that address the concerns of all constituents, or to engage seriously with opposition ideas.
More fundamentally, the prevalence of uncontested races raises questions about democratic legitimacy. Elections serve not merely as mechanisms for selecting officeholders, but as opportunities for citizens to evaluate governance and hold officials accountable. When voters face no choice – when a candidate wins by default and not by persuasion – the basic requirements of democratic representation go unmet.
—————
Obstacles to renewed competition
Reversing this trend requires overcoming significant practical obstacles.
Recruiting qualified candidates to run for office is famously difficult; recruiting them for seemingly unwinnable seats is nearly impossible. And convincing national party organizations, interest groups and donors to invest resources in what they see as “hopeless” races is equally challenging.
But the consequences are too significant to ignore, and go beyond democracy or policy considerations.
State legislatures serve as the primary training ground for candidates who later seek higher office. When parties and their candidate talent decline to compete in entire states, they forfeit not only immediate electoral contests, but also the opportunity to cultivate future leaders at the federal level.
Competition cannot be superficially manufactured, and both the causes of and solutions to its recent decline are complex. Both, however, must be reckoned with. Without real competition, elections risk going from true exercises in popular sovereignty to a mere administrative formality.
But an alarming trend in many state legislative elections is lowering the bar even further, to something more like a one-party system. In dozens of states, an increasing number of state legislative seats are going completely uncontested by one of the two major parties.
State legislatures play a crucial role in American governance. As congressional gridlock has intensified over recent decades, state governments have increasingly picked up the slack on policymaking.
Yet in many states, competition over who serves in these legislatures has deteriorated significantly.
The result is a genuine crisis for political representation, policy innovation and candidate recruitment.
—————
Scale of the problem
In many cases, one of the only two viable parties can’t field enough candidates for the state legislature to mount a credible challenge to the other, more dominant party.
While uncontested seats for Congress remain relatively rare – approximately 3% to 4% of U.S. House districts in recent cycles were uncontested – the phenomenon has become endemic in state legislatures. In recent election cycles, between 30% and 50% of lower-chamber state legislative seats nationwide went uncontested by one of the two major parties.
Even more astounding is the lack of competition in individual states, some of which see far less competition than others. Some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, regularly field candidates for both parties in nearly all their state legislative races.
Massachusetts is a different story: In their lower legislative chamber, more than half the races have gone uncontested by one of the two major parties in every election since at least 2010. In the 2024 elections, four out of every five seats went uncontested in races for the Massachusetts House. In Mississippi, out of the 174 seats in the state Legislature, only 25 of them – 14% – had actual contests with both parties participating.
In practice, this means that for many state legislative chambers each election cycle, the party that will control the majority in the next legislative session – a major prerequisite for governing and passing legislation – is literally a foregone conclusion. In these chambers, one party or the other has fielded candidates for less than half of the legislative seats.
In other words, it’s mathematically impossible for that party to win a majority, even if its candidates win every seat they compete in.
In the 2022 cycle, for example, simple majorities were guaranteed for either the Democrats or Republicans in 22 chambers across 16 states. In some of these cases, one party was guaranteed a veto-proof majority – meaning that party had enough lawmakers to override a governor’s veto if necessary – before a single vote had even been counted in the election.
—————
What is and isn’t behind lack of competition
Several factors contribute to the prevalence of uncontested races, including the individual decision-making processes of potential candidates.
Running for office requires substantial investments of time and money, as well as major sacrifices of privacy and, in many cases, public and personal reputation. Even many individuals who are interested in serving decide that the cost isn’t worth it, especially when winning isn’t a guarantee.
The calculus is even more straightforward in heavily partisan districts, where the other party’s presidential candidate may have won by 40 or 50 percentage points in a previous election. Here, even well-qualified candidates face near-certain defeat. It’s easy to see why would-be candidates might reasonably decide to opt out.
Structural explanations for this lack of competition are more complex. For example, gerrymandering – the practice of drawing district boundaries to favor one party – is frequently cited as the main culprit.
But while gerrymandering does occur and merits concern, the evidence suggests it is not the principal driver of uncontested seats. Many states with independent redistricting commissions, such as Idaho, have experienced high rates of non-contestation despite having drawn competitive districts. Meanwhile, many states where legislatures control redistricting, such as Minnesota and Florida, maintain robust competition.
The phenomenon is also not correlated with whether a state is red, blue or somewhere in between, indicating that partisan control of redistricting alone cannot explain the trend.
Two complementary factors are more likely important. First, geographic partisan sorting – the concentration of politically like-minded people in communities – has accelerated over the past three decades. Democrats have consolidated in urban centers while losing ground in rural areas, particularly in the South and Midwest. This residential sorting creates naturally uncompetitive districts regardless of how boundaries are drawn.
Second, state and local party organizations have experienced significant decline in power and influence, particularly in states where one party holds an overwhelming advantage. These organizations historically served as recruitment and support networks for candidates challenging incumbent officeholders.
Without robust local party infrastructure, even qualified potential candidates in minority parties lack the resources and institutional backing necessary to mount viable campaigns.
—————
Competition is fundamental to a functioning democracy
Regardless of underlying causes, the consequences of uncontested races extend beyond the immediate lack of choice on the ballot.
When one party faces no meaningful electoral threat, research shows that policy innovation and responsiveness suffers. Dominant parties lack incentives to develop proposals that address the concerns of all constituents, or to engage seriously with opposition ideas.
More fundamentally, the prevalence of uncontested races raises questions about democratic legitimacy. Elections serve not merely as mechanisms for selecting officeholders, but as opportunities for citizens to evaluate governance and hold officials accountable. When voters face no choice – when a candidate wins by default and not by persuasion – the basic requirements of democratic representation go unmet.
—————
Obstacles to renewed competition
Reversing this trend requires overcoming significant practical obstacles.
Recruiting qualified candidates to run for office is famously difficult; recruiting them for seemingly unwinnable seats is nearly impossible. And convincing national party organizations, interest groups and donors to invest resources in what they see as “hopeless” races is equally challenging.
But the consequences are too significant to ignore, and go beyond democracy or policy considerations.
State legislatures serve as the primary training ground for candidates who later seek higher office. When parties and their candidate talent decline to compete in entire states, they forfeit not only immediate electoral contests, but also the opportunity to cultivate future leaders at the federal level.
Competition cannot be superficially manufactured, and both the causes of and solutions to its recent decline are complex. Both, however, must be reckoned with. Without real competition, elections risk going from true exercises in popular sovereignty to a mere administrative formality.
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- A wave of lawsuits has resulted from online comments after Charlie Kirk’s assassination
- Goldman Sachs top lawyer resigns after emails show Jeffrey Epstein friendship
- Failed indictment of 6 Democratic lawmakers blamed on Jeanine Pirro-picked prosecutors
- Federal judges may address ‘illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks,’ according to new ethics opinion
- Senate GOP aims to reveal companies funding lawsuits
- Bad Bunny’s ‘love conquering hate’ message at Super Bowl reiterated by judge sentencing assaulter
