SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " ACCOUNTABLE " 107 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
“What I Appreciate in Gevorg Is His Commitment to Making Global Health More Equitable, Transparent, and Accountable” – Pietro Presti, CEO of Sharing Progress in Cancer Care
“What I Appreciate in Gevorg Is His Commitment to Making Global Health More Equitable, Transparent, and Accountable” – Pietro Presti, CEO of Sharing Progress
Can AI solve our mental health access problem?
Last week I asked you what worries you most about AI in health. It was close, but your top answer was “AI giving bad health advice.” Last week’s poll results: You’re in good company. This concern was top of mind at a conference I joined at Stanford last week, where researchers, clinicians, and people who build AI systems spent a day debating trust and safety in health AI. Stepping back, I’m also hearing your emerging concerns about AI’s impact on our well-being generally. I see this as a matter of public health, and we’ll take it in pieces as we learn together. Today we’ll focus on AI chatbots used for therapy for mental health. Early this month, Governor Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 903, California’s most ambitious attempt to regulate AI use for mental health. It’s at the center of active debate, and raises the questions patients, family members, citizens, and voters will face as AI moves deeper into health care. Let’s work through it. What is “AI-based therapy”? It’s really two things: purpose-built mental health apps designed to deliver structured support, and general chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini that people increasingly use for emotional support—even if they weren’t built for it. Spoiler alert: I don’t know whether the shift toward AI therapy is good or bad. The evidence isn’t there yet. But I do know it’s already happening, and I have some ideas about how we can roll it out with safety in mind. The therapy dilemma, in a nutshell Mental health challenges are common, and strain health and well-being across populations. Therapy (interactive dialogue with a trained, empathetic practitioner) helps many people heal. The demand for licensed therapists far exceeds the supply in California, and AI-based therapy can narrow that gap. AI-based therapy remains novel, unproven, and not well tested. Right off the bat, we can see we’re dealing with trade-offs here. Since the main driver of demand for therapy from a robot is lack of access to therapy from a human, we’ll start there. It’s too hard to find and afford a human therapist California is short roughly 55,000 licensed, non-prescribing therapists and counselors, about 40% of what we need. Psychiatrists, who rely on talk therapy as a complement to prescribed medications, are even more scarce. Eight counties have none, and density ranges from 1.7 per 100,000 residents in San Benito County, to 68.1 in Marin County. My wife is a psychiatrist in Marin, and even here access is tight. If it’s hard in the best-supplied county, imagine rural Sierra County, or the San Joaquin Valley. In 2024, more than half of Californians who tried to make a mental health appointment struggled to find a provider who took their insurance, compared with 14% for physical health care. When Senate staff posed as “secret shopper” patients and called 120 mental health providers in Medicare Advantage networks, they landed an appointment less than once for every five tries. Insurers pay behavioral health clinicians about 22% less than medical and surgical clinicians for comparable office visits. On top of that, billing denials and prior authorizations hit hardest at the solo and small practices common in mental health. Psychiatrists opt out of Medicare at the highest rate of any specialty. In many places, a cash practice for therapy fills quickly with patients paying $250 or more an hour, with no insurance paperwork at all. Families who can pay cash find providers more easily. Those who rely on insurance, including Medi-Cal enrollees, older adults, rural residents, and non-English speakers, compete for what’s left. So we can’t pretend the human system works, and we can’t blame people for turning to AI for support when they’re in distress. AI is filling the gap It’s estimated that roughly a quarter of AI users use it for mental health support. If you have internet, it’s available 24/7, it’s cheap, and it speaks your language. Uninsured adults are about twice as likely as insured adults to do it (30% vs. 14%). It feels anonymous in ways that may enable people to ask things they’re unsure or embarrassed about. The largely hidden, personal use makes it hard to study whether it’s actually helping people with their mental health issues, but researchers are trying. Does AI therapy work? A 2026 analysis of nearly 40 randomized trials found chatbots showed a real but small reduction in depression symptoms. But most of these trials were compared to an alternative of no therapy, not a human therapist. So the benefit of AI therapy is probably real, but modest, and mostly untested against the alternative of human contact. We need more studies. Serious concerns OpenAI’s own estimate is that more than a million ChatGPT users each week show signs of suicidal planning or intent. These are high stakes encounters, and AI doesn’t always get it right. That’s partly because a chatbot can sound like a therapist, but it has no license, no duty of care, and it’s not clear who to hold accountable when it gets things wrong. AI is also designed to help users in whatever task they’re seeking to accomplish. People may feel like they’re getting therapy, but they’re mainly getting a convincing conversation. It’s easy for an AI companion to wander into gray areas, like playing along with “creative writing” that may be about the user’s own suicidal intent. Courts are driving safety conversations A wave of lawsuits have been filed on behalf of families claiming that chatbots pushed people they loved toward self-harm, including teens who died by suicide. The first settlements came this year. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, and dozens of cases alleging that ChatGPT drove users to suicide or self-harm are now before a San Francisco judge. Character.ai has filed for bankruptcy after several states brought lawsuits accusing the chatbot of pushing dangerous content to kids. But the technology seems to be improving. Last month, an independent evaluation found that newer AI models “almost never endorse suicide.” That’s progress, but our societal appetite for even one preventable death is very low. So how do we move forward? Finding a middle ground Earlier this month the governor vetoed Senate Bill 903, a bill designed to place guardrails on the use of AI for therapy. The bill would have prohibited any AI-based platform from being advertised as psychotherapy, and would have required a licensed professional to review and approve each encounter where AI was used to support therapeutic decisions. Newsom called it overly broad, since even routine screening questions would have needed clinician sign-off. Knowing we’re already short on mental health providers, requiring human review of AI encounters may not relieve our access problems. Still, the answer isn’t no oversight. Here’s one feasible short term solution. Rather than reviewing each encounter, a licensed clinician can design the guardrails: what counts as a crisis, what triggers an immediate handoff to a human, and what gets sampled for audit each month. The AI runs inside that structure. Conversations get checked, failures get reported, and a real clinician owns the framework. Medicine already has models to learn from. The FDA process for rolling out newly approved medications is an example. After a product reaches patients, we keep watching for adverse events. Patient-facing AI needs the same “digital pharmacovigilance”: systematic tracking of harms, near misses, and the types of groups that get hurt and why. It’s also critical that users know that they can reach a human if they’re in crisis. Most chatbots now include messages like these: Bottom line The rush to use unproven AI tools for mental health support is mostly a workaround, a sign of a health system people can’t get into. We need better access to proven care from licensed clinicians. That takes reimbursement that makes accepting insurance viable, and a bigger workforce. But, built and tested well, AI could be part of the answer. It could be the 2 a.m. check-in when no one else is awake, or a way for patients to practice skills their therapist taught them. It could be the first step to get someone the right level of care, and take paperwork off clinicians’ plates so they spend more time with patients. None of this is simple. The SB 903 veto doesn’t end the debate, and the legislature will be back. In the meantime, those of us using these tools need to stay informed, ask hard questions, and hold the companies building them accountable. I’ll try to do my part, and we’ll keep learning together. Love,Matt P.S. If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health challenges, emotional distress, substance use problems, or just needs to talk, call or text 988- you’ll reach a real person— or chat at 988lifeline.org 24/7. Dr. Matt Willis is the author of Your Local Epidemiologist in California. A California native, he’s served as a primary care physician, CDC epidemiologist, and public health officer for Marin County, where he guided the pandemic response. He lives in Marin with his family and their dogs, Teddy and Ramona. Thank you Cynthia He, MD, PhD, and Parnika Saxena, MD, for their guidance in preparing this article. Cynthia works in an outpatient mental health clinic, treating patients who have Medi-Cal or, sometimes, no insurance. Parnika works in an inpatient psychiatric unit, treating patients with public or private insurance or self-pay ability. All opinions are their own and do not represent their employers.
Emplify Health and Pearl Health Partner to Expand Accountable Care Across the Upper Midwest
/PRNewswire/ -- Emplify Health, the not-for-profit health system formed by Bellin Health and Gundersen Health System, today announced a partnership with...
Analysis | Democrats are running on a scant agenda. Do they need more?
They lack a specific plan for governing, beyond turning back Trump and holding him accountable.
A health reform both parties can get behind
Holding insurers accountable could be a point of agreement in a divided Washington
A bipartisan healthcare fix
Holding insurers accountable could be a point of agreement in a divided Washington
How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy
Hey all, Jason here. Money20/20 is still two weeks away, but I’ve already started packing (not procrastinating for once!). My calendar is already filling up with various sessions I want to catch, meetings, and of course happy hours, dinners, and other side events. If you’ll be in Vegas and want to catch up, let me know by replying to this email, and we can try to find a time amidst the chaos of the Venetian. A big if not totally unexpected piece of news dropped on Friday: the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group that represents smaller U.S. banks, filed a lawsuit against the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould, arguing that the regulator’s move to grant trust bank charters to firms seeking to use them to conduct substantial non-fiduciary activities exceeds the authorities granted to the OCC by Congress. I haven’t had time to fully digest the legal filing or speak to folks in my network about it, but you can expect to see coverage and analysis on it in next week’s newsletter. Subscribe or Support by Upgrading The NerdCon agenda just dropped. It’s stacked. Partner content: Nubank built an AI-first bank. Chime built its own banking core. Figure and Valon are rebuilding the mortgage stack. At NerdCon, you’ll hear from the people behind those bets: what they chose, what they learned, and what they’re still figuring out. The agenda is live, with leaders from Nubank, Chime, OpenAI, Remitly, Mercury, Figure, Valon and more. Follow the mainstage conversations, bring the problem your team is wrestling with to a hands-on workshop, or pull up a chair at a roundtable. Pick your quests. Meet us in San Diego, November 18–20. Fintech Business Weekly readers save 20% with code FBW20. Explore the Agenda Things To Know & Other Good Reads Federal Reserve Board finalizes changes to enhance the transparency and public accountability of its stress test and reduce volatility in its stress test-related capital requirements (Federal Reserve Board of Governors) FDIC Announces Conclusion of Independent Monitorship (FDIC) Modernizing Financial Regulation: Initial Observations from eSLR (Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman) The Data Version of Godzilla versus Kong: FRED Takes on AI (Fed Governor Christopher Waller) Financing the AI buildout (Brookings) Q3’26: Rules for Banks but Not for Crypto (Fintech Takes Banking) The Inevitability of Local Stablecoins (Lombard Notes) Delusions of AI Governance: The Human-in-the-Loop Comfort Blanket (Fintech Snark Tank) Stripe agrees to acquire Parafin to expand revenue opportunities for platforms and help small businesses grow (Stripe) Listen: Fighting Fraud in the Age of AI, with SEON’s Tamas Kadar (Fintech Business Weekly) How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy If there is one overarching theme across the economy and politics in the U.S. at the moment, it’s “affordability.” The term is vague enough to encompass a panoply of factors shaping Americans’ day-to-day lives: rising costs for the hallmarks of being “middle class,” including healthcare, housing, childcare, and education, inflation and rising interest rates, and a job market with the specter of AI hovering over it. At the same time, policy shifts under the Trump administration have resulted in reduced subsidies to those who get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and new restrictions on qualifying for Medicaid and SNAP, the impacts of which have yet to be fully felt. These factors are contributing to declining consumer confidence and general dissatisfaction with the economy, despite continuing GDP growth and stock market records. This divergence is encapsulated in the idea of the “K-shaped” economy, in which a small proportion of Americans have seen their wealth balloon, while the majority of American households struggle to preserve the lifestyle they have. Perhaps the greatest determinant of which branch of the “K” a household is on is whether their wealth and income are primarily derived from employment vs. from assets. Nearly two decades of low interest rates and, more recently, elevated rates of inflation have benefited asset owners, while those whose income is primarily or solely derived from labor have largely seen real purchasing power stagnate or decline. This is reflected in recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that labor share of U.S. GDP — the fraction of economic output that accrues to workers as compensation in exchange for their labor — dropped to just 52.8% in Q2 2026, the lowest since the BLS began keeping records. In 1947, approximately 2/3rds of economic output accrued to workers; even as recently as 2001, labor’s share of GDP was 64.1%. Against this backdrop, we’ve seen the rise of more credit and credit-like products: cash advance apps, “no-fee” overdraft, earned wage access, and buy now pay later, which are often used as small-dollar short-term borrowing mechanisms to meet immediate consumption needs or pay other bills (eg utilities, cell phone, other debt payments). With the markers of a middle class existence and, increasingly, basic financial stability seemingly out of reach for many, it should be no surprise there’s been an increase in “financial nihilism,” something industry peers like Alex Johnson and Frank Rotman have discussed and analyzed the roots of. The explosion of gambling and gambling-adjacent products and services — often marketed under the guise of being an “investment” — is inextricably intertwined with the rise of financial nihilism. Crypto, sports betting, and, more recently, prediction markets offer an escape or even hope of sorts, like a contemporary, digital version of a scratch-off lottery ticket, while leaving the overwhelming number of people who use such products worse off. Share of Households That Are Financially “Vulnerable” Ticks Up The Financial Health Network’s 2026 Financial Health Pulse® report adds context on how American households are faring. (I linked to this report in last week’s newsletter, but wanted to take time to further unpack the data in the report this week.) The Financial Health Network publishes the report annually, providing insight into how Americans’ financial circumstances are changing over time. The 2026 report is derived from a survey fielded in April and May 2026. The report leverages survey responses to assess indicators of financial health across spending, saving, borrowing, and planning/protecting and to determine a zero to 100 “FinHealth” score. Those with scores between 0 and 39 are considered “Financially Vulnerable,” consumers with scores ranging between 40 and 79 are defined as “Financially Coping,” and those with scores of 80 to 100 are “Financially Healthy.” The report found that moderate improvements in 2025 were reversed, with the share of respondents considered financially “vulnerable” rebounding to 17%. The longitudinal data reflect the impact of pandemic-era programs, like expanded unemployment, cash stimulus payments, and pauses of federal student loan payments. The positive impacts of those programs, as reflected in the Financial Health Pulse reports, had largely disappeared by 2023. While pandemic-era inflation — to be fair, in part caused by the various support and stimulus measures — had come down from as high as 9% in 2022, it has rebounded since the start of Trump’s second term, with tariffs and energy market disruptions owing to the war in Iran pushing prices back up. Specific indicators in the survey that deteriorated from 2025 to 2026 include the share of respondents spending less than their income over the past 12 months, the share paying all bills on time over the past 12 months, the share that have a manageable amount or no debt, the share that are “moderately” or “very” confident their insurance is adequate to cover them in an emergency, and the share that “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that their household plans ahead financially. Unsurprisingly, lower- and moderate-income households are more likely to struggle to pay their bills on time and have any funds leftover to save. The share of low-income households whose income exceeded their spending dropped from 35% in 2025 to 31% in 2026, while the share of upper-income households whose income exceeded expenses remained unchanged at 63%. Households with student loans or revolving credit card debt reported having “a bit more” or “far more” debt than was manageable at rates far higher than those not carrying these types of debts. The share of those with student loan debt indicating their debt load was too high to manage increased from 50% in 2025 to 55% in 2026, while the share of those with revolving credit card debt saying the same ticked up from 51% in 2025 to 54% in 2026. Households that had student loans were markedly more likely to be financially “coping” or “vulnerable” vs. those without student loans. In 2026, 27% of households with student loans were considered financially vulnerable, a jump of 6% points vs. 2025. Households without student loans saw just a 1% point increase (not statistically significant) in those considered financially vulnerable. Households’ perception of the affordability of categories of goods and services paints a stark picture, with less than one-fourth considering higher education affordable, about a third deeming childcare affordable, and less than half viewing healthcare as affordable. Fintech Business Weekly is made possible by the generous support of paying subscribers — bringing you independent analysis of banking, fintech, and crypto without fear or favor. You can support my work by becoming a paying subscriber if you aren’t already. Paying subscribers enjoy: access to the entire archive of nearly six years of newsletters extended versions of the weekly newsletter, with additional content and analysis and (for founding member tier) quarterly personal 1:1 fintech Q&A / strategy calls with me, tapping into my unparalleled knowledge of the intersection of banking and fintech and experience working in the sector, including helping to launch Goldman Sachs’ retail bank Marcus Support Fintech Business Weekly You can also support Fintech Business Weekly by sponsoring a newsletter or podcast, putting you in front of 93,000+ of the most influential decision makers in banking, fintech, and crypto. Learn more about sponsor opportunities or request a media kit by dropping me an email. Democratic Senate Report Highlights How Iran Uses Tether to Evade U.S. Sanctions Iran uses stablecoins, specifically Tether, to evade sanctions, fund regional proxies, and to purchase military drones, a report released last week by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations says. The report was authored by committee ranking member Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and the minority staff. Crypto and stablecoin proponents will often push back on criticism that criminals make use of these assets by arguing that, on an absolute dollar basis, far more illicit funds flow through traditional banking systems and payment rails than via crypto and stablecoins. And while that is likely true, it elides the reality presented in news story after news story: whether state actors — Russia, Iran, North Korea — or criminal groups, those looking to engage in illicit transactions increasingly favor stablecoins and, specifically, Tether (USDT). The report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released last week adds context to how Iran uses Tether has a lynchpin in its shadow banking system. The report analyzed 846 wallets that have been sanctioned or targeted for seizure, finding that 84% of them transacted exclusively or primarily in Tether. The ability to create near limitless, anonymous wallets and to move funds effectively instantaneously and irreversibly have made crypto a favored financial mechanism for bad actors. Stablecoins solved key drawbacks of bitcoin, namely, the original cryptocurrency’s highly volatile value in dollars. And while Tether (the company) has the technical ability to “freeze” or destroy funds, the company is often limited and reactive in its approach to doing so, the Senate report argues. Tether, which is nominally based in crypto-friendly El Salvador, “has stated that its compliance with OFAC sanctions is ‘voluntary’ and that it follows ‘OFAC guidelines,’” the Senate report says. Owing to these favorable attributes, Tether “became a primary cryptocurrency for Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Houthis beginning in 2023 and has expanded in scale since,” according to the report. Tether’s role in Iran’s shadow banking system, the report says, is enhanced by crypto exchanges like Bybit, Kyrrex, OKX, Gate, and Binance, and through “over the counter” exchanges and hawala networks. The consequences of these financial flows aren’t hypothetical. The Senate report links Tether as a funds transfer mechanism to Iranian proxies in the region, including Hizballah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Tether has also been used to make payments to secure components necessary to manufacture drones, the report says. The report concludes by arguing that “[s]tablecoin issuers with a significant nexus to the United States, particularly those that offer dollar-denominated stablecoins, should be subject to American sanctions law rather than being allowed to hide behind foreign jurisdictions.” Stablecoin issuers like Tether must be held accountable for repeated failures to prevent illicit finance and sanctions violations by law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and OFAC, the report argues. [Paying Subscriber Exclusive] OUSD Goes Live, Make Your Own Neobank, U.S. Sanctions Russia’s A7 Network As “Transnational Criminal Organization” OpenUSD, the stablecoin issued by the Open Standard consortium that includes Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, core providers, crypto firms, and numerous banks, went live last week. Social commerce platform Whop raised eyebrows in fintech by offering creators on its platform the ability to launch their own neobanks, which the company describes as “great businesses that are easy to run,” in just 15 minutes. And OFAC and FinCEN target Russia’s “shadow banking” A7 Network — more on these stories after the paywall.
