Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28) released the following statement after H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, passed the House in a bipartisan 366–57 vote:
“Today, I voted in favor of H.R. 2483, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act. Families in my district and across the country are still struggling with the devastating impacts of the opioid epidemic, and this bill renews critical funding for prevention, treatment, and recovery programs that help save lives and support individuals working to overcome addiction.
While I support reauthorizing these important programs, I am outraged by the Trump administration’s brazen efforts to dismantle the very services we are working to preserve, and by House Republicans’ refusal to stop them. Even as Congress moves to reauthorize critical mental health and substance use programs, the Administration is executing an unauthorized and unlawful plan to dismantle the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): firing hundreds of experienced public health professionals, shutting down congressionally mandated offices, and rescinding over $1 billion in committed funding to states and local communities. These programs are being gutted in real time, and the same House Republicans who claim to support them are standing by in silence.
At the same time, just two weeks ago, Republicans pushed through the largest cut to Medicaid in U.S. history, slashing the very program that covers nearly 40 percent of all nonelderly adults living with substance use disorder.
I will continue to fight to protect Medicaid and hold the Trump administration accountable for its cruel, irresponsible assault on mental health and substance use care.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)
Introduction comes as Congressional Republicans push to make higher education more unaffordable through their Big Ugly Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28) and Sen. Alex Padilla (CA) reintroduced the Protecting Our Students by Terminating Graduate Rates that Add to Debt (POST GRAD) Act, a bill that would once again make graduate students eligible to receive Federal Direct Subsidized Loans.
For over a decade, unlike their undergraduate counterparts, graduate students have only been eligible to receive Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans which accrue interest even while they are still in school. This is because the Budget Control Act of 2011 stripped graduate students of eligibility for the Federal Direct Subsidized Loan. This can cost a student thousands of additional dollars over the life of the loan, particularly as interest rates on graduate loans are now at their highest since 2006. The POST GRAD Act would reverse the provision of the Budget Control Act and restore the eligibility of graduate students to receive Federal Direct Subsidized Loans.
Many professions like mental health clinicians, school administrators, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists often require a graduate degree, but the high cost of borrowing can dissuade potential students from seeking these advanced degrees or discourage students from entering lower-paying public service jobs after graduation.
Instead of addressing this higher education affordability crisis, Congressional Republicans are pushing to make the problem even worse. Recently, House Republicans passed a reconciliation bill that, among other harmful provisions, would eliminate the Grad PLUS loan program, a vital source of federal support for graduate students. Nationally, over 1.6 million student borrowers have Grad PLUS loans, amounting to $91 billion in debt. California has nearly 57,000 Grad PLUS borrowers, according to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.
“Many of the most rewarding and in-demand jobs in the U.S. require advanced degrees, but do not always come with high earning potential. A lifetime of debt should never be the cost for obtaining a graduate degree,” said Rep. Chu. “At a time when our country is facing a shortage of specialized workers in critical fields, we should be doing everything we can to encourage students to enter these fields, rather than creating additional barriers to higher education. Democrats in Congress are committed to lowering costs and reducing debt, and that’s why I’m proud to be joined by Senator Padilla in introducing the POST GRAD Act as one important step in making higher education more attainable to everyone in America.”
“Graduate students help fuel our economy, filling workforce shortages in critical sectors like health care, education, and STEM that often require advanced degrees. Yet, too many talented students in California and nationally cannot afford to pursue advanced degrees due to the rising cost of higher education,” said Senator Padilla. “As Republicans threaten to slash the Grad PLUS program entirely, we are taking a stand to make graduate school more affordable by reinstating subsidized federal student loans for graduate students so they don’t accrue interest while they are in school. We did this for decades, and now is the time to support our 21st century graduate workforce and expand educational opportunities for low-income communities.”
“The cost of graduate education often serves as a barrier to pursuing advanced degrees, including in psychology, where shortages of qualified, culturally competent providers persist. By reinstating subsidized federal student loans for graduate students, the POST GRAD Act would relieve a portion of the financial burden associated with financing a graduate degree. APA applauds Congresswoman Chu and Senator Padilla for their leadership on this important legislation, which would make graduate study more affordable and help build a workforce ready to meet the growing needs of our population,” said Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association.
The bill is endorsed by: American Psychological Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Education Association, AccessLex, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, American Physical Therapy Association, American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges, American Occupational Therapy Association, Association of Schools Advancing Health Professions, Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry, Physician Assistant Education Association, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, Council on Social Work Education, American Dental Education Association, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Association of the Colleges of Podiatric Medicine, University of California System.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) joined Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, in leading a bipartisan letter to Senate leaders urging them to promptly consider the United States–Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act. This legislation would eliminate burdensome double taxation between the United States and Taiwan, which is one of our largest and most important trading partners, and is a key step toward strengthening our economic partnership. Rep. Chu has long advocated for this legislation as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
The letter was signed by Reps. Judy Chu (D-CA), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), and Greg Stanton (D-AZ).
“The United States-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act is essential to U.S. economic and national security interests and would have immediate, tangible benefits in fostering U.S.- Taiwan commerce and mitigate double taxation imposed on multinational businesses, investors, and workers. By removing double taxation with Taiwan, we can unlock new investment into the United States—especially from Taiwan’s world-class advanced manufacturing sector,” wrote the Members.
This bill passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the 118th and 119th Congresses. Lawmakers are now urging swift Senate action to ensure the bill becomes law without delay.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congresswoman Judy Chu (CA-28) led 27 California Delegation Members in a letter sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) urging the agency to conduct comprehensive soil testing and establish a remediation program for properties impacted by the devastating Eaton and Palisades Fires in Los Angeles County.