ACO Expansion Might Change The Case For Investing In agilon health Stock (AGL)
In late September 2026, agilon health reported that The Jackson Clinic and Springfield Clinic would expand their partnerships by joining agilon’s Senior Health Connect ACOs. This extends value-based care support to roughly 30,000 additional Traditional Medicare beneficiaries on top of existing Medicare Advantage panels. The moves deepen agilon health’s integration with large multi-specialty groups, tying more senior lives into full-risk accountable care models that rely heavily on the...
Stop the Bleed: Cut Costs, Not Care Gets Candidates on the Record on High Cost of Health Care Ahead of Midterms
What will you do to hold health care corporations accountable for high costs? For more information, learn more with Stop the Bleed.
Lesbian Bar Project Co-Founder: Purity Politics Could Destroy Our Remaining Spaces
Subscribe As a professional lesbian and Massachusetts native, I’ve recently been asked by a lot of folks what I think about the saga unfolding at Last Ditch. The now-viral story, first reported by The Boston Globe, centers on a Western Massachusetts lesbian bar that lifted its mask requirement for one night a week to help drum up business. The decision ignited an intra-queer controversy that has been feasted on by media outlets across the political spectrum—from the New York Post to LGBTQ Nation—and is even reportedly being eyed for a Hollywood adaptation. Apparently nothing is more entertaining than a bunch of lesbians and queers fighting with each other over KN-95s. What has been lost in all of the chatter and media coverage is the very real possibility that Last Ditch, which just opened in April 2025, will have to close its doors. The venue’s one remaining founder, Jackie Matellian, revealed in a community Zoom meeting that she’s working four jobs, is now solely responsible for the bar’s $50,000 business loan and is struggling to keep up with the bills. So as we laugh about the controversy’s similarity to a “Portlandia” skit and how one of the bar’s founders left to enroll in clown school, we forget that yet another lesbian bar is facing an existential crisis—and this time the call is coming from inside the house. In 2020, my friend Elina Street and I created The Lesbian Bar Project, an Emmy-, Webby- and GLAAD Media Award-winning docuseries and initiative that tells the stories of lesbian queer bars around the world. We were moved to act because at the time there were only an estimated 16 lesbian bars in the United States, and the pandemic threatened to bring that number down even further. There are now more sapphic bars than there were just before the pandemic—about 36 of them in total—but this is down from approximately 200 in 1980. Maybe that doesn’t mean much to you, but for the millions of sapphics living in the U.S., this number is calamitous. As the world laughs at lesbians and sapphics, I want to take a second and tell you what I feel when I walk into one of these bars, which are all unique and irreplaceable in their own way: I feel seen. Sometimes I think Cubbyhole in New York City’s West Village neighborhood knew I was gay before I did. When I walked in there for the first time, before I was even out, I was transfixed by the colorful array of tchotchkes hanging from the ceiling and how the women standing next to me were completely unafraid to express their desire for one another. I knew the minute I was ready to come out, I had a home. I also felt the joy of a new couple falling in love at Seattle’s Wildrose, the quiet confidence of a short king lining up her shot at the pool table at Ginger’s in Brooklyn and the kick of cayenne pepper in Julie Mabry’s crawfish at Houston’s Pearl Bar. Subscribe Lesbian bars don’t just serve lesbians; they serve queer folks across the spectrum, including bisexual, pansexual and trans people. As Elina and I traveled across the U.S. and Europe and to parts of Latin America to document the bar owners, staff and patrons that make up the ecosystems of these spaces, we also became uniquely acquainted with the factors that threaten their existence: gentrification, wage gaps, sexism, environmental disasters, gun violence, rising insurance premiums and political administrations working to annihilate queer people and their families. Lesbian bar owners, like all leaders and entrepreneurs, are imperfect. There have been significant issues over the years at lesbian bars: employee harassment, racism, lack of accessibility, sexual assault and transphobia. All bar owners should be held accountable and should listen to their communities to evolve into safer and more equitable spaces. I also acknowledge my privilege: I am able-bodied, white, cis and from a family system that loves me for who I am. Not everyone has that. Queer people, especially trans and bisexual people, are suffering from disproportionately high levels of depression, and our mental health system isn’t equipped to support them. Immunocompromised people and long COVID are real, and many of my friends are suffering to this day. The people with the least safety net are often the ones for whom a bar closing costs the most. And yet, as we’re seeing with Last Ditch, the queer community often lashes out at each other. It’s also the mainstream media taking the internal conflict and making a mockery out of it, distracting from the real possibility that this bar could close due to financial pressures. A bar that many people loved and needed is facing extinction. Perhaps it’s safer to dissent with one another than with the larger forces trying to eradicate us, but in doing so, we risk destroying the few spaces we have left. Due to the constraints of purity politics—some in good faith, some not so much—lesbian bar owners, almost all of whom are queer women themselves, are forced to be everything for everyone, similarly to how women are forced to be everything for everyone. By asking these bars to uphold impossible standards—standards very few other third spaces are asked to consider—we all end up losing. I want to move as a community toward dialogue, compassionate dissent and collaboration to make our spaces better with the goal of keeping them OPEN and thriving, rather than destroying them from the inside with expectations that are arguably unattainable. Subscribe While I have your attention—for this fleeting second of the news cycle—may I urge us to spearhead a way to keep these small businesses afloat without attacking our own community along the way? Bar owners are left with an impasse: They want to be community-centered, but they also have to make money to keep their doors open. Sometimes they might make business decisions that don’t work for everyone—and that’s partly because different patrons have different priorities and want different things—but these owners deserve the opportunity for productive dialogue**.** We have to work with them and with each other to keep our spaces open, to keep them growing. Lesbian bars raised me into the queer woman I am today. One thing I think about as I reflect on the six years of work we’ve done to document these spaces is that shared, unspoken language I have with a stranger the moment we both walk into one of these bars: the nod, the ease, the not having to explain ourselves. I don’t want to lose that, and neither should you. If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button: Donate
After court ruling, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to hold Kalshi accountable for operating illegally
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is promising to hold prediction market platform Kalshi accountable for skirting state gambling regulations for years after a federal court ruling.
Sports gambling critics launch movement to put limits on industry
Advocates traveled to Washington, DC to urge lawmakers to take action and keep both gambling companies and sports leagues accountable for the risks of sports betting.
Australia to investigate if OpenAI hack of government health website broke the law
The incident is the first known breach to affect a government agency, and Australia's prime minister has vowed to hold OpenAI accountable.
US Republican calls for probe into Donald Trump Jr’s business dealings
US Senator John Curtis's letter marks a rare effort by a member of the president's own party to hold him accountable.
Intermountain Health ACO Ranked Among Nation’s Top Five for Medicare Savings in 2024
Intermountain Health’s accountable care organization (ACO) generated more than $67.6 million in Medicare savings through the Accountable Care Organizations Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health, or ACO REACH, program in 2024.The results placed the ACO fifth nationally among participating organizations and marked the third consecutive ...
Apple Exec Says 'Hold Us Accountable' on iPhone Duo Crease
Apple hardware engineering VP Tom Marieb spoke with TechRadar and shared some candid thoughts about Apple's upcoming iPhone Duo. The iPhone Duo uses a matte nano-texture display, which is meant to cut down on glare and minimize the visibility of the crease. When asked if the iPhone Duo's crease would be more visible over time, as that's what tends to happen on other foldables, Marieb said the nano-texture display would help.
Ohio voters are mad as hell, but will they actually hold any politicians accountable in November?
Before it turned reliably red, Ohio was considered a bellwether for national politics. In every presidential election since 1964, the candidate who won Ohio, went on to win the White House. “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation,” was the old saying. We were the quintessential battleground state until we weren’t. That streak ended in […]
Earth Science Tech, Inc. Uplists to OTCQB Venture Market
MIAMI, FL, Sept. 16, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Earth Science Tech, Inc. (OTC: ETST) ("Earth Science Tech" or the "Company"), operating as a holding company with a diversified highly accountable portfolio of distinct entities, today announced its successful uplisting to the OTCQB Venture Market (the "OTCQB") effective for trading September 17, 2026. The OTCQB is a premier, established public market for entrepreneurial and growth-stage companies. To qualify for quotation, companies must meet rigoro
Ranking Members Markey, Velázquez, American Small Businesses Fight Back Against Trump SBA’s Discriminatory Anti-Immigrant Lending Policies
More than 120 small businesses and organizations pen letter of support for Ranking Member Markey’s resolution striking down Trump’s ban on awarding SBA loans to green card holders Letter (PDF) (Washington, September 15) – Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today garnered additional support from Main Street small businesses for his Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the Trump administration’s discriminatory policy that bans green card holders from accessing essential Small Business Administration (SBA) loans. In a letter of support, more than 120 American small businesses and community organizations, led by Small Business Majority, applauded Ranking Member Markey’s efforts to overturn the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant lending ban and advocated for the passage of Ranking Member Markey’s CRA resolution in the Senate. House Small Business Committee Ranking Member Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY-7) is leading the resolution in the House of Representatives. The Trump administration’s green card holder ban is the most recent escalation of SBA’s draconian citizenship restrictions that are killing jobs and putting the American Dream further out of reach for entrepreneurs. In Fiscal Year 2025, Trump’s SBA made an estimated $5.5 billion in loans to green card holders, which supported more than 80,000 jobs nationwide. “The Trump administration’s continued attacks on American small businesses and jobs are anti-American, they’re discriminatory, and they’re dragging down our communities and our economy. Thanks to partners like Small Business Majority, countless small businesses, and community organizations, we are fighting back and holding them accountable,” said Ranking Member Markey. “I will not stop fighting to rescind this hateful policy that attacks American entrepreneurs and prevents them from pursuing the American Dream.” “Small businesses and organizations across the country are sending a clear message that the Trump administration's discriminatory lending rules are bad for business,” said Ranking Member Velázquez. “I want to thank Small Business Majority for leading this effort and amplifying the voices of the entrepreneurs who create jobs and strengthen our local economies. As Ranking Member of the House Small Business Committee, I will keep pushing to stop these attacks on the American Dream and ensure that every eligible entrepreneur can access the capital they need to succeed.” In the letter, the small businesses write, “Congress must reaffirm its commitment to serving those who are rightfully and legally entitled to accessing key government guaranteed loan programs in pursuit of the American Dream. Restoring access to responsible, government-guaranteed loans for such a critical segment of our economy will allow thousands of small businesses to access the capital they require to grow and invest in American communities. If Congress does not act to protect access to the very ideals that our country was founded upon by rewarding those who adhere strictly to legal immigration pathways, local economies, communities and Main Street will pay the price.” Ranking Member Markey’s CRA resolution follows his introduction of the Investing in the American Dream Act alongside Ranking Member Velázquez earlier this year. The Investing in the American Dream Act would roll back the SBA’s draconian lending restrictions and restore previous SBA lending policies for immigrant entrepreneurs lawfully in the U.S., including green card holders, refugees, and asylees. More than 100 organizations have called for the passage of the legislation and more than 60 Massachusetts state legislators have raised concerns about the impact of the citizenship restrictions in their local communities. Ranking Member Markey is fighting for small business owners and immigrants that rely on SBA loans to start and run their businesses, create jobs, and contribute to their communities. In July, Ranking Member Markey and Ranking Member Velázquez introduced a bicameral resolution to rescind the Trump administration’s policy that bans green card holders from accessing essential SBA loans to start and grow their businesses and invest in Main Streets nationwide. In May, Ranking Member Markey highlighted the significant contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs in Massachusetts and across the country and condemned the Trump administration’s repeated attacks on immigrant communities at a Small Business Committee hearing. MIRA’s Elizabeth Sweet, who participated in Ranking Member Markey’s listening session earlier in May, provided testimony at the hearing. Also in May, Ranking Member Markey hosted a listening session at the Urban College of Boston to hear directly from several Massachusetts immigrant small business owners, lenders, and chambers of commerce how President Trump’s cruel and callous anti-immigrant policies are hurting Main Streets in the Bay State. Earlier in May, Ranking Member Markey hosted a press conference alongside Ranking Member Velázquez, Democratic lawmakers, and stakeholders to condemn the Trump administration’s harmful anti-immigrant lending policies and to introduce the Investing in the American Dream Act. In March, Ranking Member Markey released a comprehensive report detailing the harms to small business owners, workers, and consumers caused by the Trump administration’s ICE raids in communities across the country. In February, Ranking Member Markey introduced the Small Business ICE Disruption Fund Act, which would provide grants to small businesses that have been impacted by the Trump administration’s violent immigration enforcement actions on Main Streets across the United States. Earlier in February, Ranking Member Markey, Ranking Member Velázquez, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) sent a letter urging the SBA to rescind their lending rule change that bars legal permanent residents from receiving SBA loans. Previously, Ranking Members Markey and Velázquez released a statement condemning the actions of the SBA after it announced that small businesses with legal permanent residents will be barred from receiving SBA loans. In December 2025, Ranking Member Markey and all Democratic members of the Senate Small Business Committee sent a letter to the SBA reiterating concerns with the SBA’s citizenship requirements and highlighting a drop in SBA lending volume. In September 2025, Ranking Member Markey heard directly from SBA lenders about the issues with the citizenship verification requirements. In July 2025, Ranking Members Markey and Velázquez sent a letter to the SBA expressing serious concerns with the agency’s new, draconian citizenship verification requirements that require small businesses seeking SBA loans to be 100% owned by U.S. citizens, nationals, and legal permanent residents. ###
Bryce Underwood Sends Message After Michigan Upsets Oklahoma
Bryce Underwood credited his Michigan teammates for holding him accountable after responding to criticism with a 17-10 win over Oklahoma.
Andrea Baltodano, Stocktonia reporter, pledges to hold politicians accountable
The Nicaragua immigrant said she appreciates the opportunity to report events accurately and honestly, taking advantage of press freedoms here.
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
Widow breaks tradition of keeping politics out of 9/11 remembrances
Terry Strada, a widow of a 9/11 victim, broke the long-standing tradition of keeping politics out of Sept. 11 remembrances and called on President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the attacks.
The Cost of Cutting American Science: How Federal Cuts Diminish Public Health Capacity
Among the federal government’s many responsibilities is the work it does to protect public health. Federal agencies monitor our food supply to ensure safety, conduct research to better understand emerging health threats, provide funding for public health programs in communities and work to detect and respond to disease outbreaks. Americans rely on these efforts every day—in a 2024 online survey, 74% of respondents said that “if the federal government issued safety guidance about food you eat regularly,” they would follow it. Changes to Federal Public Health Capacity The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal government have resulted in significant impacts on our nation’s public health capacity over the past 20 months, affecting the response to health concerns such as measles, Ebola and cyclosporiasis. Agencies with core public health, food safety and disease prevention responsibilities experienced large workforce decreases during the first year of the administration. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, the workforce in February 2026 was 26.7% smaller than in September 2024 before the start of the Trump administration. The Food and Drug Administration saw a similarly steep decline of 21.6%. Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service also experienced large workforce decreases. (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); Changes can also be seen in crucial public health occupations. The number of federal food inspectors, for example, decreased by more than half between September 2024 and February 2026, going from 1,035 to 473. This is the lowest number of food inspectors employed by the federal government since at least 2005. By February 2026, there were also 33.3% fewer federal public health program specialists, whose work includes advising federal funding recipients on public health activities and analyzing the effectiveness of public health programs. Government’s capacity is diminished as employees with specialized knowledge and experience in protecting the public and responding to health risks depart, leaving agencies less prepared to carry out their public health missions. There also have been vacancies in critical high-level leadership positions at public health agencies, most notably at the CDC, which had a permanent Senate-confirmed director for less than a month between January 2025 and early August 2026. Although the CDC has previously been led by acting directors at the start of an administration, the nearly yearlong gap since the departure of the administration’s first permanent director in August 2025 is without precedent. As of August 2026, the FDA is also currently without a Senate-confirmed commissioner following the previous commissioner’s resignation in May 2026. Additionally, public health agencies are experiencing increased politicization of their leadership ranks. In agencies such as the CDC and Food Safety and Inspection Service, the number of individuals in the Senior Executive Service—the most senior career leaders in government—has declined significantly, while at the same time the number of political appointees has reached record levels. (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); At the CDC, for example, the number of career SES decreased 42.9% between December 2024 and February 2026, while the number of non-Senate confirmed political appointees at the agency was six times larger than the agency’s historical average from 2009 and 2024. Knowledgeable career leaders are integral to the ability of public health agencies to carry out their work with scientific integrity and professional judgment, and rapid leadership turnover and increased politicization threaten agencies’ ability to make evidence-based decisions to protect our health. The upheaval and politicization in public health agencies have also negatively affected employee engagement. Strong employee engagement is crucial to the ability of agencies to carry out their mission and successfully provide essential services to the public. In the 2025 Public Service Viewpoint Survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, the Department of Health and Human Services—which encompasses major public health agencies such as the CDC and FDA—had an employee engagement and satisfaction score of 20.4 out of 100, one of the lowest among large agencies. Only 2.8% of HHS employees indicated trust in their political leaders and only 8.7% reported confidence that they could report a suspected violation of law or regulation without retaliation. Employees at HHS also reported that the agency’s ability to provide services to the public had suffered. Nearly half of employees at HHS, 47.5%, said their work unit was worse at delivering quality services compared to its performance in 2024. In addition, 57.8% said their work unit was performing worse at fulfilling stakeholder needs. In addition to the work done within federal agencies, the federal government also distributes significant funding for public health and disease prevention work to state and local governments, nonprofits and small businesses—funding which has been significantly disrupted. At the CDC, for example, there was a 71.9% decrease in the amount of project grant funding issued in fiscal year 2025 compared to fiscal year 2024. The FDA also issued far less funding in fiscal year 2025—a 21.3% decrease from its fiscal year 2024 funding. Changes in federal funding include the ending of grants to community organizations that worked on HIV prevention and the cancellation of funding for research into improvements to patient safety and healthcare quality. These changes go beyond federal agencies to impact the broader public health ecosystem, including the state and local health departments responsible for much of the on-the-ground public health work in their communities. About 80% of the CDC’s domestic funding is directed towards state and local partners—meaning that cuts to CDC funding can ultimately result in cuts to state and local public health capacity. Federal agencies also provide expertise and assistance to state and local health agencies as they deal with particular health challenges, but workforce cuts have resulted in fewer federal employees available to help. The Impact of Changes to Public Health Capacity These changes to federal public health capacity are not abstract concerns. Disrupted programs, reduced funding and lost expertise at public health agencies across all levels of government threaten the public’s physical well-being and safety. In some cases, this has already led to harm. The most immediate impacts of federal cuts were seen in interruptions to ongoing public health programs and crisis responses. In one instance, when CDC grants were canceled during the 2025 Texas measles outbreak—the most severe measles outbreak in 25 years—public health officials in Lubbock, Texas were forced to pause parts of their measles response work supported by the frozen funding. Lubbock’s director of public health further said that a lack of available CDC experts to reach out to for advice “definitely” impacted the department’s response to the measles crisis. Cuts to federal funding also forced Dallas County Health and Human Services to cut staff and cancel 50 community vaccination clinics during the outbreak. Public health work outside of major outbreak responses was also disrupted. For example, in April 2025, the Milwaukee Public Health Department was unexpectedly unable to reach experts on lead poisoning due to firings at the CDC when responding to concerns about lead contamination in Milwaukee public schools. Due to federal workforce cuts, several programs at the CDC, including Alzheimer’s and epilepsy programs, have also become trapped in limbo—existing on paper, but without the staff necessary to operate. More recent crises reveal how federal cuts have weakened the public health infrastructure needed to prevent and respond to dangerous new outbreaks. Internationally, cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development eliminated funding for disease testing and contact tracing abroad, which delayed detection of and responses to the 2026 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. While international outbreaks may seem far removed, the unchecked spread of disease in any country can quickly pose a danger to economic well-being, security and health around the world. Within the United States, public health cuts inhibited responses to the summer 2026 outbreak of the food-borne parasite cyclospora. At the federal level, cuts to funding for lab equipment and for CDC staff with expertise in parasitic infections—including 9 out of 11 staff members at the lab responsible for identifying parasitic outbreaks in 2025— contributed to the largest reporting delay in outbreak cases at the CDC in 15 years. Conflicting communications from the FDA about the source of the outbreak, which followed cuts to the agency’s communications department, additionally led to confusion among the public about how to best avoid infection. At the same time, cuts to HHS funding and support for local and state public health slowed some health departments’ responses to the crisis. The exact costs of these delays, constraints and confusion in public health responses are difficult to estimate. However, their message is clear: federal cuts have already made containing threats to public health even more of a challenge. Conclusion Protecting public health—from food safety to disease prevention—is one of the federal government’s most important missions. Dramatic and haphazard cuts to federal agencies and funding have already disrupted the public health system, impacting the response to challenges such as measles, lead poisoning and cyclosporiasis. The U.S. public health system needed improvement before these disruptions. Since 2022, federal leadership and coordination in response to public health outbreaks has been on the Government Accountability Office’s High-Risk List of areas in need of attention to improve government effectiveness and efficiency. Recent cuts only compound these concerns. The chaotic dismantling of government and resulting disruptions to crucial functions like public health and disease prevention highlight the need for meaningful reform and concrete policy proposals to reimagine how government can better serve the public and be more effective, responsive and accountable. To learn more about the impact of federal cuts to public health and science more broadly, visit The Cost of Cutting American Science. Learn more For more information on the Partnership for Public Service’s government reform initiative, visit Government for a New Era. View here In line with The Cost of Cutting American Science, federal workforce data in this brief is as of February 2026
The Cost of Cutting American Science: How Federal Cuts Diminish Public Health Capacity
Among the federal government’s many responsibilities is the work it does to protect public health. Federal agencies monitor our food supply to ensure safety, conduct research to better understand emerging health threats, provide funding for public health programs in communities and work to detect and respond to disease outbreaks. Americans rely on these efforts every day—in a 2024 online survey, 74% of respondents said that “if the federal government issued safety guidance about food you eat regularly,” they would follow it. Changes to Federal Public Health Capacity The Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal government have resulted in significant impacts on our nation’s public health capacity over the past 20 months, affecting the response to health concerns such as measles, Ebola and cyclosporiasis. Agencies with core public health, food safety and disease prevention responsibilities experienced large workforce decreases during the first year of the administration. At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, the workforce in February 2026 was 26.7% smaller than in September 2024 before the start of the Trump administration. The Food and Drug Administration saw a similarly steep decline of 21.6%. Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service also experienced large workforce decreases. (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); Changes can also be seen in crucial public health occupations. The number of federal food inspectors, for example, decreased by more than half between September 2024 and February 2026, going from 1,035 to 473. This is the lowest number of food inspectors employed by the federal government since at least 2005. By February 2026, there were also 33.3% fewer federal public health program specialists, whose work includes advising federal funding recipients on public health activities and analyzing the effectiveness of public health programs. Government’s capacity is diminished as employees with specialized knowledge and experience in protecting the public and responding to health risks depart, leaving agencies less prepared to carry out their public health missions. There also have been vacancies in critical high-level leadership positions at public health agencies, most notably at the CDC, which had a permanent Senate-confirmed director for less than a month between January 2025 and early August 2026. Although the CDC has previously been led by acting directors at the start of an administration, the nearly yearlong gap since the departure of the administration’s first permanent director in August 2025 is without precedent. As of August 2026, the FDA is also currently without a Senate-confirmed commissioner following the previous commissioner’s resignation in May 2026. Additionally, public health agencies are experiencing increased politicization of their leadership ranks. In agencies such as the CDC and Food Safety and Inspection Service, the number of individuals in the Senior Executive Service—the most senior career leaders in government—has declined significantly, while at the same time the number of political appointees has reached record levels. (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); At the CDC, for example, the number of career SES decreased 42.9% between December 2024 and February 2026, while the number of non-Senate confirmed political appointees at the agency was six times larger than the agency’s historical average from 2009 and 2024. Knowledgeable career leaders are integral to the ability of public health agencies to carry out their work with scientific integrity and professional judgment, and rapid leadership turnover and increased politicization threaten agencies’ ability to make evidence-based decisions to protect our health. The upheaval and politicization in public health agencies have also negatively affected employee engagement. Strong employee engagement is crucial to the ability of agencies to carry out their mission and successfully provide essential services to the public. In the 2025 Public Service Viewpoint Survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service, the Department of Health and Human Services—which encompasses major public health agencies such as the CDC and FDA—had an employee engagement and satisfaction score of 20.4 out of 100, one of the lowest among large agencies. Only 2.8% of HHS employees indicated trust in their political leaders and only 8.7% reported confidence that they could report a suspected violation of law or regulation without retaliation. Employees at HHS also reported that the agency’s ability to provide services to the public had suffered. Nearly half of employees at HHS, 47.5%, said their work unit was worse at delivering quality services compared to its performance in 2024. In addition, 57.8% said their work unit was performing worse at fulfilling stakeholder needs. In addition to the work done within federal agencies, the federal government also distributes significant funding for public health and disease prevention work to state and local governments, nonprofits and small businesses—funding which has been significantly disrupted. At the CDC, for example, there was a 71.9% decrease in the amount of project grant funding issued in fiscal year 2025 compared to fiscal year 2024. The FDA also issued far less funding in fiscal year 2025—a 21.3% decrease from its fiscal year 2024 funding. Changes in federal funding include the ending of grants to community organizations that worked on HIV prevention and the cancellation of funding for research into improvements to patient safety and healthcare quality. These changes go beyond federal agencies to impact the broader public health ecosystem, including the state and local health departments responsible for much of the on-the-ground public health work in their communities. About 80% of the CDC’s domestic funding is directed towards state and local partners—meaning that cuts to CDC funding can ultimately result in cuts to state and local public health capacity. Federal agencies also provide expertise and assistance to state and local health agencies as they deal with particular health challenges, but workforce cuts have resulted in fewer federal employees available to help. The Impact of Changes to Public Health Capacity These changes to federal public health capacity are not abstract concerns. Disrupted programs, reduced funding and lost expertise at public health agencies across all levels of government threaten the public’s physical well-being and safety. In some cases, this has already led to harm. The most immediate impacts of federal cuts were seen in interruptions to ongoing public health programs and crisis responses. In one instance, when CDC grants were canceled during the 2025 Texas measles outbreak—the most severe measles outbreak in 25 years—public health officials in Lubbock, Texas were forced to pause parts of their measles response work supported by the frozen funding. Lubbock’s director of public health further said that a lack of available CDC experts to reach out to for advice “definitely” impacted the department’s response to the measles crisis. Cuts to federal funding also forced Dallas County Health and Human Services to cut staff and cancel 50 community vaccination clinics during the outbreak. Public health work outside of major outbreak responses was also disrupted. For example, in April 2025, the Milwaukee Public Health Department was unexpectedly unable to reach experts on lead poisoning due to firings at the CDC when responding to concerns about lead contamination in Milwaukee public schools. Due to federal workforce cuts, several programs at the CDC, including Alzheimer’s and epilepsy programs, have also become trapped in limbo—existing on paper, but without the staff necessary to operate. More recent crises reveal how federal cuts have weakened the public health infrastructure needed to prevent and respond to dangerous new outbreaks. Internationally, cuts at the U.S. Agency for International Development eliminated funding for disease testing and contact tracing abroad, which delayed detection of and responses to the 2026 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. While international outbreaks may seem far removed, the unchecked spread of disease in any country can quickly pose a danger to economic well-being, security and health around the world. Within the United States, public health cuts inhibited responses to the summer 2026 outbreak of the food-borne parasite cyclospora. At the federal level, cuts to funding for lab equipment and for CDC staff with expertise in parasitic infections—including 9 out of 11 staff members at the lab responsible for identifying parasitic outbreaks in 2025— contributed to the largest reporting delay in outbreak cases at the CDC in 15 years. Conflicting communications from the FDA about the source of the outbreak, which followed cuts to the agency’s communications department, additionally led to confusion among the public about how to best avoid infection. At the same time, cuts to HHS funding and support for local and state public health slowed some health departments’ responses to the crisis. The exact costs of these delays, constraints and confusion in public health responses are difficult to estimate. However, their message is clear: federal cuts have already made containing threats to public health even more of a challenge. Conclusion Protecting public health—from food safety to disease prevention—is one of the federal government’s most important missions. Dramatic and haphazard cuts to federal agencies and funding have already disrupted the public health system, impacting the response to challenges such as measles, lead poisoning and cyclosporiasis. The U.S. public health system needed improvement before these disruptions. Since 2022, federal leadership and coordination in response to public health outbreaks has been on the Government Accountability Office’s High-Risk List of areas in need of attention to improve government effectiveness and efficiency. Recent cuts only compound these concerns. The chaotic dismantling of government and resulting disruptions to crucial functions like public health and disease prevention highlight the need for meaningful reform and concrete policy proposals to reimagine how government can better serve the public and be more effective, responsive and accountable. To learn more about the impact of federal cuts to public health and science more broadly, visit The Cost of Cutting American Science. Learn more For more information on the Partnership for Public Service’s government reform initiative, visit Government for a New Era. View here In line with The Cost of Cutting American Science, federal workforce data in this brief is as of February 2026
Opinion: The Colorado Option is failing to meet the needs of small businesses for healthcare coverage
State must hold insurance carriers accountable to targeted premium reductions or fewer businesses will be able to afford healthcare for employees.
Opinion: The Colorado Option is failing to meet the needs of small businesses for healthcare coverage
State must hold insurance carriers accountable to targeted premium reductions or fewer businesses will be able to afford healthcare for employees.
Amid liability fight, California wildfire survivors urge state leaders to hold power companies accountable
As California leaders revisit the question of who should pay and how much when investor-owned utility companies cause catastrophic wildfires, wildfire victims are urging state officials to ensure the companies don't start fires in the first place.