Recent testing by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and independent testing by the The Los Angeles Times, revealed alarmingly high levels of lead and other toxic metals in properties cleared through federal debris removal operations. According to the findings, 27% of soil samples from the Eaton Fire burn area exceeded California’s residential lead standards — a number that rose to 44% in unscraped areas. Independent investigations by theLos Angeles Timescorroborated these findings, with some sites showing lead levels more than three times the state benchmark. Nearly 16,000 structures were destroyed in the two fires combined.
The Members wrote, “Thousands of homeowners, particularly in Altadena where nearly 96% of homes destroyed by the fire pre-dated the 1978 ban on lead paint, now face the difficult choice of incurring the significant personal expense of soil testing and remediation, or living with the potential threat of long-term exposure to hazardous substances. As experts have stressed, lead exposure, especially for children, can cause irreversible cognitive, developmental, and behavioral damage.”
In the letter, the Members call on FEMA to:
Provide federal funding to offer comprehensive soil testing, on a voluntary, opt-in basis, to property owners whose properties were destroyed or impacted in the Eaton and Palisades Fire.
Establish a process to remediate properties that exceed California’s safety thresholds for lead and other toxins, including redeploying cleanup crews to perform soil bioremediation or further soil removal as needed.
Work with federal and state health agencies to provide clear guidance to homeowners and builders regarding safe rebuilding practices, soil management, and personal protective measures on properties with marginal contamination levels.
The Members concluded, “Without these steps, disaster survivors are being left with an undue financial burden and potential health risks. We appreciate FEMA’s longstanding commitment to disaster recovery and urge you to act swiftly to ensure that the residents of Altadena, the Pacific Palisades, and surrounding communities can safely rebuild their homes and lives with confidence that their properties are free of toxic contamination.”
California Delegation signers include Representatives Brad Sherman (CA-32), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Raul Ruiz, M.D. (CA-25), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Ted W. Lieu (CA-36), John Garamendi (CA-08), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Derek T. Tran (CA-45), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Dave Min (CA-47), George Whitesides (CA-27), Norma J. Torres (CA-35), Luz M. Rivas (CA-29), Ami Bera (CA-06), Laura Friedman (CA-30), Scott H. Peters (CA-50), Mike Levin (CA-49), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Gil Cisneros (CA-31), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Pete Aguilar (CA-33), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Eric Swalwell (CA-14), Ro Khanna (CA-17).
Rep. Chu’s full letter to FEMA can be foundhere.
On May 19, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health launched a new, county-funded soil testing program in response to these alarming findings. “I commend the County for stepping up to protect public health by offering free soil testing to residents within and downwind of the Eaton Fire burn area. This program is a critical first step, but we need FEMA’s full partnership to ensure all affected homeowners—including the thousands whose homes were destroyed in the fires—have access to testing as well as remediation,” said Rep. Chu.
For more information about soil contaminants and testing conducted by Los Angeles County, please visit http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/eaton-soil-testing/
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)
PASADENA, CA – Following reportsthat Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California President David Huerta was violently arrested and injured while peacefully observing an ICE raid in Downtown Los Angeles, Rep. Judy Chu released the following statement:
“I am outraged at the ICE raids in downtown Los Angeles that not only targeted immigrant workers and spread fear throughout our community, but also attempted to silence those who dare to speak out against the Trump Administration’s cruel and unlawful immigration agenda.”
“It is clear that SEIU President David Huerta was exercising his right to observe law enforcement activity and stand with community in peaceful protest to these raids. I stand with David and with immigrant communities across this country, and demand his immediate release along with the release of those detained in the raids. I will not allow this administration to tear apart families and terrorize neighborhoods. Immigrants strengthen our nation and every person in this country has a right to due process. We need answers. We need accountability. And we need to put an end to Donald Trump’s inhumane and disgusting attacks on immigrant communities.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark DeSaulnier Representing the 11th District of California
“I remain deeply concerned about the safety and wellbeing of members of our community as ICE continues to terrorize California cities with dangerous, extra-legal immigration raids, including activity today in Contra Costa County that targeted individuals who were in the process of going through the proper judicial and legal immigration systems – exactly what proponents of immigration enforcement purport to advocate for.
This targeting has been cruel, unnecessary, at times lacking due process, and is yet another attempt by the Trump Administration to punish California over policy disagreements and to pursue a vendetta against its forward-looking, tolerant vision.
Californians will not back down in the face of intimidation and authoritarianism. My office is closely monitoring the situation, and constituents can visit my websiteto familiarize themselves with their rights.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mark DeSaulnier Representing the 11th District of California
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier issued the following statement in response to the Trump Administration’s proposal to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), the independent agency responsible for investigating chemical disasters, including fatal fires and explosions.
“It is unconscionable that in his drive to amass more and more power, the President would dismantle an agency whose sole purpose is safety. Unfortunately, our community knows all too well what happens when safety is overlooked at oil refineries: death, injuries, unbreathable air, and more. Having spent my career fighting to regulate nearby refineries, I know the vital role the CSB plays in probing the root causes of chemical incidents and in issuing recommendations that have helped keep workers and communities safer. I will do everything possible in Congress to fight this dangerous executive overreach and protect the Chemical Safety Board.”
Congressman DeSaulnier is a senior member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce. During his tenure on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, he played a pivotal role in the Industrial Safety Ordinance and the Refinery Flare Rule for local refineries and chemical facilities following a deadly explosion at the Tosco refinery in 1997. When President Trump previously tried to eliminate the CSB in 2018 and Congressional Republicans proposed to reduce its funding, Congressman DeSaulnier successfully authored an amendment that passed into law to ensure it was fully funded.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON — Speaker Johnson will travel to address a special session of the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem on Sunday, June 22.