Country icon’s kids are going after his estate: ‘Holding him accountable’
The singer died in April.
Bishop Arts business owners call for accountability after overnight break-ins
A quick break-in was caught on camera, then another theft followed hours later. Owners say they want whoever did it held accountable.
How Medicaid ACOs Can Lead the US Towards Maternal Health Equity
A new study details how Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations can improve maternal healthcare quality and equity in the US by aligning performance mandates with innovative care coordination and social needs support among patients before, during, and after pregnancy.
New LEAD model builds on REACH, offers role for home health agencies
As healthcare providers, including home health agencies, gear up for the start of the Long-term Enhanced ACO Design (LEAD) model on Jan. 1, they take comfort that the new model will continue the work of the soon-to-be-completed model, Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health (ACO REACH), in serving high-needs patients with complex needs.
Democrats promise a big agenda if they win control of Congress, but their unity is being tested
Beginning on Day One, House Democrats plan to "hold the crooks accountable." That's the promise House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has made, previewing an ambitious agenda if Democrats seize majority control from Republicans in the midterm elections.
How Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations Advance Maternal Health Care Quality: Drivers of Change and Challenges From the Perspective of ACO Leaders, Clinicians, and Care Coordinators
In the wake of a US maternal health crisis, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may be a key opportunity to improve maternal health care.
Colorado Sues EarnIn For “Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive and Unscrupulous” Business Practices
Hey all, Jason here. When this hits your inbox, I should be en route to the airport — not to go anywhere myself, just to pick up my better half. I must admit, it’s been strange to be home alone (well, with two dogs) for two weeks! Really lets me “optimize” to spending more time on reading/writing/working, whether that’s healthy or not! Looking forward to getting back into a (somewhat) more balance routine. Subscribe or Support by Upgrading Compare Notes With the People Who Built Modern Fintech Partner content: Remitly CEO Sebastian Gunningham. Increase founder Darragh Buckley. Linda Du, Co-founder & President at Valon. They’ll unpack the decisions behind building and scaling major financial products: what they got right, what broke, what they would do differently, and how AI and new infrastructure are changing the operator playbook. Most events tell you where fintech is going. NerdCon puts the people who built the present in the room and asks them what comes next. Expect an operator-led conversation grounded in real products, real trade-offs and lessons earned the hard way. Fintech Business Weekly readers save 20% on Regular tickets with code FBW20 before standard pricing ends September 11. Meet the Builders Things To Know & Other Good Reads Advent and Stripe Abandon $50 Billion Pursuit of PayPal (Bloomberg) Trump Family’s New Crypto Bank Is Backed by Abu Dhabi Sheikh (Wall Street Journal) The multiplying risks of financing data centres (FT) Let the Bond Market Speak (Wall Street Journal) Did we waste a crisis? Modest proposals to reform deposit insurance. (Fintech Takes Banking) Untangling Guggenheim: How Private Credit Built Its Own Universe (Net Interest) The Hater’s Guide To Circular Financing — Part One (Ed Zitron) Fiat Ventures Rebrands to FGV Capital, Announces $35M Oversubscribed Fund II (BusinessWire) Socure Announces Strategic Growth Investment at $5.2B Valuation and Acquires Agentic Operations Platform Fravity (Socure) Listen: When Consumer Protection Disclosures Work Too Well (Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast) Colorado Sues EarnIn For “Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive and Unscrupulous” Business Practices When Andreessen Horowitz led EarnIn’s $39 million Series B in 2017, Alex Rampell, a partner at the storied venture capital firm, described EarnIn’s small-dollar advance product as “free,” relying on “entirely on voluntary contributions instead of fees.” Rampell favorably compared EarnIn’s approach to typical payday loans, writing, “Payday loans historically have had the potential to be a slippery slope for consumers into financial distress: opaque systems and steep fees that are hard to repay and set individuals back further than where they started. For many Americans living paycheck to paycheck, that kind of slide into debt can be extremely difficult to recover from.” But EarnIn’s product — which, the company says, isn’t a “loan,” legally speaking — ends up being anything but free for most users. While it is technically possible to take a no-fee advance from the company, most users incur “Lightning Speed” (instant funding) fees and/or ostensibly optional tips that combined can equate to annualized percent rates that can reach over 1,000%. With an average term of 9.77 days, even fees and tips that are small on an absolute dollar basis are equivalent to high APRs on an annualized basis. A lawsuit filed last week by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser against EarnIn describes the company and its product and business practices quite differently than Andreessen’s Rampell; “EarnIn’s business practices are unfair because they are immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous,” the complaint, filed in District Court in Denver, Colorado, says. EarnIn’s marquee product, Cash Out, isn’t a loan, the company says, as Cash Out is not “[f]orward [l]ooking” because “[t]he money is transferred based on earnings to date,” does not carry a mandatory fee to access funds, and is “non-recourse,” meaning EarnIn cannot pursue recovery from users who don’t repay advanced funds. EarnIn is sometimes referred to as an “Earned Wage Advance” service. Though, unlike some others in the broader category, EarnIn does not integrate with employers’ payroll or time and attendance systems. Rather, EarnIn attempts to verify a user’s income and employment, by examining direct deposit transaction data in their linked external bank account, by using GPS location and Bluetooth data to estimate a user’s time spent at work, if they work in a fixed location, and/or by having a user provided a work email address. While repayment is theoretically optional, as EarnIn would have no recourse, such as reporting non-payment to the credit bureaus or a collections agency, this is anything but clear to users of the EarnIn app, Colorado’s complaint argues. During the process of taking a Cash Out, users must agree to a preauthorized debit of the amount advanced, plus any expedited funding fee and/or tips. Though users technically can revoke this ACH authorization, the fact that they have this right isn’t presented to users during the Cash Out process, but rather is included in linked terms and conditions few users are likely to actually read. And users who do wish to revoke their ACH authorization must do so three or more days before the scheduled transaction date by emailing EarnIn’s customer support. Similarly, EarnIn’s marketing claims that it carries “no interest” and “no mandatory fees” is technically true, but is not the reality for many of the app’s users, the Colorado complaint argues. Further, EarnIn has extensively marketed to users the ability to “access your pay today,” to get “instant” funds, and to get funds “the same day you work” — when, in reality, this speed of access was only possible by paying the additional, undisclosed Lightning Speed fee. The Colorado complaint highlights this contradiction specifically, noting: EarnIn tells consumers that they can ‘Make any day payday with EarnIn’ and that there no ‘hidden’ or ‘mandatory fees.’ For a consumer to access their pay on the same day requested, they would have to pay the Lightning Speed fee. In the fine print of the advertisement EarnIn discloses that ‘[f]ees apply to use Lightning Speed,’ a direct contradiction to the larger text of the advertisement, and a fact that would not be immediately understood by a consumer as ‘Lightning Speed’ is not defined nor explained. Like other small-dollar lending services, rather than explicitly charge interest, EarnIn collects a markup on the optional Lighting Speed fee, which, given the nature of the transactions, many users opt for, as well as offering users the option to leave “tips.” EarnIn leverages either Real-Time Payments (RTP) rails or push-to-card via debit rails if a user opts for the optional Lightning Speed. But while these capabilities cost EarnIn, on average, $0.075 or $0.20 per transaction, respectively, EarnIn charges users significantly more. Initially, EarnIn charged as little as $1.99 for Cash Outs up to $24. But EarnIn has hiked these fees multiple times, and now charges $4.99 for Cash Outs up to $75 and $6.99 for those over $75. According to the Colorado complaint, EarnIn leverages “dark patterns” to manipulate users and to make it more difficult to avoid tipping. Examples of these “road blocks” highlighted in the complaint include: As of 2023, in the EarnIn app, a consumer attempting to get a loan under the default settings had to make at least eighteen separate taps to complete the transaction and reduce the tip to $0. There is an alternative method to leave a $0 tip, via the “Custom tip” feature, but EarnIn made this option difficult to access by visually deemphasizing it and positioning it near devices’ “home” button. Using language and imagery such as “Tip to pay it forward,” “Your generosity supports the service + helps,” “Your tips make a difference,” and “[t]he APR for this cash out is 0%. Your tips help support us.” While Lightning Speed and tipping are, in theory, both optional, in practice, users nearly always ended up paying something. According to the Colorado suit, users were charged either a tip or an expedite fee for more than 92% of transactions, with an average APR of nearly 388%. And, although the advances are “non-recourse,” EarnIn successfully collects on nearly all transactions — 99.18%, according to the complaint, which, Colorado argues, “demonstrat[es] that EarnIn’s advances function as high cost loans, not voluntary payments.” The share of EarnIn users incurring fees — despite the product being marketed as 0% APR — is hard to reconcile with Andreessen investor Rampell’s favorable description of EarnIn vs. “opaque systems and steep fees” associated with payday loans, which, Rampell says, can be “extremely difficult” for borrowers to extricate themselves from. According to Colorado’s suit, EarnIn’s Cash Out product “trapped many consumers in extreme cycles of high-cost reborrowing.” The suit gives an example of one consumer in the state, who took out a whopping 1,151 loans, paying a total of $4,038.50 in Lightning Speed expedited funding fees on loans that averaged the equivalent of 1,421% APR. Another Colorado user, the suit says, took out 1,033 loans, paying $8,561.22 in tips and fees at an average APR of 1,539% . These types of usage patterns demonstrate “the severe and repeated financial harm caused by EarnIn’s illegal lending model,” the Colorado complaint argues. In aggregate, from January 2023 through July 2025, EarnIn extended 3.1 million loans to 56,778 users in Colorado — an average of nearly 55 transactions per person during the time period. EarnIn lent more than $300 million and collected more than $16 million from Colorado users in Lightning Speed fees and in tips. Ultimately, the Colorado complaint argues that “EarnIn’s Cash Outs are loans under Colorado law, and EarnIn’s contention that its product is not a loan based on its disclaimer of any legal repayment obligation lacks any real-world significance given how the Cash Out transactions actually operate in practice.” Colorado further argues that “EarnIn was not working with companies here in providing consumers with funds but acted as a third-party lender and charged illegally high rates, used deceptive design strategies to extract some charges, and trapped consumers in repeat borrowing. Colorado will continue to stand up for consumers and hold companies accountable when they violate our credit laws or attempt to evade them through misleading practices.” Colorado’s suit alleges EarnIn assesses finance charge in excess of that permitted by Colorado law, that EarnIn failed to make legally required disclosures to Colorado borrowers, that EarnIn made supervised loans to consumers without obtaining the requisite license, that EarnIn violated the state’s Deferred Deposit Loan Act, that EarnIn engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices, and that EarnIn made false or misleading statements concerning price. The suit seeks a court order enjoining EarnIn from violating relevant Colorado laws, for EarnIn to refund amounts charged in excess of state law, fees, costs, and penalties, and other relief the court deems to be just. Fintech Business Weekly is made possible by the generous support of paying subscribers — bringing you independent analysis of banking, fintech, and crypto without fear or favor. You can support my work by becoming a paying subscriber if you aren’t already. Paying subscribers enjoy: access to the entire archive of nearly six years of newsletters extended versions of the weekly newsletter, with additional content and analysis and (for founding member tier) quarterly personal 1:1 fintech Q&A / strategy calls with me, tapping into my unparalleled knowledge of the intersection of banking and fintech and experience working in the sector, including helping to launch Goldman Sachs’ retail bank Marcus Support Fintech Business Weekly You can also support Fintech Business Weekly by sponsoring a newsletter or podcast, putting you in front of 93,000+ of the most influential decision makers in banking, fintech, and crypto. Learn more about sponsor opportunities or request a media kit by dropping me an email. Q2 Quarterly Banking Profile: Five Quick Takeaways The FDIC released its quarterly banking profile, which is always worth a read, for the second quarter. The profile provides an aggregate snapshot about the overall health of the 4,238 institutions whose deposits are insured by the FDIC, who, collectively, hold more than $26 trillion in assets and saw a total net income of more than $90 billion in the second quarter. Net income was up 12% vs. Q1 2026, with lower provisions and realized gains on securities helping to drive the improvement, somewhat offset by increases in non-interest expense and applicable income taxes. Overall net interest margin was basically flat quarter over quarter (up 1 basis point vs. Q1 2026), though community banks saw NIM grow by 10 basis points, to 3.81%. Unsurprisingly, given that interest rates haven’t changed, unrealized losses on securities changed little, edging up slightly to $326.7 billion vs. $325.1 billion in Q1 2026. Aggregate credit quality has remained benign, with asset quality actually improving slightly in Q2. Overall, institutions reported a 9 basis point decline in their past-due and non-accrual rate, to 1.44%. Net charge off rate also declined by 2 basis points, to 0.57%. And finally, the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund stands at $161.1 billion, making the DIF reserve ratio 1.48% — above the statutory minimum of 1.35%, but still below the designated target reserve ratio of 2%. [Paid Subscriber Exclusive] Nissan Withdraws ILC App, State Associations Plan BankChain Alliance, FDIC Defines “Unsafe or Unsound Practice” For First Time Automaker Nissan withdrew its application to charter a Utah industrial loan company and its corresponding application to the FDIC for deposit insurance last week, on August 19th. Nissan’s application had been outstanding for more than a year, as it originally applied in June 2025. Recent applications to the OCC to form national banks have been decisioned, one way or the other, substantially more quickly than has historically been the case.
Republicans won Arkansas by nationalizing campaigns. Could that strategy backfire?
Republicans became the majority in Arkansas by telling voters the president’s party should be accountable for what happens in Washington. But that lesson might be theirs to learn this time.