“It will be one of the highest honors of my life to address the Israeli Knesset at this fateful moment. Our ties run deeper than military partnerships and trade agreements. We’re bound by the same beliefs, the same psalms, and the same sacred pursuit of liberty,” Speaker Johnson said, announcing the trip.
“Today, the State of Israel and Jewish people around the world face grave threats, and it is our moral imperative to stand by our sister democracy. As terror and vile antisemitic ideology threaten Western Civilization, Israel must know that when America said, ‘Never Again,’ we meant it.”
Speaker of the Knesset Amir Ohana made the following statement:
“Mike Johnson is a great friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. From the moment he was elected, he not only expressed his support through words but also took decisive action, even at the risk of his position, to support Israel in its most challenging moments. I hold him in great esteem, believe he is highly deserving of addressing the Knesset, and look forward to hosting him and hearing his words to the nation.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tonight, Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries hosted a bipartisan vigil to honor the lives of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, two Israeli embassy staffers who were killed in a violent act of antisemitism after leaving an event at the Capital Jewish Museum last month. Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries were joined by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter; CEO of the American Jewish Committee Ted Deutch; Israeli embassy staff, and Members of Congress.
Watch Speaker Johnson’s remarks here
Below are Speaker Johnson’s remarks as delivered:
We gather tonight to honor the memory of two precious souls, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of Sarah and Yaron, and all those who have come from the Israeli Embassy tonight and the AJC to honor their memory. We want to thank you all for being here.
We took every precaution to arrange this evening and ensure the safety of everyone in attendance. And sadly, that’s because it’s a dangerous time to be a Jewish American. The two innocent lives we honor today should still be with us. Sarah and Yaron were young, and they were in love. They led honorable lives of advocacy at the Israeli Embassy, and they devoted themselves to peace in the land that they so loved.
The monster who murdered them was not motivated by peace, but something very different. He went to a Jewish museum to hunt down Jewish people. And we want to be crystal clear tonight: this is targeted antisemitic terrorism. There are no shades of gray and there is no other way to describe it.
As we’ve seen in the week since, this violence is sadly not isolated. Just 10 days after these murders, a group of Jewish Americans, most of them elderly and one a Holocaust survivor, were pelted with Molotov cocktails in Boulder, Colorado. In Colorado and in our capital city we see two cold-blooded monsters separated by 2,000 miles, but united in their sick hatred of the Jewish people. It just defies understanding.
Both individuals chanted a slogan that is all too familiar on college campuses and city streets since the horrors of October 7th: ‘Free Palestine.’ It’s the chant of a violent movement that has found common cause with Hamas, and it’s a movement that has lost hold of the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, between light and darkness and barbarism.
The chants of the terrorists who pillaged Israel on October 7th are almost indistinguishable from those of Hamas sympathizers here on our own shores. They proclaim that violence is righteous, that rape is justice and that murder is liberation.
They have created a culture of lies that puts a bounty on the heads of peace-loving Jewish Americans. And the insidious spread of this violent ideology has emboldened the evil worldview of people like the one that took the lives of Sarah and Yaron.
Where is the outrage for these two young victims? There have been no national protests for them or the many victims of antisemitic violence all around this country, no calls in the streets to say their names. No chants for justice or peace.
We cannot let these depraved antisemitic terrorists silence us. We must stand up and protect our Jewish brothers and sisters. The Republicans and the Democrats here today stand united in that cause and condemning the violence and the rhetoric that directly aides and abets it. We have a responsibility to recommit ourselves to the cause for which Sarah and Yaron lived and for which they literally gave their lives. That is the cause of peace.
I am reminded of the scripture that says blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Tonight, we honor two of God’s children, tragically lost too soon.
Developers plan to add 18.7 gigawatts (GW) of combined-cycle capacity to the grid by 2028, with 4.3 GW already under construction, according to our latest Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Although electricity generators fueled by natural gas have provided more electricity in the United States than any other source since 2016, hardly any new natural gas capacity came online last year.
Combined-cycle units contribute to grid operation, reliability Relatively efficient combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) account for most of the natural gas-fired generating capacity in the United States. CCGT units are flexible and can quickly ramp up or down to respond to changes in power supply, supporting the reliability of the transmission system especially as more renewable capacity is integrated in the system.
The design lifetime of CCGT units is typically 25 years to 30 years. However, with comprehensive maintenance, component replacements, and strategic upgrades, their lifetime can be significantly extended.
Only one CCGT came online last year Only one industrial sector CCGT power generator came online last year, adding 98 megawatts of CCGT capacity to the existing power plant at Plaquemines LNG. The recent decline in CCGT capacity additions can be partly attributed to a shift to bring more renewable capacity online, mainly solar and wind. Operators have also developed battery storage capacity that is often paired with renewables. Decreasing construction costs for renewables as well as federal tax incentives and other policies further encourage investment in renewable energy projects.
Another 18.7 GW of CCGT capacity could come online through 2028 Developers plan to add 1.6 GW of CCGT in 2025, according to our latest Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, which compiles the current status of existing and proposed utility-scale generating units. Two of the four new plants—the Intermountain Power Project in Utah and Magnolia Power in Louisiana—will include the capability to co-fire with hydrogen and have a combined capacity of 1.5 GW.
In our monthly survey, we ask respondents to provide statuses of planned units to distinguish whether a generator is in early stages of development, such as seeking regulatory approval, or in later stages of construction. More than half of the 3.3 GW of capacity that developers expect to bring online in 2026 is already under construction. Most of the 3.3 GW capacity developers plan to bring online in 2027 is not yet under construction.
Another 10.6 GW might be added in 2028. If realized, that would be the most CCGT capacity coming online in any year since 2018. However, developers of all those planned units are working through regulatory approvals and securing needed equipment, both of which add uncertainty to their construction costs and initial operation date.
Principal contributors: Lindsay Aramayo, Mark Schipper, Mark Morey
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Chris Pappas (D-NH)
Yesterday Congressman Chris Pappas (NH-01) spoke on the House floor to honor the life and legacy of Hope Salta Makris of Laconia, who passed away on May 29, 2025. For more than 80 years, Hope built and operated the NASWA Resort in Laconia and was dedicated to giving back to her community and improving the lives of those in the Lakes Region and beyond.
In addition to running a landmark Lake Winnipesaukee destination and providing world-class hospitality to her guests, Hope was committed to championing causes important to her. She was a dedicated supporter of New Hampshire’s veterans and gave back to her state and community through a number of charitable organizations and volunteer efforts.
Read his full remarks below or watch the video here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to honor the life and memory of Hope Salta Makris, a pioneering businesswoman and community leader from Laconia.
The matriarch of the NASWA Resort, Hope helped run one of the Lakes Region’s most iconic establishments for more than 80 years as it grew from a few cabins to one of the region’s major resorts.
Countless visitors experienced her hospitality and generosity firsthand over the years, and they likely tried some of her signature baked goods. Along with her late husband, Peter, Hope made her mark on the community by supporting veterans, helping the Fire Department acquire new equipment, and being a leader in New Hampshire’s tourist economy.
New Hampshire owes Hope and the entire Makris family a debt of gratitude for the ways they have bettered our communities, particularly in the Lakes Region.
Hope leaves a profound legacy after a century of life and hard work, and I know others will continue to be inspired by her dedication and compassion to all those around her.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Chris Pappas (D-NH)
Last night, the House passed the ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act, bipartisan legislation co-led by Congressman Chris Pappas (NH-01), which would require the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Council on Disability to collaborate to help people with disabilities pursue small business ownership and employment opportunities.
“Entrepreneurs and small businesses face a range of unique challenges, and we know a one-size-fits-all approach by government agencies to provide support they need is simply ineffective,” said Congressman Pappas. “I’m glad the House passed bipartisan legislation I helped introduce to require the SBA to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to pursue small business ownership and employment opportunities. I remain committed to ensuring our Main Street economy can grow and thrive, and I urge the Senate to swiftly take up this bill to deliver to improve support for our small businesses and entrepreneurs.”
Background:
The ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act would require SBA and the National Council on Disability to collaborate to help people with disabilities pursue small business ownership and employment opportunities.
Last summer, the ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Actpassed the House with bipartisan support.
The ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act is supported by the Commission for Disability Employment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Chris Pappas (D-NH)
Today Congressmen Chris Pappas (NH-01), Rudy Yakym (IN-02), Tim Burchett (TN-02), and John Garamendi (CA-08)introduced a bipartisan resolution expressing support for the designation of the week of June 2-8, 2025, as “National Trailer Safety Week” in the United States.
“This National Trailer Safety Week I am glad to join my colleagues in introducing this resolution highlighting the importance of trailer safety,” Rep. Pappas said.“Trailer safety and education, from recreational use to every day on the job, is critical to keeping everyone on our roads safe.”
“I’m proud to put forward this resolution highlighting the critical importance of trailer safety,” Rep. Yakym said.“In northern Indiana, the manufacturers I represent build everything from towable RVs to cargo and horse trailers. Promoting safe towing practices is key to keeping our roads safer and making sure people across the country can continue to enjoy the many advantages trailers offer.”
“I used to sell utility trailers and car haulers,” Rep. Burchett said.“I am happy to work with my colleagues to advocate for trailer safe-use practices. We need to continue working to keep our roads and highways safe for everyone.”
“Every year, 50,000 trailer accidents injure 21,000 Americans and kill hundreds,” Rep. Garamendi said.“I am honored to join my colleagues in introducing this resolution to raise awareness about trailer safety and help keep our roads safe. Trailer Safety Week is a critical opportunity to ensure that both manufacturers and drivers have the information they need to keep America’s roadways safe.”
“Trailer Safety Week strives to enhance roadway safety for all Americans, and we truly value the ongoing support and acknowledgment at the federal level,” Alex Stowe, National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM) Executive Director said.“With nearly one million new trailers hitting our nation’s roads each year, accessible education on trailer safety is crucial. Whether you’re towing a boat for a weekend getaway or a utility trailer for work tasks, having the essential knowledge for safe towing is crucial. Trailer safety is synonymous to traffic safety, impacting everyone. We extend our gratitude to Representatives Yakym, Burchett, Garamendi, and Pappas for recognizing the significance of our Trailer Safety Week initiative and the role it plays in improving roadway safety.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Chris Pappas (D-NH)
On Thursday Congressman Chris Pappas (NH-01) spoke on the House floor to highlight the disastrous impacts of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) passed under the Republican budget scheme last month.Watch the full video here.
Pappas shared a number of the stories from Granite Staters who rely on programs like SNAP and promised to continue to fight against these and other reckless cuts to vital services that Republicans have proposed in order to finance tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy.
Read his full remarks below or watch the video here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today because the Republicans’ budget scheme, pushed through in the middle of the night last month, is putting school meals for hungry kids and food assistance for working families at risk.
A constituent of mine, Martha from Somersworth, is raising her 15-year-old grandson and battling breast cancer while living on a fixed income.
Without SNAP, she wouldn’t be able to keep food on the table.
Another constituent, Catherine, is a veteran from Manchester who has type 2 diabetes.
She wouldn’t be able to afford the diet she needs to keep herself healthy without SNAP, and fears losing her benefits could put her life at risk if she’s unable to manage her blood sugar.