3 Ways Scientists Can Help Hold Major Polluters Accountable Under the Trump Administration
The impacts of climate change have been on full display this Danger Season, from record-breaking heatwaves to devastating wildfires, making evident the urgent need for accountability for the harms caused by supercharged extreme events and long-term changes. These harms have been inescapable across the western US, particularly when it comes to water. As fossil-fueled climate […]
Asia-Pacific parliamentarians urge bolder action for universal health coverage, climate resilience and responsible AI
Parliamentarians representing 16 countries from across the Asia-Pacific region concluded the Ninth Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentarian Forum on Global Health (APPFGH) today, reaffirming their key role in advancing universal health coverage (UHC) amid the risks and opportunities posed by AI and climate change. In adopting the Phnom Penh Communiqué, parliamentarians urged fellow legislators regionwide to strengthen sustainable financing for UHC to widen access to health for all, including the most vulnerable populations; promote responsible governance of AI amid ethical concerns over this fast-evolving technology; and build climate-resilient health systems to anticipate and respond to mounting pressures ranging from rising sea levels in coastal areas to air pollution and other environmental degradation.The National Assembly of Cambodia, with support from Cambodia’s Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization (WHO), hosted the Forum in Phnom Penh from 11 to 13 August 2026 – the first time the Forum has convened in a Mekong country.Parliamentarians urge action to close gaps in accessIn the Communiqué, parliamentarians recognized that at-risk and marginalized groups are the ones most severely affected by gaps in access to health services. These groups include people living in poverty, women and children, persons with disabilities, older people, migrants, refugees, and those in rural, remote or island communities. The Communiqué urges fellow parliamentarians and policy-makers to advocate for laws and policies that support sustainable financing to protect people from financial hardship, with a focus on primary health care, prevention and equity. "The Communiqué is a call to action. It sets out ambitious, concrete measures that deliver meaningful impact on the ground. We are all accountable for advancing universal health coverage and translating our commitments into tangible results. Cambodia is fully committed to advancing UHC, including the promotion of ‘healthy people, prosperous country’ campaign,” said Samdech Maha Rathsapheathika Thipadei Khuon Sudary, President of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia.His Excellency Professor Chheang Ra, Minister of Health of the Kingdom of Cambodia, highlighted the need for collaboration beyond the health sector. “Universal health coverage cannot be achieved by the Ministry of Health alone. It requires support, particularly from parliamentarians, across political, legislative, financial, social protection, education, infrastructure, and environmental domains. While each country follows its own path, one factor is universally critical for success: strong governance and leadership. We all believe in this principle, and in our respective political roles, we remain committed to strengthening these key success factors to ensure that no one is left behind.”Promoting responsible AI adoption Parliamentarians acknowledged that, while AI has already demonstrated its ability to improve access to health services and support delivery, careful and ethical governance is necessary to safeguard quality, safety, privacy and public trust. This underscores the importance of parliamentarians in promoting legal and regulatory frameworks addressing liability, records ownership and data governance, while embracing innovation that protects ethical practice.“Without strong governance, safeguards for privacy and data security, sustainable financing, and attention to those most at risk of exclusion, new technologies may widen existing gaps instead of closing them. This is why parliamentarians matter. We pass laws. We approve budgets. We scrutinize government action. We represent communities. We can ask whether health services are reaching rural, remote, ageing, poor, and marginalized populations. We can ask whether innovation is being guided by equity, evidence, and ethics,” said Hon. Man Hee Lee, President of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentarian Forum on Global Health.Building climate-resilient health systemsParliamentarians also reiterated that the climate crisis is a direct threat to people’s health and to achieving UHC more broadly, deepening the same gaps in access already faced by at-risk and marginalized communities. They recognized the need for WHO Member States to ensure sufficient national appropriations and oversight, and for parliamentarians to raise awareness in their constituencies and mobilize local action in building climate-resilient and sustainable health systems.“Universal health coverage, climate change and AI cannot be addressed in isolation. The same communities struggling to access health services today are often the ones most exposed to climate shocks, and most in need of the opportunities AI can offer if this technology is governed responsibly,” said Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. “Having served previously in this Forum myself as a parliamentarian from Tonga, I recognize how the Phnom Penh Communiqué reflects the shared resolve of legislators across the Asia-Pacific region: the laws parliamentarians pass and the budgets they approve help ensure this progress reaches the people who need it most.”As the Forum drew to a close, delegates reflected on what they would carry back to their own parliaments and constituencies.“I wish to share three points here worth carrying home from Phnom Penh: we need to invest in primary health care as the foundation of coverage; we need to remove the barriers that keep people from care, whether financial, geographic or social; and we need to build systems that are inclusive by design, protecting those most at risk of being left behind,” added Hon. Ouch Borith, First Vice-President of the Senate of the Kingdom of Cambodia.###Notes for editors:The Asia-Pacific Parliamentarian Forum on Global Health (APPFGH) is a platform for parliamentarians to exchange ideas, build political will, strengthen capacity and foster collaboration towards sustainable health action. This was the ninth meeting of the APPFGH, with the theme “Universal Health Coverage in the era of Climate Change and Artificial Intelligence”. Target 3.8 of the Sustainable Development Goals calls on countries to achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health services, and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. In the Western Pacific, UHC service coverage index (SDG 3.8.1) rose from 63 in 2000 to 81 in 2023 (figures include Indonesia), and roughly one in four people in the Western Pacific have experienced financial hardship (SDG 3.8.2). Progress towards UHC in the Asia-Pacific region remains uneven, with hundreds of millions of people still lacking access to essential health services or facing financial hardship due to health-related expenses. Strengthening the role of parliaments – through legislation, financing and oversight – is central to closing this gap and accelerating progress towards UHC across the region.Parliamentarians participating in APPFGH in Cambodia this week include: Hon. Pehin Dato Adanan YUSOF, Brunei Darussalam; Hon. Rosmawatty ABDUL MUMIN, Brunei Darussalam; Hon. LORK Kheng, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. YOS Phanita, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. KHOUN Khundy, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. HENG Halim, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. KHOENG Noupheap, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. SENG Nhak, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. LY Sukry, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. NHOEURN Raden, Kingdom of Cambodia; Hon. Dr Ratu Atonio LALABALAVU, Republic of Fiji; Hon. Vijay NATH, Republic of Fiji; Hon. Man Hee LEE, Republic of Korea; Hon. Dr Jiho CHA, Republic of Korea; Hon. Jonghun BAEK, Republic of Korea; Hon. Youngsuk SEO, Republic of Korea; Hon. Dr Phayvanh KEOPASEUTH, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Hon. Suhaizan Bin KAIAT, Malaysia; Hon. Dr Perpetua KONMAN, Federated States of Micronesia; Hon. Ganmaa DAVAASAMBUU, Mongolia; Hon. Charmaine SCOTTY, Republic of Naoero; Hon. Vincent Ambance KUMURA, Papua New Guinea; Hon. Dr Edwin CRUZADO, Republic of the Philippines; Hon. AUUAPAAU Mulipola Aloitafua Mulipola, Samoa; Hon. ASIATA TAVUI Tafu Salevao, Samoa; Hon. Dr Alani Petelo TANGITAU, Tonga; Hon. Paul PAOLO, Republic of Vanuatu; Hon. Franklyn Ezra WILLIAM, Republic of Vanuatu.For more information, contact: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific: wprocom@who.int National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia (International Relations Department): ir.nacambodia@gmail.com
Why Family Businesses Lose Control
Family businesses often fail to prepare the next generation for their most important role—not as executives, but as owners. As a result, families can gradually lose the ability to direct the enterprise, not because of a single crisis but because ownership capability erodes across generations through predictable governance and succession mistakes. To preserve long-term control, family businesses must deliberately develop owners who can exercise sound judgment, govern effectively, and hold management accountable.
Socialists Need to Develop a Constitutional Politics
To win change for working people, the Democratic Socialists of America should expand its vision of how to change our constitutional order. We can smash unaccountable executive and judiciary power even without having to amend the Constitution.
Beyond IT: A Business Executive’s Playbook for Cyber Risk, Privacy Liability & AI Governance
Join NH Business Review for a candid, business-focused working session designed for executives accountable for protecting their organizations, customers, data, and reputations.
If Not AOC, Then Who?
What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. Doing so in 2024 was a disaster: our abstention self-marginalized anti-billionaire politics from the national conversation and thereby gave space for Harris to pivot to the “center” (i.e. the policy preferences of corporate donors, establishment hacks, and AIPAC). Abstaining again in 2028 would be especially counterproductive since democratic socialists now have so much wind in our sails after our big electoral wins in NYC and across the country. It’s time to deepen our momentum, organization, and profile — not to retreat to the margins during America’s single most important political battle. Even more urgently, keeping Trump’s heir out of the White House may depend on whether leftists and the party’s unprecedentedly disenchanted base can force the Democrats in 2028 to take meaningful steps towards a very angry electorate and away from the corporate-consultant blob that has helped get us into this mess. If AOC (or Abdul El-Sayed) decides to run, we should enthusiastically go all in — DSA, fighting unions, progressive organizations, anybody who wants to see a better country and world. But, as far as I can tell from the outside, there’s a real chance that she doesn’t run. And we can’t just wait and see where she lands before discussing alternatives, since AOC’s decision might not come for quite a while, giving us little time to scramble at the last minute for an alternative. So we should start working now on getting a Plan B into motion, and recruiting a good candidate for the role. Here’s one idea. A Worker Candidate — Healthcare Not Warfare 2028 Run a union worker Leftists don’t need to always run experienced, well-known socialist politicians for high-profile contests. Lula, the current president of Brazil, began his political career as a metalworker militant who ran for governor of São Paulo in 1982. Especially in an era of institutional distrust, it’s possible to lean hard into making a virtue out of a working-class comrade’s distance from traditional politics. Experience abroad shows this clearly. Rachel Kéké — an immigrant hotel housekeeper — ran as the candidate of the leftist La France Insoumise for the National Assembly in 2022, defeating a former minister in the Macron government. The Belgian Workers’ Party in 2024 won its first Flemish seat in the European Parliament by running Rudi Kennes, a three-decade veteran of the Opel Antwerp auto factory. And the South Korean left in 2024 elected auto factory militant Yoon Jong-oh to the National Assembly. If a tiny French Trotskyist organization could make such a big splash in 2002 and 2007 by running a well-spoken postal worker cadre for office — the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot received about 1.5 million first-round votes — it’s not far-fetched to expect that a much larger organization like DSA, together with a broader coalition of the willing, could run this playbook to much greater effect. This is especially the case now that almost everything DSA does immediately becomes a national news story. We don’t need someone famous. We just need a charismatic, well-vetted comrade who works in a relatable working-class occupation — e.g. a nurse, or a worker in auto or construction, or at Amazon. Ideally, they have a compelling personal story or have been part of a significant strike or organizing campaign, but even those criteria don’t necessarily have to be deal-breakers. The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union. In any case, there are plenty of ways to signal working-class authenticity without resorting to Platner’s or Fetterman’s performative macho white dude affect. Better to have someone of any gender or race who is actually working class, with firm socialist politics, who can speak from experience about the day-to-day realities of trying to make it in America. There are surely at least a dozen such worker leaders in our movement nationwide; we just need to sit down and convince one that their personal sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. running for president) will be worth it. If we don’t have a frontrunner with a clear path to victory like AOC (or El-Sayed, were he to win Michigan), it’s better to embrace someone whose decision to run in itself tells an important story about US politics: workers have been iced out of our political system and are now fighting hard to break back in. The novelty factor, in itself, would generate press. And it would help democratic socialists signal to the American public that our movement’s defining characteristic is that we represent workers vs. bosses, not that we’re “the furthest left” force in American politics — a framework that suggests we’re extremists and that helps our opponents isolate us from non-college-educated voters by highlighting extremely minoritarian (and misguided) stances included in DSA’s platform like prison abolition. We don’t get many opportunities to speak to tens of millions of Americans; we need to use these opportunities to broaden our appeal beyond those already in our orbit. Run to polarize the 2028 primary and general election around “Medicare for All” and “End All Aid to Israel” Why should democratic socialists use our scarce time and volunteer energy to run in a race we’re unlikely to win? Running in the 2028 primary will not only recruit us scores of members (imagine having a DSA member intervening in eleven nationally televised primary debates!), but — more importantly — it has the potential to be a decisive leap forward towards an America that finally starts meeting the needs of working people instead of HMO and AIPAC billionaire donors. Polarizing litmus tests are good, actually — as long as they’re fought for around popular demands in a thoughtful and strategic way. Democratic socialists have an opportunity and responsibility to make the 2028 primary about two of the most widely and deeply felt issues of our moment: domestically, America’s unaffordable, family-breaking private healthcare system; internationally, America’s bankrolling of the genocidal Israeli government. A candidacy relentlessly demanding Medicare for All and No Aid to Israel would pose a sharp question to the American public, the Democratic Party, and other 2028 contenders: Why can’t working-class Americans afford their healthcare bills at the same time that our government is spending at least $3.8 billion yearly to fund an Israeli regime eager to keep dragging us and the world into more forever wars? Our candidate can agitate around a clear message: I’m running to give voice to all those working-class Americans who are struggling to get by. No matter what state you live in, who you voted for in 2024, or your background, it’s just plain common sense that we should make healthcare more affordable instead of spending billions to enable the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity. Every American who agrees with me when I say ‘Medicare for All — Not a Dime for Israel’ should make their voice heard through our campaign. Racking up a high number of votes for this agenda is a crucial way to show the Democratic Party and the country as a whole that we can’t keep supporting a life-destroying status quo in our healthcare system and in the Middle East. If we want to defeat Trump’s handpicked crony this coming November, we need to speak to ordinary people’s frustrations with the status quo — we can’t keep running the same tired establishment playbook and expecting a different result. For those highly engaged voters (or skeptical media pundits) who raise concerns about wasting votes, the candidate can take the time to explain why this isn’t the case: It's true I'm a long shot. But Zohran showed anything can happen — and voting for me is a pragmatic decision, not a wasted vote. In a heavily divided primary with a large number of candidates and a very discredited establishment, my campaign and the democratic socialist movement I’m part of are positioned to be the balance of power if we can get a large enough number of voters to loudly demand Healthcare Not Warfare. Since there’s a high chance no candidate will get to 50% in the 2028 primaries, the Democrats could very well be heading towards a brokered convention, where a disciplined, principled current committed to breaking from corporate donors can play an outsized role in making sure whoever ends up with the nomination raises the banner of single-payer healthcare and cutting aid to Israel. How exactly could running this sort of primary campaign be translated into actual leverage? The candidate replies: I’m aiming to win the nomination, but if I don’t achieve that goal, my delegates and I will pledge our support in the primary only for a candidate who agrees in the general election to call for ending US aid to Israel and establishing Medicare for All at home. These are both winning planks for November against the Republicans, and the only reason I can see that other candidates haven’t yet raised these is that they’re still more scared of the donor class than they are of the people. That needs to change. If Democratic leaders want young people, workers, and those sick of the status quo to show up in big numbers this November, they need to meet us halfway. In this way, whether or not we win the nomination, democratic socialists could still play a decisive role in 2028. The approach outlined here is similar to what radical left parties periodically do in parliamentary democracies like Denmark or Sweden when they find themselves as a junior partner electorally: they dictate to center-left allies what their terms would be for enabling, from the outside, the formation of a new government. Running a Healthcare Not Warfare candidate will make it significantly more likely that the 2028 Democratic candidate stands with ordinary people instead of donors on these two pivotal planks — a shift that will, in turn, make it easier to achieve the existentially important task of defeating MAGA’s heir in November. Look at how much popular traction the Uncommitted movement got with a similar strategy in 2024 with so little on-the-ground organization — surely we can go much further with a working-class candidate, a much bigger DSA, and a Democratic Party base that has turned against Israel, billionaires, and the hacks in the party who prop them up. Objections and Responses There are quite a few objections to this proposal, many of which are very reasonable. Let me briefly address each here. Socialists shouldn’t waste their scarce time and resources on a candidate unlikely to win. This is a good rule in general, but there are important exceptions, and presidential elections are the main one. There’s no other political contest that gets anything like this level of attention and engagement in the US, so if you want to be a serious force in nationwide politics, you basically can’t afford not to have a candidate. Far from being an overall drain on our resources, running a dynamic 2028 campaign would likely result in a major net increase in members and capacity. In that spirit, the very pragmatic Milwaukee sewer socialists — who mostly ran to win at home in Wisconsin — supported Eugene Debs’s propagandistic presidential campaigns, which they correctly saw as a crucial means of recruiting to the Socialist Party. And now that the (post-1972) Democratic Party gives more weight to voters than party operatives in determining its presidential nomination, it’s become feasible to run as a socialist in primaries without risking a split in the vote against the Republicans in November. We should just support Ro Khanna, who also supports M4A and ending aid to Israel. I like Ro Khanna and would enthusiastically vote and canvass for him for president were he to get the nomination. But there’s a real chance that Khanna’s bid for office doesn’t catch on; he lacks the grassroots organizational apparatus of DSA, and, because he’s not really of the Left or labor (despite his current very good positions), he’s unlikely to generate the type of buy-in and enthusiasm that a DSA candidate would. Moreover, Khanna would be running as an individual, not as someone emerging from and building an organized movement — his campaign would not likely focus on building sustained power from below, nor would it likely polarize the 2028 primary around M4A and Israel aid. Also, and not inconsequentially, the poor electoral results for Tom Steyer and Saikat Chakrabarti this spring suggest that there’s perhaps not much of a popular appetite in the Democrats’ base to support multi-millionaire class traitors. Much better, then, to run a democratic socialist worker. If by Super Tuesday it’s clear that our campaign has captured the main left lane in the primary, Khanna should drop out and endorse us; conversely, if he’s managed to capture this lane, DSA could at that point transform its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign into an independent campaign to elect Ro Khanna focused on winning (and holding him accountable to) those two critical planks. An openness to consolidating an anti-corporate candidate by Super Tuesday is a necessary component of the strategy I’m proposing, because otherwise we risk splitting the primary votes (per DNC rules, you need at least 15% to get any delegates to convention). We should convince Shawn Fain or Sara Nelson to run for president instead. I agree it’d be great if either ran for president, but my impression