And people across my district, from Newmarket to Gilford, tell me they wouldn’t be able to afford groceries without some help.
It’s a betrayal of working families for Republicans to take away food so they can give tax breaks to billionaires.
We must continue speaking out against these cuts and doing everything we can to stop a reckless, cruel budget from moving forward.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN)
WASHINGTON—Following the five-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder in her district, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) reintroduced a package of bills to address continued police brutality and misuse of force. The package includes crucial legislation that creates a federal agency to investigate misuse of force by police and a bill to protect protesters by making police violence against protesters a federal crime. It also includes a resolution condemning police brutality globally.
“In the wake of the five-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder in my district, it is clear we still need to pass bold legislation to address systemic racism embedded within policing,” said Rep. Omar. “It is our moral responsibility to do everything we can to prevent future killings and ensure that police are held fully accountable when they commit violence against civilians. This package will bring us one step closer to a future where no one will live in fear of police violence.”
The National Police Misuse of Force Investigation Board Act – This bill establishes a federal agency responsible for investigating all nationwide deaths occurring in police custody, officer-involved shootings, and uses of force that result in severe bodily injury. The agency will conduct unbiased, independent investigations and issue determinations of responsibility and recommendations for reform that will prevent future violence. Those findings will be admissible in court. Federal funding for law enforcement activities and equipment will be curtailed if a police department fails to take meaningful action on the Board’s policy and reform recommendations. You can read the bill here.
The Protecting Our Protesters Act – This legislation allows any officer who kills or causes bodily harm to a civilian during the response to a protest to be charged with a federal crime. We must ensure that the constitutional right to protest is duly protected, not threatened or stifled by law enforcement officers. You can read the bill here.
Global Police Brutality Resolution – The resolution calls on Congress to stand with peaceful protesters around the world in their calls for justice and condemns police brutality wherever in the world it occurs. You can read the bill here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN)
WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) joined a press conference in front of the United States Capitol Building to condemn President Donald Trump’s travel ban and to reintroduce the NO BAN Act.
The Congresswoman emphasized how disastrous Trump’s racist travel ban will be. It will keep families separated and endanger lives.
Rep. Omar also joined her colleagues in reintroducing the NO BAN Act to prevent future presidents from holding the authority to suspend or restrict any group of immigrants from entering the United States by prohibiting religious discrimination from immigration-based decisions.
The full video can be foundhere.
Full transcript below:
“Make no mistake: This discriminatory policy is shameful and as history looks back at this moment, it will be a stain on our country.
“Donald Trump’s proclamation is riddled with outright falsehoods, relies on debunked statistics, and is rife with internal contradictions.
“He claims this is a way to make us safer, let me be absolutely clear: it won’t make us safer, it will separate families and endanger lives.
“Because of this decision, our country will lose out on incredible contributions that people from these countries would’ve otherwise made to our neighborhoods and our society.
“Contributions like becoming educators, doctors, and public servants.
“This decision will not only hurt our country, it will have immediate disastrous implications.
“For some Americans, it will mean their fiancés, or spouses or children will be banned from reuniting with them here.
“It will mean family members will have to miss weddings and graduations and funerals.
“Just as they did in their first term, with their repeated efforts to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, the Trump Administration is using national security justifications to prevent people they deem undesirable from entering the United States.
“That means Muslims again, and it also means Black people.
“In his first term, Trump famously mused about why we didn’t have more Norwegians immigrants and fewer from what he called “shithole countries.”
“Now, he’s banning people from 19 Black and brown countries based solely on their nationality and resettling White South Africans.
“The racism is not exactly subtle.
“All 19 of the nationalities we are now banning have produced Americans that have displayed more patriotism and loyalty and contributed more to this country than Donald Trump and Stephen Miller could ever dream of.
“From the time I arrived in this country as a refugee with my family, I have never lost sight of the extraordinary generosity and hospitality of the United States that allowed us to begin our lives again here, and eventually led me to the United States House of Representatives.
“But I have also always known that the United States did not let us live here purely out of the expansive goodness of its heart.
“We contribute to the economy, we contribute to the political and social life of this country, we join the military, we defend the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents with the passion that comes from having lived a life where those freedoms were not guaranteed.
“It is, and has always been, mutually beneficial, and we have always taken our part in that seriously.
“The United States has never been a white nationalist country, and no matter how much Donald Trump and Stephen Miller try, it never will be.
“This will be remembered, along with so much else they are trying now, as a shameful betrayal of the exact qualities that make America great.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN)
MINNEAPOLIS–Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) released the following statement following the enforcement action that took place on Lake Street in Minneapolis yesterday.
“Our community is on high alert, panicked, and scared after yesterday’s federal enforcement action on Lake Street. What we saw with the militarized force and unjust misuse of force created chaos that was on full display.
“While we do not have all the details, HSI confirmed it was part of a criminal investigation, not an immigration raid. Our office is in contact with officials at our local FBI, HSI, MPD, and Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. While the investigation is ongoing, we might not be able to give more information immediately, but we will share available information as soon as we receive it.
“We all have a duty to keep our neighbors safe and protect the most vulnerable in our community.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Pete Stauber (MN-08)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Pete Stauber (MN-08) and Congressman Nick Langworthy (NY-23) introduced the Northern Border Staffing and Security Enhancement Act, legislation aimed at bolstering security at the United States’ Northern Border.
Specifically, the Northern Border Staffing and Security Enhancement Act will require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a comprehensive Northern Border Threat Analysis to Congress every 5 years. Further, this legislation requires DHS to address staffing challenges at northern ports of entry and the retirement crisis looming at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Of this legislation, Congressman Pete Stauber stated, “While apprehensions at our southern border have declined to historic lows, persistent challenges at our northern border have prevented similar success. Too often overlooked, the northern border is understaffed and underresourced, leaving Minnesota and our nation exposed to the risks associated with illegal immigration. This legislation ensures we are taking a data-driven approach to address these shortcomings and strengthen the security of our northern border.”
Congressman Langworthy stated, “I am honored to be the co-lead on this critical legislation to strengthen security along our Northern Border. With outdated threat assessments and a looming staffing crisis at our northern ports of entry, it is clear that urgent action is needed to protect our communities and our country. The Northern Border hasn’t seen a comprehensive threat analysis since 2017, and our strategy hasn’t been updated in over six years. Meanwhile, the CBP is already facing a shortage of nearly 6,000 officers—and is on track for a 400% retirement surge by 2028. This will leave our most vulnerable and geographically isolated border crossings dangerously understaffed and underprepared. I will continue fighting to ensure our region gets the resources, personnel, and strategic attention it deserves.”
House Republican Leadership Chairwoman Elise Stefanik stated, “The southern border might receive more media attention, but our northern border is essential to Upstate New York and North Country residents from invasion. I am working with DHS to update the Northern Border Threat Analysis and prioritize the staffing challenges that have left our state vulnerable to illegal migration including terrorists, drug traffickers, and gang members.”
BACKGROUND:
Northern ports of entry face unique staffing challenges because they are located in isolated areas with harsh winters, scarce housing, and limited economic opportunity.
Last year, then Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner Troy A. Miller testified before the House Committee on Appropriations that ports of entry face a 400% increase in retirements in 2028. All the while, terrorists attempt to cross the northern border more frequently than the southern border. If nothing is done, CBP will be devastatingly short of officers, and will be unable to perform its paramount mission.
Since 2017, DHS released one Congressionally mandated Threat Analysis and has not updated its Northern Border Strategy since 2018.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (5th District Missouri)
(Washington, D.C.) – This week, U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) joined with Representatives Dan Goldman (D-NY), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Dina Titus (D-NV), Doris Matsui (D-CA), John Larson (D-CT), and April McClain Delaney (D-MD) to protect federal funding for NPR, PBS, and America’s public broadcasting. Together, the legislators introduced an amendment to remove a provision within the Republican rescission packagethat would eliminate federal funding for these vital institutions, which were included in the unlawful cuts made by DOGE. The package is expected to receive a vote in the House of Representatives later this week.
“At a time when families are struggling to keep up with the cost of living, my Republican colleagues are not focused on lowering costs for hardworking families; instead, they’re working to eliminate funding for public broadcasting services that provide vital information to communities across the country,” said Congressman Cleaver. “Respectfully, I don’t know a single person who voted to kill Sesame Street, but I do know families across my congressional district who rely on the services provided by outlets like NPR and PBS during times of crisis. When Republicans in the past tried to gut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Mr. Rogers himself stepped up to convince Congress to maintain this funding. I’ve always supported investments in our public broadcasters, and I’m hopeful my colleagues across the aisle will come to their senses and listen to the wise words of Fred Rogers before they do long-term damage to these American institutions and the Americans they serve.”
The letter comes as the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress continue to attack public journalism’s editorial independence and crack down on public broadcasting nationwide. Last month, the administration issued an unlawful Executive Order directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease all funding for NPR and PBS, which support local TV and radio news outlets across the country. CPB-funded public media reaches nearly 99.7% percent of the American population, and its funding supports over 1,500 public television and radio stations across the country, supporting approximately 20,000 local jobs.
Congressman Cleaver has been a longtime supporter of America’s public broadcasting, pushing back on the Trump administration’s effort to undermine these vital services. In March, Cleaver joined a bipartisan coalition of lawmakersto callfor continued funding for public broadcasting following reportsthe FCC had opened a frivolous investigation into NPR and PBS and signaled interest in defunding the outlets. In May, the Congressman again joined a cohort of lawmakers tocall onthe Committee on Appropriations to maintain funding for CPB programs.
Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee’s Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Greenwood, Blue Springs, North Kansas City, Gladstone, and Claycomo. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II (5th District Missouri)
The Legislation Would Ensure Broadcast Programming Reflects Diversity of American People
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Representatives Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and Steven Horsford (D-NV) introducedThe Broadcast VOICES (Varied Ownership Incentives for Community Expanded Service) Act, legislation to reestablish the Federal Communications Commission’s Minority Tax Certificate Program (MTCP). From 1978 to 1995, the MTCP provided a tax incentive to those who sold their majority interest in a broadcast station to diverse individuals, increasing diverse ownership in broadcast stations by more than 550 percent.
“Kansas City is proud to be home of the oldest Black-owned radio broadcast company in the United States, serving as a prime example of the quality and community connection that comes with minority-owned media outlets,” Rep. Cleaver said. “I’m honored to introduce the Broadcast VOICES Act with my friend Congressman Horsford, which will ensure opportunities are provided to more women- and minority-owned broadcasters who uplift the voices of communities that are far too often overlooked.”
“Diverse ownership in broadcasting helps amplify voices, viewpoints and perspectives that our society has historically silenced,” Rep. Horsford said. “The Minority Tax Certificate Program’s nearly twenty-year success record diversifying broadcast ownership speaks for itself – not just in effective tax incentives, but also in creating economic opportunities and empowering disadvantaged communities. I’m proud to partner with Rep. Cleaver on the Broadcast VOICES Act to make sure America’s airwaves reflect the diversity of our people.”
Data from 2021 shows that less than 6 percent full power commercial broadcast television stations in the United States are owned by women and less than 4 percent are minority-owned. Moreover, data also shows approximately 9 percent of FM broadcast radio stations are owned by women, while less than three percent are owned by minorities.