is that there’s basically no chance that will happen in 2028, because both are firmly focused on their union leadership duties (and, in the case of Fain, beating back a federal witch-hunt). This plan could have DSA end up endorsing a non-socialist, non-DSAer for president. That’s against our principles. It’s a myth, and bad politics, that socialists can’t ever support candidates who aren’t members of their organization and/or who don’t call themselves socialists. Bernie, after all, was not a DSAer. And socialists abroad regularly make tactical decisions about if and when supporting a non-socialist candidate makes sense from the standpoint of promoting working-class interests, defending democracy, and building a socialist current in the process. If your “principles” prevent you and DSA from helping achieve the momentous stride forward of having a Democratic candidate in 2028 run on Medicare for All and ending aid to Israel, those “principles” are not very good. In fact, they actively undermine the causes they’re aiming to support. We shouldn’t confuse principles (working-class independence) with tactics (the best way to advance this in a given context). In my recent article in Catalyst on Milwaukee sewer socialism (I’ve uploaded the full text here), I have a section showing how similarly rigid rules about endorsements had to be eventually discarded in the old Socialist Party nationwide after WWI because they tended to lead socialists towards a sectarian abstention from broader anti-corporate electoral insurgencies beyond their party’s control. For what it’s worth, Lenin’s current under Tsarism frequently backed bourgeois candidates in the second round of elections and Lenin himself advocated that British Communists support Labour Party candidates; for his part, Kautsky in 1912 defended the German Social Democracy’s electoral pact with the Progressives in the runoffs. If our predecessors could be that tactically flexible in an era before the limits of their underlying strategic assumptions about intransigent class politics in capitalist democracies were made clear, then there’s no need to insist on being more tactically rigid today, after a century’s worth of accumulated experience. As long as you maintain your own political profile and organization while engaging in broader coalitional efforts, there’s zero inherent contradiction with the principle of political independence. More specifically: DSA and allied organizations should enthusiastically back Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed if AOC declines to run and he throws his hat in the presidential ring. (I have no idea whether he’s even considering this path, but there’ll surely be chatter about it if he wins his Senate race this November.) Though he doesn’t call himself a socialist, El-Sayed is a principled Berniecrat, a consistent fighter for Palestine, and would have a clear path to victory. Using the “s” word is far less important than whether a campaign fights for the interests of working people at home and abroad — and whether actively participating in it can grow the organized working class and the Left. And the same holds true if a less anti-corporate candidate were, under pressure, to adopt our two Healthcare Not Warfare planks. Why focus only on M4A and ending US aid to Israel? There are so many other important issues to fight for! Obviously there are many pivotal issues beyond healthcare and Israel, and our candidate — and especially our organizations involved in the campaign — should be prepared to speak on all of these. But one of the crucial lessons of the Zohran campaign is that you have to relentlessly stay on message if you want to cut through the noise. CNN and Fox News will want to talk about DSA’s views on Venezuela and abolishing the police; we need to polarize the debate on the widely and deeply felt issues that are most favorable for growing the Left, isolating our opponents, and winning urgently needed changes. One recent poll found 63% of Americans support M4A, even after respondents were told it would raise taxes and eliminate most private insurance. Another found that 74% of Democrats opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel.” And focusing on two demands sets the campaign up to be able to leverage its mandate to make clear demands upon other candidates (which we can’t do if we run with a laundry list of demands). Talking about a Plan B is a distraction from the more urgent work of building a groundswell of calls on AOC to run. It’s good for DSAers, fightback unionists, and progressive organizations to try to convince AOC to run. This proposal is meant as an addendum to pushes to get AOC to run and to line DSA up for that eventuality, not as a substitute for those efforts. But I’m worried that, like in 2024, we might eventually find ourselves with no time to find a viable alternative unless we start now. DSA, with its abundant deliberative processes, moves slowly. The approach you’re suggesting seems risky. If a DSA candidate runs but doesn’t receive a lot of votes, it’ll undercut our current national momentum. This is a reasonable worry. All big initiatives always carry risks, and the path I’m advocating is certainly not free of these. That said, if a Healthcare Not Warfare campaign doesn’t catch on like we envisioned, it’s a pretty simple pivot in March 2028 to explain that in the future we really need our standard-bearers like AOC, or our growing bench of national electeds, to step up in presidential primaries. Moreover, it’s worth noting that the risk of my Plan B proposal is on the whole significantly less than the risk entailed by an AOC run. We should all back her if she runs, since she’d fire up the base, provide huge openings for organizing, have a real shot at defeating a Republican (especially given MAGA’s unpopularity), be a great standard-bearer for our issues, particularly M4A and ending aid to Israel, and be less willing than mainstream candidates to capitulate to any anti-democratic machinations from Trump and co. But it’s also true that AOC could lose, which would be a devastating setback to the country and the Left. Or she could win and find herself unable to pass much, if any, of her (and our) program, a demoralizing prospect. So if we’re willing to take these risks with AOC (and we should), it follows that we should be able to take lower-level risks if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring. What’s Your Plan B? The US Left is facing its biggest opening for growth and influence since the 1930s. Initiatives that would have been impossible a few months ago are now potentially feasible. A President AOC is now easier to imagine, but if she ultimately assesses that the risks aren’t worth the potential reward in 2028, we can’t be left flat-footed. So even if you’re not convinced by the specifics of my Plan B, I hope you can at least agree that it’d be a disaster for us not to have one — and not to start getting a Plan B into motion. Hopefully other organizers and political currents will put forward their responses and alternative ideas ASAP. The stakes are too high to just wait and see. More As always, please share this article widely. This newsletter depends on all you lovely people to get the word out. Thank you! I uploaded the full text of my Catalyst article on Milwaukee sewer socialism here (it’s updated and 3x as long as the version published earlier on this substack). If you haven’t yet, please make sure to subscribe to Catalyst here; I read every issue front to back, highly recommend. 🌹🎵 Ivan Lins (arranged by Arthur Verocai) — “General da Banda” 🌹🎵
The Lone Republican Who Voted Against Advancing Bill to Put Tougher Sanctions on Russia
The lawmaker referred to the legislation as the "latest counterproductive attempt to hold Russia accountable for its war against Ukraine."
New Global CARE-AI Framework Sets Standard for Responsible AI in Health Education and Care
An international team of researchers, clinicians, educators, ethicists, and patient partners has developed and validated the Health CARE-AI (Contextual, Accountable, Responsible, and Equitable Artificial Intelligence) Framework. Published in JMIR Medical Education, the landmark study provides an actionable, consensus-backed roadmap for the responsible integration of AI across the health care learning and practice continuum.
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Letter: Fargo is ready to end at-large politics
Darrek Crissler of Fargo writes: "Ward representation shifts that balance by making elected officials directly accountable to the neighborhoods they serve."
Hungary moves to overhaul university models banned from Horizon Europe
Hungary’s new government is aiming to overhaul the governance model of the institutions and universities that lost access to Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ funds “in a short timeframe,” according to Péter Horváth, the new state secretary for science policy and innovation. “As of today, the two non-university foundation-controlled institutions under my remit have been transformed,” he told Science|Business. “We hope the universities will follow and that this will be enough to satisfy the EU’s demands.”Under the previous government, led by Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party, many academic and scientific institutions were restructured and made into special public trust foundations, with members strongly linked to the government given lifelong mandates and significant decision-making powers with little oversight. The European Commission deemed that this undermined academic freedom and transparency in the country, leading to a ban on 34 institutions in 2022, including 21 universities, which saw academics in Hungary lose access to Horizon Europe grants. The new Hungarian government, elected in May and led by Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party, has promised to dismantle this governance model and restore the institutions to EU programmes. As a result, the European Commission has promised to return access to the Erasmus+ education mobility programme, but so far no concrete agreement has been made on the Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation. Hungary has already made legislative changes in June to allow the institutions to be reformed and set a timeline for the implementation.The non-university foundations, which are mainly cultural centres such as the Foundation for Hungarian Culture or the Makovecz Campus Foundation, will all be dissolved by August 31 this year, a date tied to EU-set milestones that Hungary must meet to unlock frozen funds, with control transferred to relevant ministries. Meanwhile, the universities will have until 31 August 2027. For each university foundation, the government will set the dissolution date and the body to take over operations. There is no final decision on a permanent new model for the universities, according to Hungarian MEP Eszter Lakos, who is shadow rapporteur for the Horizon Europe specific programme, a separate piece of legislation detailing implementation rules for the EU’s next research programme, due to start in 2028. “The aim of the transition year is to settle this with [the universities], not to impose a model, and not to put them under state control,” she told Science|Business. “The goal is to give academic independence back to universities.”There are three models that are most likely to be implemented. One would be a return to a traditional, state-run model. Another could be a newer, more self-standing public institution. A third option would be a reformed version of the foundation models that meet EU standards. According to Lakos, the dismantling of the system put in place by the Orbán government is well underway and if all goes according to plan, Hungary could regain access to EU research money by the start of the next academic year in 2027. “I believe that the Hungarian government is doing the necessary changes so the universities could return as beneficiaries to Horizon from the next school year,” she said. In the meantime, “the universities, institutes and cultural assets carry on under proper public stewardship rather than a handful of unaccountable trustees,” said Lakos. The laws passed in June impose new safeguards: board terms are capped at four years and renewable only once, appointments are made through open competitions and sitting politicians cannot join joining these boards.It remains unclear whether a domestic science funding programme set up as a back-up scheme by the former government following the EU funding ban, called HU-rizon, could be continued. “This programme should never have had to have been established in the first place, but it has proven to be quite popular,” he said. “I am considering continuing this programme with a refined focus on helping international collaborations.”Re-organising the research network One of the first priorities for Horváth and his cabinet is to resolve questions over the future of the Hungarian Research Network, Hun-Ren. The network of academic institutes was taken away from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2019 and turned into a quasi-private organisation, with similarities in its governance to the public trust foundations.Horváth and his team have consulted over 5,000 representatives from the network and the conclusion is broad unhappiness with the directors of all the institutes involved. “We have presented the results to the president and the chief executive of the network and this is currently being discussed,” Horváth said. The plan is to re-integrate the network back into the Academy of Sciences but in an improved way, “learning from mistakes of the past,” he added. The government also wants to reintegrate four humanities and social science research centres into the network that the previous government had transferred to Eötvös Loránd University. The transfer brought sharp criticism from the academic community, with a group of Hungarian research heads, including European Research Council grant recipients, sending an open letter to Orbán warning that the transfer would “cause historically significant harm to the entirety of Hungarian scientific life.” The transfer was “one of the biggest shames in Hungarian research in the past 20 years,” Horváth said. “We want to immediately re-integrate them back into the research network and to regain the trust of these institutions, because the way they were treated was really unfair.”Another pressing issue is the Élvonal Excellence Research and Talent Development Foundation, led by Nobel laureate Ferenc Krausz. The foundation signed a financing agreement with the former government earlier this year for a budget of over €730 million over the next five years. The goal is to create a world-class centre to attract top talent from abroad and to develop local researchers. But there was little transparency about this foundation, and news of its huge budget, which is nearly as much as Hungary’s entire research budget, caused a stir in the media following the recent elections. Another issue is that, as with the foundation boards of the institutes banned from Horizon Europe, there was little-to-no oversight of decisions led by Krausz. “It was an excellent idea but an unacceptable execution,” Horváth said of the foundation. “The fact that this is out of the Hungarian funding scheme, mostly concentrating on one person who decides on the budget is unacceptable for us.”The government plans to merge the centre with the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, the country’s R&D funding agency, with a reduced budget. Horváth is hopeful that Krausz will still be involved. The new government’s R&D goalsA phrase that crops up regularly during the discussion with Horváth is “democratic process.” The new state secretary is determined to involve Hungary’s research community in shaping future policies. This marks a departure from the previous government’s approach, and several people in Hungary’s research community have commented on the openness of the new government. In terms of concrete goals, Horváth and his team already have plans. He wants to create a new science fund in Hungary, based on the best practices of other European countries. The fund would not be tied to annual government budgets and would provide long-term, stable financing. “If we were to succeed in creating this fund, then I think it would be one of the biggest achievements for me in this period of government,” Horváth said. On the innovation side, he is looking into how best to bring in the private sector. “We want to make sure that we are working with the private sector to support innovation,” Horváth said. One of his big aims is to introduce entrepreneurship teaching into high schools. Hungary already has a reputable national academy offering research and innovation training in the field of natural sciences, and Horváth wants to expand this to all disciplines and across the whole country. “One of the main ways to elevate our innovative businesses is to teach our children to be innovative,” he said. “This will probably need ten years to pay off, but this is what we should do. Our aim is to make Hungary strong in our region, and this is what is needed.” Related articlesHungary’s Horizon Europe performance in numbersCommission unlocks Erasmus+ cash for Hungary, Horizon could be next‘Academic Huxit.’ Hungarian researchers speak out on impact of EU ban A more difficult task will be funding. The new government is aiming to increase research spending to 2% of the GDP by 2030, and then increase it to 3% in line with EU objectives. Currently, spending sits around 1.3%. But according to Horváth, the current budget, inherited from the previous government, is “heavily in the negative,” so any plans to increase research spending will have to start next year. Achieving 2% by 2030 already needs a big push, almost doubling the research budget. “This is something we’d definitely like to reach, and something I can see us achieving,” he said. “From the 2030s, I’d like to see an innovative generation growing up that can help us reach the 3% target.” Positivity in the new governmentDespite the many challenges facing Horváth and his team, the mood is positive. “It feels a bit like a start-up right now. Everyone is working 24/7, day and night, trying to do as much as they can. There is a lot of energy,” he said. It is a big change for the state secretary who, like many in his cabinet, is coming from a background in research or business, and not in politics. “Six weeks ago, I was sitting with my microscope and my research PhDs, so it’s been a big change for me,” said the computer scientist, who was previously the director of the Institute of Biochemistry at the Hun-Ren Biological Research Centre in Hungary and worked at the Institute for AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich. But he is relishing the task to transform the country’s R&D landscape. “We feel enormous support from the Hungarian people, but also from Europe,” he said. “We’ve received a lot of letters of support from around Europe. There is big trust there, and huge responsibility on our side. We want to get everything back on track, and there’s a lot to do.”
Cruz pushes bill to hold tax-exempt sponsors accountable as DOJ probes Singham network
Ted Cruz pushes the SPONSOR Act to strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits funding political violence as the DOJ launches a grand jury probe.
Midnight Mania! Timid Referees ‘Hurting The Sport’ Must Be Held Accountable
Bringing you the weird and wild from the world of MMA each and every weeknight!
How eggs became the latest campaign issue in Texas' Senate race
Republican Ken Paxton says his settlement holds producers accountable. Democrat James Talarico says Republicans still haven't lowered grocery bills.
A New Playbook: State-Driven Solutions for Resilient Health Data
Health equity depends on data equity: the representation of communities in the data used to identify disparities, target interventions, and hold systems accountable.
Backed by threat of clawbacks, feds wield tight grip on $50B rural health fund
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz praised states’ plans when announcing the rural health program awards last year and said his agency would help states “turn their ideas into lasting improvements for rural families.” But state officials and healthcare leaders said it’s also clear the agency wants to encourage specific policy changes and hold states accountable to the promises they made and rules they agreed to follow.
The push to hold plastics producers accountable in North Carolina
Despite repeated setbacks in the General Assembly, momentum for plastics producer accountability is building in North Carolina.
Why Democrats are running against the ‘Epstein class’
Candidates are casting their messaging around Epstein’s associates and the unaccountable elite, betting that voter distrust of powerful institutions can help them shape the midterm debate.
Justice Department sues New York state DOH over CDPAP transition
The DOJ argues that the state DOH conducted a "sham bid process" and failed to take action to hold Public Partnerships LLC accountable.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Upstate county's lawmakers push bill holding parents accountable
The bill would require parents or guardians of juvenile offenders to complete mandatory parenting classes. Those who refuse would face community service.
Americans agree: Ultraprocessed foods pose major health hazard
Across partisan lines, Americans broadly believe ultraprocessed foods are addictive and harmful, and support policies that could strengthen safeguards and hold the food industry accountable.
Scrapped CGM sensors stolen, sold to patients—Dexcom pledges to hold thieves accountable
The devices were set aside to be scrapped before they were stolen. Now, patients could be using them and not even know it.
Is Trump the President the Framers Feared?
The drafters of the Constitution hoped for energetic but accountable presidents.
Holding the Veterans Affairs Secretary Accountable for the Severely Damaged Veterans’ Health Care System | American Postal Workers Union
In February 2025, representatives from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began working with the newly appointed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Doug Collins to identify alleged wasteful contracts and improve VA operations. DOGE cancelled hundreds of VA contracts and carried out thousands of staffing reductions, including the dismissal of probationary employees, under […]
Election Year Politics Killed Oklahoma’s Eviction Reform Bills, Advocates Say
Oklahoma's tenant protection bills failed this legislative session, leaving renters without new legal remedies against problem landlords. House Bill 2015, which would have given courts power to hold landlords accountable for habitability failures, stalled, as did an eviction timeline extension bill. Advocates blame election-year politics and landlord influence at the Capitol.
Jonathan Weigel named one of the World's Best 40-Under-40 Graduate Business Professors by Poets & Quants - Haas News
Assistant Professor Jonathan Weigel, who teaches business ethics to MBA students and studies how fragile states can build more accountable governance, has been named one of Poets & Quants’ “World’s Best 40-Under-40 Graduate Business Professors of 2026.” Weigel was selected from more than 1,700 nominations from students, administrators, and faculty members at business schools around […]
We Need to Start Holding the Republican Party Accountable for Xenophobic Violence
It’s abundantly clear that the GOP encourages the kind of anger that causes young people to loot the family gun locker and shoot up a mosque.