TheBroadcast VOICES Actwould:
Reestablish a Minority Tax Certificate Program.
Establish a tax credit for broadcast owners who donate their stations to train individuals new in the management and operation of broadcast stations, equal to the fair market value of the station.
Require annual reports from the Federal Communications Commission on:
Ways to increase minority and/or women-controlled broadcast stations;
Whether to expand the tax certificate program to other commission-regulated entities;
Whether there is a nexus between diversity of ownership and diversity of the viewpoints broadcast by stations;
Annual sales for which certificates have been issued.
Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee’s Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Greenwood, Blue Springs, North Kansas City, Gladstone, and Claycomo. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sharice Davids (KS-3)
Last week, ahead of the 60th anniversary of the landmarkGriswold v. Connecticutdecision affirming the constitutional right to contraception, U.S. Representatives Sharice Davids (KS-03), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Judy Chu (CA-27), and Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07) demandedthe Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to immediately restore funding for the Title X Family Planning Program.
Title X is the only federal program solely dedicated to family planning. Despite Congressional approval, the Trump Administration is withholding funding from 16 grantees across 23 states under vague investigations into “possible violations.” Grantees have received no updates or timeline, forcing health centers to slash staff, reduce services, and in some cases close entirely.
This funding freeze is a part of the Trump Administration’s larger attacks on reproductive freedom, including rescinding Biden-era guidance for emergency abortions this week. Title X is essential for preventing unwanted pregnancies and ensuring access to care for all.
“We must not turn a blind eye to the broader mounting threats to our reproductive freedoms. Both contraception and abortion are essential health care services and part of a full range of sexual and reproductive health care that allow every American the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies and their own futures. The overturning of Roe v. Wade dealt a direct blow to people’s privacy rights, access to health care, including imperiling access to contraception. In a world where access to abortion is severely limited or not accessible at all, it is even more important for people who want to prevent pregnancy to be able to affordably and easily access it from trusted family planning providers of their choice,” the Members wrote in a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy, Jr.
The Members continued, “That is why Title X is so important. Title X has historically received broad bipartisan support and has been funded by Congress every year since 1970 because we recognize what Griswold holds true: that all individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and lives.”
“60 years ago the right to birth control was established in Griswold v Connecticut, but today the attacks to take away our reproductive rights are relentless. President Trump’s decision to withhold Title X funding shows he’s so determined to shutter Planned Parenthood health centers that he’s willing to harm millions of people and deny many their only source of health care to do it. In the more than 50 years since this bipartisan, popular program has been in effect, Title X funding has played a critical role in allowing patients to access vital services and has helped Planned Parenthood health centers provide critical care like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment. This, along with Trump and Congressional Republicans’ efforts to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood, reveals a dangerous and unacceptable agenda that will leave millions at risk of losing health care and nearly 200 health centers at risk of closing. This funding must be released so that patients can get the life-saving and affordable care they need,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
“Withholding Title X funds from trusted providers — without transparency or resolution — is not just unjustified; it’s a direct threat to essential health care for millions,” said Clare Coleman, President & CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. “More than 60 days after this reckless and unlawful HHS action affecting Title X-funded care in 23 states, we are seeing health center closures, staff layoffs, and reduced services — all of which will lead directly to worsening health outcomes. While the right to contraception guaranteed to Americans under Griswold has never been more precarious, the facts stand: everyone deserves the freedom to make their own choices about their lives and health, without political interference.”
Full text of the letter sent to Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can be found hereand below:
Dear Secretary Kennedy,
On the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, we write to express our unwavering support for the Title X Family Planning Program (Title X), the only domestic federally-funded program dedicated to family planning. For 60 years, the constitutional right to contraception has been protected by Griswold v. Connecticut, empowering millions with the ability to make their own reproductive health care decisions. However, due to the actions of this Administration, reproductive freedom is under threat. The Administration’s decision to withhold millions in funding for Title X means low income individuals have lost access to contraceptive services and supplies. On this landmark anniversary of Griswold, it is extremely important to protect Title X and reiterate why it has and should continue to serve as the cornerstone of safety-net care for millions of people.
Title X provides access to contraception to help people avoid pregnancies they do not want, and to plan and space pregnancies they do want, decreasing the risk of complications. This is even more critical for patients who face financial barriers to health care. Title X plays an instrumental role in ensuring patients get the care they need and want without cost being a barrier. In 2023, 83% of clients served by Title X-funded clinics had family incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level, with 60% qualifying for free services because they had incomes at or below 100% of the federal poverty level ($30,000 for a family of four). Among all Title X clients, 27% were uninsured, while 67% of users with some form of health insurance had public insurance coverage. It is no wonder that 60% of women who receive reproductive health care services from Title X providers say it is the only form of health care they receive in a year. The Title X program supports a network of approximately 4,000 clinics across the country. Without Title X funding, many of these clinics could shutter, ripping access to contraception away from millions.
As we reflect on the significance of Griswold, we must not turn a blind eye to the broader mounting threats to our reproductive freedoms. Both contraception and abortion are essential health care services and part of a full range of sexual and reproductive health care that allow every American the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies and their own futures. The overturning of Roe v. Wade dealt a direct blow to people’s privacy rights, access to health care, including imperiling access to contraception. In a world where access to abortion is severely limited or not accessible at all, it is even more important for people who want to prevent pregnancy to be able to affordably and easily access it from trusted family planning providers of their choice That is why Title X is so important. Title X has historically received broad bipartisan support and has been funded by Congress every year since 1970 because we recognize what Griswold holds true: that all individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and lives.