Why accountable Warriors coach Steve Kerr aims to have comeback year next season
Steve Kerr was not pleased with his own coaching performance this season, and will look to be better moving forward.
Chicago Teachers Union wants $8.5 million dues hike to fund politics
“Has your brand become toxic?” This was a pointed question from WGN Political Editor Tahman Bradley, posed to Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates in a recent interview. Her immediate response: “I don’t understand the question.” When pressed, Gates added, “The Chicago Teachers Union is not a political party, it is a labor union.” But internal union documents show CTU leadership is trying to skim $8.5 million more from teacher paychecks explicitly for politics, while trying to silence union members critical of Gates’ leadership. Under the proposed dues hike, Chicago teachers would see up to $800 more per year flow from their paychecks to union coffers. The union already takes in more than $40 million a year, mostly from dues. And it spends less than 18 cents of every dollar on teacher representation. The No. 1 reason for the proposed dues hike? Politics. “We must win a majority of the first 21 person fully elected school board in November,” reads the first point in CTU’s member FAQ document.1 This directly contradicts CTU’s promise to members about how leadership uses dues money. The official CTU handbook tells members that the union does not use dues money for politics, so if they are interested in funding political activity, they should consider voluntary donations to CTU’s political action committee. “Our dues are not used for political purposes,” according to the handbook. “So our PAC relies on extra contributions from our members to support progressive candidates and to impact elected officials at the city, county and state levels.” This kind of double-speak is one reason members are concerned about another constitutional change slipped into the dues hike vote, which will take place on May 20-21: an attempt to stop members from holding the union accountable. A proposed amendment to the union constitution tries to place limits on when members may bring a lawsuit against the union for violating members’ rights.2 This provision is clearly a response to members’ lawsuit against union leadership regarding Gates’ years-long refusal to publish audited financial statements. The judge in that case has repeatedly denied the union’s attempts to dismiss it. Teachers opposed to these changes have been circulating this flier, urging members to vote no. What will CTU members get in return for millions of dollars in additional dues? If the 2024 school board elections are any indication—not much. CTU leadership’s record on school board races may not inspire confidence among members. A Chicago Policy Center analysis of a dozen affiliated PACs found CTU spent nearly $2.9 million on school board races in 2024. Of that spending, more than $2.1 million (75%) went to losing candidates. And while CTU-backed candidates lost six of the nine competitive seats overall, they fared worse in their biggest-spending races, losing five of six contests in which the union and its affiliates put up more than $250,000 for their candidate. The Chicago school board elections take place Nov. 3.3 Is another $8.5 million enough to clean up a toxic reputation? Not likely. Update on federal tax credit scholarship: Last week, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she plans to opt into the federal tax credit scholarship program. If Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker follows suit, Illinois could unlock $1 billion in donor money statewide for both public- and private-school students. If Illinois does not opt in, that money will flow to other states. The Last Ward reported in February on how Illinois Democrats could unlock at least $100 million in new resources for Chicago public-school students by opting in. Update on the investigation into how Chicagoans learned about a meeting to hike their property taxes: The Last Ward reported in January on an absurd, taxpayer-funded investigation into how local media learned of a planned Chicago school board meeting to hike the district’s property tax levy. That investigation is now complete. Lawyers interviewed two dozen witnesses, and found nothing. Update on Illinois’ muni debt crisis: My colleague Joe Tabor last week published a must-read piece in Crain’s Chicago Business about how Illinois recently rejected south suburban Harvey’s request to be designated a “distressed city.” The saga shows why the state must implement a better structure to assist insolvent local governments, including allowing for the option to pursue debt relief via Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The Last Ward reported in October on how Harvey is tipping the first domino in Illinois’ municipal debt crisis. Mincing Rascals: I joined the Mincing Rascals podcast to discuss the SAFE-T Act, the millionaires tax, and more. My “green light” recommendation: Force Majeure (2014). 1 Notably, the No. 2 reason cited is “resources to fund a state-wide millionaires tax campaign in order to fully fund the state’s school funding formula.” The constitutional amendment necessary to implement a progressive income tax in Illinois recently died in the Illinois House, meaning this question would not appear on the ballot until 2028 at the earliest. 2 There is seemingly no single-subject rule for CTU constitutional amendments. So members only get one vote on the full package. One cannot vote “yes” on the dues hike and “no” on the restriction of members’ rights, for example. 3 Illinois law grants far too much power over local government to unelected officials like Gates. State lawmakers should fix that.
Colorado House advances 5% gaming fee bill to support youth mental health services
Colorado lawmakers on Thursday approved a bill that would place a 5% fee on certain in‑game purchases in children’s online games, aiming to create a funding stream for youth mental health services. Supporters say the measure would hold gaming platforms accountable for design features that can contribute to anxiety, depression, and compulsive spending in kids, […]
Rep. Greg Casar pushes 'accountability and affordability message for Democrats in Austin
The Austin-area Democrat promised to hold Republicans accountable and tackle affordability, but danced around the thorny issue of state Rep. James Talarico's credibility with Black voters.
Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Ruling Could Fuel New Gerrymandering Era
The expected flood of new congressional maps is likely to produce fewer competitive districts, fewer ways for voters to hold elected officials accountable and more polarized politics.
Congress must hold RFK Jr. accountable after hearings
Michael Burgess and Larry Bucshon, former Republican congressmen and doctors, weigh in on RFK Jr.’s recent congressional hearings.
Reps. Smucker and Davids Introduce Bipartisan ‘Accountable Produce is Medicine Act’
WASHINGTON — Representatives Lloyd Smucker (PA-11) and Sharice Davids (KS-03) introduced the bipartisan Accountable Produce is Medicine Act (H.R. 8355), legislation aimed at modernizing the U.S. health care system by incorporating proven nutrition-based interventions to prevent and manage chronic disease.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Transparency is one of best ways to hold politicians accountable: OpenTheBooks CEO
OpenTheBooks CEO John Hart discusses the need for transparency regarding federal fraud and an audit highlighting the delinquency of IRS workers regarding taxes on 'Varney & Co.'
Chargé Arnold Speech - Implementation Plan of Five-Year Health MOU - U.S. Embassy in Madagascar
Chargée d’Affaires Stephanie Arnold's Speech Discussion on the implementation plan for the five-year health Memorandum of Understanding (…) Colleagues, and honored guests, Good morning, and welcome to the United States Embassy. It is a pleasure to host you today for the second day of this important workshop to discuss the implementation of our bilateral health Memorandum of Understanding on U.S. Government health activities in Madagascar, made possible through the Trump Administration’s America First Global Health Strategy. Today’s focus— discussing a shared vision and developing a preliminary draft for the health MOU Implementation Plan and the terms of reference for the two committees that will steer its implementation—is a decisive step in moving from commitments on paper to concrete action over the next five years. On December 22, 2025, the Governments of Madagascar and the United States signed a five-year bilateral health MOU, with a financial intention of approximately 554 billion Ariary from the United States and This jointly decided MOU intends to strengthen Madagascar’s health system, support lifesaving services, and improve disease prevention and response that matter to both our countries’ health security. For the United States, this means detecting and containing infectious disease outbreaks including malaria, polio, and emerging health threats before they can reach American shores through international travel and trade, protecting American families while reducing the need for costly domestic emergency responses Yesterday, technical experts from the Ministry of Public Health and the U.S. Government worked in thematic groups to draft a preliminary Implementation Plan. Today, your task is to review the shared vision and preliminary draft MOU implementation plan, and the proposed terms of reference for the Joint Steering Committee and the Operational Committee that will guide its implementation. These committees are not just administrative structures. They are the mechanisms that will ensure clear roles and responsibilities, regular dialogue between our two governments, consistent monitoring of progress, and real accountability for the results that will directly benefit the lives of Malagasy citizens. They will also track performance against the benchmarks we have jointly established, which will guide the continuation of U.S. support over the five-year period . Continued U.S. support will be contingent on meeting these performance benchmarks. This ensures accountability to both American and Malagasy taxpayers and guarantees that our partnership delivers measurable results. America First Foreign Assistance means that U.S. support must be strategic, results-driven, and accountable to our taxpayers. It also means we aim to support greater self-reliance and reduced long-term dependence on foreign assistance, with systems that are increasingly financed and led by Madagascar itself. This approach benefits both our nations: Madagascar gains sustainable health capacity, while the United States advances our health security interests and creates opportunities for American health innovations and companies to support Madagascar’s development. In that spirit, I want to recognize the presence of the Ministry’s leadership and the technical directors and program heads responsible for surveillance, basic health services, family health, immunization, countering malaria, laboratories, medicines, and health information systems. Your leadership and technical expertise are essential if this bilateral health MOU is to translate into real and lasting improvements for people in need across the country. Let me emphasize how important collaboration is to the United States in this effort. We can bring American resources, technical expertise, and tools. But this bilateral health MOU can only succeed if it reflects Madagascar’s priorities and if Malagasy institutions lead and maintain its implementation. We see this not as a U.S. project, but as a joint framework under Malagasy leadership, with U.S. support. That is why we are genuinely pleased to host this event here at the Embassy. Opening our doors to you today symbolizes our commitment to work side by side and to remain transparent about how we use U.S. resources in support of Madagascar’s health system. In closing, thank you for your time and your partnership. We are very happy to welcome you here and proud to accompany Madagascar in this next step of implementation planning for our bilateral health MOU. I wish you a productive and focused session. The work you do today will shape how our two governments cooperate on health in the years ahead; it will influence the quality and reliability of health services that Malagasy communities receive; and, most importantly, it will help protect both our nations from infectious disease threats while building Madagascar’s capacity for long-term health system sustainability. Thank you.
Chelsea 0-3 Man City: What Rosenior said
If you go down against teams as good as this, what you have to do for the next five minutes is to stay in the game. It ended up being a really, really difficult second half." On building resilience in the team: "I am accountable.
'We are accountable.' Meet Robert Mullen, head of Aultman Health System
In this week's Five questions with feature, meet Robert Mullen, president and CEO of Aultman Health System, the largest employer in Stark County.
Detroit business concerned about recent downtown teen takeover, wants parents held accountable
Sea-level rise is a health crisis and we must hold polluters accountable
Those facing the earliest and harshest consequences are, overwhelmingly, those who did the least to create them
Inside the Rays’ new era: A Q&A with Ken Babby on Opening Day, fans and what’s next for a new ballpark
'Fans can expect our organization to be determined, accountable and accessible, as they should.'
Jury holds Meta and Google liable for role in young woman's mental health issues
The verdict marks the end of the first-ever jury trial over whether tech giants should be held accountable for social media addiction. It may influence the outcome of 2,000 other pending lawsuits.
Scientists Must Speak Clearly, Especially in Court: Five Tips for Clear Communication
As climate impacts intensify, so does the legal push to hold polluters accountable, protect vulnerable communities, and enforce environmental laws. And in these legal cases, science is key. Because science can’t present itself on the stand, scientists are essential to give scientific results a voice
As President Trump’s Attacks on Science Escalate, Big Oil Moves to Avoid Legal Accountability
This piece was originally published in Climate Home News. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently agreed to hear arguments in Boulder v. Exxon and Suncor a case that could decide whether communities harmed by climate change can hold polluters accountable in state court. Origin
Lawsuit Accuses Justice Dept. Leadership of ‘Political Retribution’
The suit filed by two fired F.B.I. agents aimed to hold the Trump administration accountable for the purge of personnel who had worked on the investigations of Mr. Trump or his allies.
Science & Innovation
Challenges to the American scientific enterprise—from the reproducibility crisis, to administrative bloat within research institutions, to diminished public trust in universities—together with sweeping reforms to the government’s role in science, make this a pivotal moment for science policy. An agenda to strengthen American science must enhance its productivity and credibility, preserve our research advantages, and ensure that the scientific enterprise remains accountable to American citizens.
Mental health solutions for the digital age
Ask the digital natives of Gen Z about the source of their biggest mental health challenges, and most will say social media and AI.Several of the nearly 400 guests at the third annual Gen Z Wellness Summit, presented by the Friends of Semel Teen Advisory Council at UCLA on March 8, explicitly named the endless stream of content on their phones as serious stressors. “Everybody is addicted to (Tik Tok) as if they were addicted to substances,” said Jantin Asmar, 17, a senior at Virtual Academy in Antelope Valley. “We’re always chasing that dopamine. We’re expecting that dopamine rush and it’s really decaying our interactions with others.” High school student Jantin Asmar was among nearly 400 people who attended the third annual Gen Z Wellness Summit. (Photo by Sandy Cohen) Even young teens feel pressure to be on social media constantly, both to consume content and collect “likes,” said 13-year-olds Chloe and Sophia, both students at Brentwood School. “Everyone’s always on, and you miss stuff if you’re not on it,” Chloe said, adding that social media’s emphasis on appearances is leading to eating disorders: “That’s a big thing for our generation.”The incessant influx of images and updates creates expectations that “weigh teenagers down,” said Linda Kou, 16, a junior at San Gabriel High School.Even though digital spaces allow people to connect with others beyond their immediate surroundings, it doesn’t always translate to real-life community, said Kelah Morgan, 17, a senior at Animo South Los Angeles Charter High School. High school students Kelah Morgan, left, and Linda Kou, shared about the challenges presented by social media. (Photo by Sandy Cohen) “Even if you see people saying that they relate to you online, it might be hard to find people in your personal life who you see every day who you feel comfortable enough to say, ‘You see me online, but this is me in real life and what I’m actually going through,’” she said.Solutions for our digital timesThe Gen Z Wellness Summit was intentionally designed as a free, in-person gathering where young people interested in mental health from across the southland could meet in person. “Peer support is the most important element of maintaining our mental health in community,” said Helena Hansen, MD, PhD, director of UCLA’s Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.Keynote speakers at the summit addressed AI, social connection and self-empowerment, while breakout sessions included discussions about eating disorders, dating, substance use, phone detox and breathwork. Here are some of the day’s top takeaways:Beware of FOPO: Scott Barry Kaufman, PhD, a psychology professor at Columbia University, said that rather than FOMO, or fear of missing out, we ought to be more aware of FOPO: fear of people’s opinions. “Just think about how much your FOPO might be holding you back in your life,” Dr. Kaufman said. “And just that inner contemplation should be enough for you to change your life, because there’s so many things we don’t go after because we have debilitating FOPO.”We don’t need to feel like we’re the best – or what he called “narcissistic self-esteem” – but it’s helpful to acknowledge our own worth, recognize our good qualities and develop self-belief in the skills and talents we’ve cultivated. When we have that – dignity and self-respect, without needing everyone to like us – FOPO is less of a concern.Self-reflection is most effective in community: “When we try to self-reflect alone, we sometimes ruminate,” said Ira Bedzow, PhD, executive director of the Emory University Purpose Project. “But when we self-reflect with people that we trust … (it) allows us to hold ourselves accountable to different ways of seeing and different ways of hearing and different ways of being.”Opening up about our experiences and listening to others are skills we can develop, Dr. Bedzow said.He invited students to participate in what he called a “fishbowl exercise,” where four students sat in a small circle, surrounded by a dozen or so students forming a larger circle. Those in the inner circle answered such questions as: “What stops you from being you today?” and “What helps you feel most like you?”Within minutes, the group in the small circle (the fishbowl), were sharing intimately about their life challenges as those in the outer circle nodded in understanding.After the exercise, one participant said, “I felt like I wasn’t alone, that it wasn’t just me who feels that way.”Another remarked on how “personal” it felt to share face-to-face with others, even strangers.Don’t let AI crush your creativity: Theoretical neuroscientist Vivienne Ming, PhD, has been studying artificial intelligence for more than 20 years. And while she said “it’s reasonable to be concerned” about the fast-growing technology, it can also help humans become better problem-solvers when used strategically.“The smartest thing on the planet today are humans and machines working together creatively,” Dr. Ming said. “What gets more valuable in humans as machines get smarter? Our ability to explore the unknown.“Your unique voice is literally your value to the world … but most of us for most of our lives have been taught to not be unique,” she continued. “Be your own person. Celebrate being different. It is genuinely, measurably, truly valuable.”In a breakout session called “Phone Detox? IYKYK: Living Your Story IRL” led by Don Grant, PhD, students shared their frustrations with AI compromising academic work, art and creativity.“Art is a translation of human experience,” one participant said. “When people use AI, they diminish their own human experience.”Dr. Grant urged them, as “the last generation to remember a world before AI,” to remember the power of imagination and creativity – and to act on it.Remember that social media distorts perceptions: Stuart B. Murray, PhD, PsyD, who directs the Eating Disorders Program and Translational Research in Eating Disorders Program at UCLA, asked the students in his breakout session to take a spontaneous selfie and edit it to conform with society’s beauty standards. All 20 girls in the room immediately got to work, thickening their hair, slimming their faces, plumping their lips.“The pressure to look like what we present on social media can be crippling,” Dr. Murray said. “We now know that social media use is part of a causal pathway into an eating disorder.”Adolescents and young adults are most at risk of developing an eating disorder, he said, with one in three students on college campuses exhibiting clinically meaningful eating-disorder symptoms. More than 4 million people in California will have an eating disorder in their lifetime.Even for those who don’t develop anorexia or bulimia, the ubiquity of modified images online distorts what we consider normal, making us feel worse about ourselves. Remembering that, he and other speakers said, might inspire us to log off occasionally and spend time in the real world with people who love us as we are.
Shareholder Control and the New Politics of Platform Regulation
The TikTok deal in the US reveals a new era of tech oligarchy. Paddy Leerssen unpacks why platform ownership matters and how it can be held accountable.
‘Firing her is not enough’: Democrats celebrate Kristi Noem departure but say she must be ‘held accountable’
Gavin Newsom among those celebrating Noem’s ousting, as Democrats warn pressure must be kept up against ICE
Lawmakers say they’ve been stonewalled by DHS, undercutting attempts to hold Trump officials accountable
Lawmakers who oversee the Department of Homeland Security say the agency has repeatedly stymied their requests for information in recent months, with even some Republicans alleging they’ve had phone calls go unanswered and data requests left to languish.
Tyra Banks Needs To Be Held Accountable. She’s Also The Perfect Scapegoat
We let Tyra Banks off too easy for the harm America's Next Top Model caused. Now, the same problematic beauty standards she perpetuated are back.
California's Unfinished Business | Helping lawmakers hold themselves accountable
CBS News California built a first-of-its-kind public accountability tool tracking state audit recommendations to lawmakers — detailing what lawmakers were told to fix, how audit-backed bills died, and...
California's Unfinished Business | Helping lawmakers hold themselves accountable
Tyra Banks Tells Her Side In Netflix’s ‘America’s Next Top Model’ Docuseries
Netflix’s three-part docuseries unpacks the TV juggernaut’s complicated legacy, but does little to actually hold the show accountable.
The Epstein Files and the Hidden World of an Unaccountable Elite
The search continues in the documents for ironclad criminal conduct, but the story of a sexual predator given a free ride by the ruling class has already emerged.
2025 US ACT on Health Equity Community Investments Recipients
Author: Kennesha VanBurch, Director, Health Equity and Community Investment Partnerships 2025 marks the fifth year of the US Accelerate Change Together (ACT) on Health Equity: Community Solutions Challenge (CSC) and National Strategic Collaborations (NSC). This year, we received more than 250 applications from organizations across the country dedicated to prioritizing the social, cultural and linguistic needs of communities that have experienced barriers to care and opportunity. The overwhelming response underscores the vital role these organizations play in advancing health equity at the local level and across the nation. Since the launch of ACT on Health Equity in 2021, the initiative has invested more than $18 million in nonprofit organizations and their health equity programming through CSC and NSC. This year, $3.4 million in funding has been provided to 47 nonprofit organizations that focus on healthcare access, nutrition and lung health. Together, we are making meaningful progress toward health equity across the US. Supporting Organizations Advancing Community Well-being and Health Equity The awarded organizations address critical needs across health, education, and social support through initiatives aligned with AstraZeneca’s areas of expertise, including lung disease, lung and breast cancer, and cardiology. Their work spans across culturally competent senior care, equitable healthcare access, cancer and chronic disease support, and preventive health education, as well as hunger relief, community gardening, dental and transportation services, and resources for underserved families. Together, they are working to remove barriers to care, reduce preventable conditions, and empower individuals and communities of all ages and backgrounds to achieve better health outcomes. Photo courtesy of Medical Motor Service of Rochester and Monroe County, Inc. Description: MMS driver speaking to a Wegmans shopper. GGWNY staff; Lincoln Memorial Church Community Garden and lead gardener Diane Learn more about our recipients and the impact they make within their communities below. Community Solutions Challenge Advocates for Women’s Health, Inc. Advocates for Women's Health exists to provide access to high quality prenatal care and gynecology care to lower-income communities in and around Fresno, CA. They operate a nonprofit OB/GYN clinic located in Fresno. American Rescue Workers (ARW) ARW is a faith-based, non-profit organization providing homelessness and hunger prevention services in Central PA since 1934. ARW cares holistically for men, women, and children who find themselves facing food insecurity, and emergency situations that may lead to homelessness, or an actual homeless crisis, by providing shelter and social services. ARW serves people no matter their faith, regardless of faith. Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California (AJSOCAL) AJSOCAL is a social justice organization that protects and strengthens the rights and dignity of AAPI communities, especially those that are most disadvantaged. Byrd Cancer Education and Advocacy (BCEA) BCEA’s mission is to effectively assist individuals battling cancer by connecting them to vital support and resources. BCEA ensures that all relevant information reaches those in need, guiding them towards the resources necessary to fight their battle against cancer. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa creates access to opportunities for self-sufficiency by providing innovative and compassionate services to people of all backgrounds, beliefs and cultures. Chosen Hearts Chosen Hearts’ mission is to rebuild lives and restore hope by fostering a sense of community and creating lasting, positive change. Columbia Student Medical Outreach The Columbia Student Medical Outreach Program (CoSMO) Clinic is the oldest and largest student-run free clinic at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. At its core, CoSMO is guided by the belief that all people—regardless of immigration or insurance status—deserve access to high-quality, equitable medical care. Eagle’s Nest Community Kitchen and Resource Center and Mobile Pantry Eagle’s Nest Community Kitchen, Resource Center and Mobile Pantry’s mission is to empower underserved and rural communities through hands-on STEM education grounded in sustainable agriculture. By combining mobile workshops, community gardens, and mentorship, they deliver accessible training in science, technology, engineering, and math that builds practical skills, advances food security, and fosters environmental stewardship. Through collaborative partnerships and by honoring local knowledge, they cultivate resilient communities and inspire the next generation of agricultural innovators. eClose Institute eClose Institute’s mission is to make medically relevant scientific discoveries using an education platform that embraces equality and empowers participants to contribute ideas, life experience and experimental data to improve disease treatment. Equal Hope Equal Hope is an organization dedicated to saving lives and improving quality of life by eliminating health inequities. This organization challenges the status quo in striving to understand the context of people’s lives and the barriers they experience to help them achieve better health outcomes for their lives. Through research, quality assessment and improvements, advocacy, education, and patient navigation, they approach health holistically to achieve sustainable outcomes and true health equity. Food For Free Committee Food For Free improves access to healthy food through establishing innovative programming and partnerships to overcome barriers and strengthen the community food system. They believe that access to healthy food is a fundamental right. Grassroots Gardens of Western New York (GGRWNY) The missions of GGRWNY is to share knowledge, powers, and resources to grow health food, heal systemic harm, and strengthen neighborhood connections through community gardens. Greater Providence YMCA (GPYMCA) GPYMCA builds healthy spirit, mind, and body for all, through inclusive programs and relationships grounded in core values of caring, honesty, respect, and responsibility. Programs are intentionally designed to close equity gaps in health, education, and wellness. GPYMCA serves individuals and families across all life stages and income levels, including medically vulnerable and underserved populations. Hearts of Valor INC Hearts of Valor’s missions it to keep the heart pumping through advocacy, collaboration, education, and support. Ibn Sina Foundation Ibn Sina Foundation ensures the health of the community by providing integrated, preventive, and primary care in a clinical setting through the dissemination and application of health-related knowledge, thereby enhancing the quality of life for future generations. India Home India Home is a non-profit organization dedicated to addressing the needs of and empowering the South Asian and Indo-Caribbean senior immigrant community in New York City through culturally competent services. At India Home’s centers, seniors find community and resources through a diverse range of programs and activities. Programs include congregate meals, creative aging programs, case management programs, and educational talks on health, nutrition, financial safeguards and elder law. La Colaborativa La Colaborativa empowers the Latinx community, enhancing social and economic health, and holding institutional decision-makers accountable. Lancaster County Food Hub At the heart of the Lancaster County Food Hub’s (LCFH) work is a strong commitment to meeting basic human needs, fostering respectful relationships, and connecting neighbors with supportive services in a nurturing and welcoming environment. Guided by their vision of a Lancaster County where every individual is supported and empowered to live with dignity and stability, they strive to not only provide immediate relief but also to create pathways to lasting self-sufficiency. Maryland Foundation of Dentistry (MFD) MFD is dedicated to improving oral health outcomes and preserving dental function for one of the state’s most vulnerable populations: adults with intellectual, physical, and/or developmental disabilities who are unable to afford the cost of dental care. Maternity Care Coalition (MCC) The missions of MCC is to improve the health and well-being of pregnant women and parenting families and enhance school readiness for children 0-3. MCC achieves this through direct service, advocacy, and research, in collaboration with individuals, families, providers, and communities. Medical Motor Service of Rochester and Monroe County, Inc. Medical Motor Service of Rochester and Monroe County’s mission is to provide specialized transportation for community organizations, as well as individuals with disabilities and special needs to improve their independence and quality of life. Milwaukee Consortium for Hmong Health (MCHH) MCHH’s mission is to create a thriving and healthy Southeast Asian and Hispanic community by empowering families through education and screenings. MCHH utilizes established community health workers and focuses on addressing health disparities related to cancer and chronic disease among the Hmong, Bumese, Karen, Karenni, Lao, and Hispanic populations living in Milwaukee, WI and other areas if needed. Mission Hospice and Home Care Mission Hospice and Home Care is delivering compassionate support and exceptional care in the home for individuals and communities, guiding them with choice and dignity to navigate significant care decisions. North Alabama AHEC (NAAHEC) The mission of the NAAHEC is to improve healthcare access, quality, and equity in rural and underserved communities across North Alabama. They strengthen the health workforce - particularly through the development of community health workers by providing comprehensive training, resources, and advocacy. By fostering strong community partnerships and promoting healthcare literacy, NAAHEC aims to address disparities, improve outcomes, and cultivate a healthier future for North Alabama. Our Neighbors’ Table Hunger comes in many forms. Our Neighbors’ Table is committed to establishing a community that provides for the whole person with nourishing food, kindness and dignity. Panhandle Breast Health Panhandle Breast Health works to decrease breast cancer deaths by providing education and reducing financial barriers to increase screening rates. Pitney Meadows Community Farm Founded in 2026, Pitney Meadows Community Farm’s mission is to celebrate and explore agricultural education, healthy food production, and recreation. Located on 166 acres in the heart of the city of Saratoga Springs and preserved in perpetuity as a working farm, Pitney Meadows is a unique resource. Prince William County Community Foundation (PWCCF) PWCCF’s mission is to create a stronger, healthier, and more connected community by addressing critical needs in food insecurity, health & wellness, scholarship, and philanthropy. PWCCF is committed to empowering individuals and families through equitable access to nutritious food, comprehensive healthcare, educational opportunities, and community-driven support. By fostering partnerships and promoting sustainable solutions, PWCCF aims to enhance the quality of life for all, ensuring a brighter future for every member of their community. Raytown Christian Church (Raytown Summer Lunch Ministry) Raytown Summer Lunch Ministry’s mission is to provide nutritious and kid-friendly meals to children during the summer months when they are not in school and receiving school meals. Regents of the University of California, Davis UC Davis Health is improving lives and transforming health care by providing excellent patient care, conducting groundbreaking research, fostering innovative, interprofessional education, and creating dynamic, productive partnerships with the community. RSVP Volunteers RSVP Volunteers creates and runs unique community programs powered by skilled volunteers to advance education and wellness for all ages and strengthen nonprofits through capacity-building and volunteer services. Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, in collaboration with partners, provides dignified, equitable and consistent access to nutritious food, creating a foundation for community health. The Icla da Silva Foundation The mission of the Icla da Silva Foundation is to save the lives of patients whose only cure is a bone marrow transplant by providing financial, emotional, and logistical support to remove barriers to treatment. There With Care of the Bay Area Founded in 2012, the mission of There With Care of the Bay Area is to provide a wide range of meaningful and fundamental services to children and families during the critical phase of a medical crisis. Universal Community Health Center Universal Community Health Center’s mission is to provide quality and accessible healthcare to under-served communities and to provide a patient centered model of care to empower communities towards wellness. West Cancer Foundation West Cancer Foundation breaks through barriers to cancer care and improves patient outcomes by providing accessible patient resources, early detection and education, and community-based research. Westside Family Healthcare Westside Family Healthcare’s mission is to improve the health of communities by providing equal access to quality healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. National Strategic Collaborations Foundation of Asthma and Allergy Impact Rescue (AAIR) The mission of The Foundation for Asthma and Allergy Impact and Rescue (AAIR) is to make sure that every child is rescued at school, healthy at home, and connected to care. Family Reach Foundation Family Reach is a nonprofit that provides non-medical financial support to families facing cancer. Cancer treatment requires more than medicine — families need a roof over their heads and food on their tables to survive. If a family can’t meet these basic needs, cancer treatment takes a back seat. They work with patients, providers, and community organizations to challenge the systems that force families to choose between their health and their home. LUNGevity Foundation LUNGevity Foundation is transforming what it means to be diagnosed and live with lung cancer through research, advocacy, and community. This mission brings them closer to their vision: a world where no one dies of lung cancer. Association of Black Cardiologists The Association of Black Cardiologists is dedicated to preventing and treating cardiovascular disease, including stroke, through education, research, advocacy, and community engagement, striving for optimal health for all by eliminating disparities. Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation (CCF) The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation’s (CCF) mission is to find a cure and improve the quality of life for those affected by cholangiocarcinoma (bile duct cancer). Founded in 2006, in Salt Lake City, UT, by a family who lost a loved one to cholangiocarcinoma, CCF has grown to become the leading global resource in research, education, and public awareness. ZERO Prostate Cancer Zero Prostate Cancer’s mission is to improve and save lives from prostate cancer through advocacy, awareness, education, and support. GO2 for Lung Cancer GO2 for Lung Cancer relentlessly confronts lung cancer on every front, every day, for everyone. As the nation’s leading lung cancer advocacy organization that was founded by patients and survivors, they are dedicated to increasing survival and quality of life for those at risk, diagnosed, and living with lung cancer. National Minority Quality Forum The National Minority Quality Forum (NMQF) is a national 501(c)(3) with a mission to reduce patient risk for all. Young Survival Coalition (Breast) Young Survival Coalition supports the young breast cancer community and ignites global collaboration to improve quality of life worldwide. Black Women’s Health Imperative Black Women’s Health Imperative’s mission is to solve the most critical health issues that Black women and girls face through innovative programs, transformative research, and lifesaving policies.
Shaky political science: academics holding each other accountable
A rare occurrence: two academics call out two others for their sloppy and misleading research
MAHA has reshaped health policy. Now it's working on environmental rules
MAHA activists who want to hold corporations accountable for harming Americans’ health have found an unlikely ally in a GOP-led Environmental Protection Agency.
MAHA has reshaped health policy. Now it's working on environmental rules
MAHA activists who want to hold corporations accountable for harming Americans’ health have found an unlikely ally in a Republican-led Environmental Protection Agency that has traditionally supported big businesses and less regulation.
MAHA has reshaped health policy. Now it's working on environmental rules
MAHA activists who want to hold corporations accountable for harming Americans’ health have found an unlikely ally in a Republican-led Environmental Protection Agency that has traditionally supported big businesses and less regulation
A closer look at what Congress protected in the FY 2026 Commerce, Justice, and Science bill—and how lawmakers plan to hold agencies accountable
"What we're trying to do here is make sure that the Congress's powers under the Constitution are upheld and can be enforced," Sen. Van Hollen (D-Md.) said.
Trump unveils health care plan aimed at lowering costs
President Donald Trump unveiled a multipart proposal on Thursday aimed at lowering prescription drug prices and reducing health insurance premiums, as well as increasing pricing transparency. He also vowed to hold big insurance companies accountable.