On March 31, 2025, your Department notified 16 Title X grantees — representing networks of health care providers in 23 states — that their funding was being withheld until an investigation over ‘possible violations’ of grant terms and conditions, specifically federal civil rights laws and executive orders, could be undertaken. More than two months later, these grantees remain without funding and have received no communication from the Administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding. In that time, several of these entities have been forced to furlough or layoff staff, limit available services or charge for services that were previously available to low-income individuals at low or no cost, and shutter health centers. Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the Administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services.
We urge you to restore all appropriated funding for Title X providers and work with Congress to ensure that all people have access to the comprehensive contraception services they seek.
Imagine your parents leave you and your siblings a share of land that’s been in your family for generations. Several of your relatives already live on the land, and you’d like to do the same; but you can’t get a loan to build or renovate a home without permission from all the relatives who also share ownership. And at any moment, another heir could sell their share, triggering a court-ordered sale that could force you off the land – and lose everything you’ve invested in.
This is the reality of what’s known as heirs’ property: land passed down informally, without clear wills or deeds, which results in a “tangled” or “clouded” title.
It’s more common than you might think in the U.S., especially in rural areas, and it presents significant challenges to long-term housing stability.
Research shows that within 44 states and the District of Columbia, there are an estimated 508,371
heirs’ properties, with an assessed value of US$32 billion. (There wasn’t reliable enough data in six states.)
It’s more of an issue in some states, such as Alabama. But it’s also a problem in cities such as New York City and Philadelphia.
Because it’s so difficult to finance home construction on this land, sell it or leverage it, heirs’ property can leave families vulnerable to exploitation and perpetuate cycles of poverty. Despite these challenges, many families have nonetheless lived together and supported one another on shared land for generations.
As faculty and collaborators with Auburn University’s Rural Studio, we study heirs’ property and its role in shaping housing access. Based in Hale County, Alabama, Rural Studio has completed over 200 projects – many of them homes built on heirs’ property – providing critical housing for families facing complex land ownership challenges.
Land with no clear owner
The lack of a clear will or deed often happens due to inadequate access to – and distrust of – the legal system.
Once the land is passed down to the next generation, the heirs are known as “tenants in common,” meaning they own an undivided interest in the entire property. As the property continues to pass down from generation to generation, the number of tenants in common increases exponentially.
When a couple passes down land to their children – and then those kids pass it down to their kids – the number of heirs dramatically increases. Auburn University Rural Studio, CC BY-SA
Without clear title, no single person or group can make decisions about the property. Every heir must legally sign off on any action, which makes it nearly impossible to secure traditional forms of financing, obtain insurance, access disaster relief, or use the land as collateral.
Those living on the land often pay their share of property taxes, but distant or unaware heirs might not, which puts the entire property at risk of being lost through a tax lien sale. This leaves families with property in “tangled” status exposed to predatory land acquisition practices that often lead to land loss.
Any tenant in common can sell their share to an outside party. These outside parties – either individuals or companies – can then request a court to order what’s called a partition by sale, which can push every other owner off the land.
Imagine three siblings inherit a piece of land from their parents and are now tenants in common. One sibling sells their share to a real estate investor. That investor then goes to court and requests a partition by sale. The court then orders the entire property sold and the proceeds split among the owners, effectively forcing the other two siblings off the land, even if they wanted to keep it.
Our research in Hale County, Alabama, finds that Black families in particular have supported one another for generations while living on heirs’ property.
These multigenerational kinship networks rely on one another for child care, elder care, food, transportation and shared utility costs. But the value of this sort of living situation goes beyond social and economic benefits. The land can be woven into family lore or be steeped in the history of the surrounding area.
So, despite the legal and financial challenges, many extended families will do whatever they can to continue living together on their land. Even a small stake in heirs’ property offers connection to the past and a place to return home in the future.
Family members often live in different homes spread across heirs’ property, which often exists in a legal gray area. Auburn University Rural Studio, CC BY-SA
These informal kinship networks can provide support and resilience in ways that traditional forms of land and homeownership do not. Putting all of the people who own the land on the title – what’s known as “clearing title” – is not only costly and time-consuming, but it also often requires dividing up the property into smaller parcels, which can prevent some family members from living on the land altogether.
Meanwhile, traditional legal and financial products – think mortgages and land-use agreements with farmers – tend to be structured with sole ownership in mind. Most banks and institutions simply won’t lend to heirs’ property with tangled titles.
There have been recent efforts to protect these informal arrangements. The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, which has been enacted in 25 states, ensures due process and sets up safeguards against immediate partition by sale actions.
For example, if a suit is brought by a co-owner, a fair market value appraisal – or an agreed-upon value by all parties – must be conducted. The other shareholders of the land also have the option to buy out the shareholder bringing the suit. Under the statute, additional partition methods may be considered. And if a sale is required, it’s done on the open market.
Many organizations are working to address issues related to heirs’ property and tangled titles. Most of the work centers on clearing title, establishing shared land agreements and teaching landowners how to avoid having their property fall into a tangled title situation. For example, the Florida Housing Coalition, Housing Assistance Council and the Alabama Heirs Property Alliance are actively engaged in community education, legal support, data mapping and policy advocacy.
Build first, ask permission later
Many rural families on heirs’ property have limited pathways to homeownership. Financial constraints, limited access to quality housing options and lot restrictions have often forced residents to settle for older, substandard, manufactured homes. Small utility sheds have even begun to replace broken-down trailer homes in many rural areas.
Utility sheds are increasingly being used as homes across the U.S. South. Auburn University Rural Studio, CC BY-SA
There’s clearly a need for safe, durable housing that enables these families to build generational wealth. And that’s where Rural Studio comes in.
Building new housing or renovating existing structures means dealing with a web of zoning laws, building codes and land development ordinances, which are all tied to financing and lending systems. While many efforts to address heirs’ property aim to change legal policies, we approach this issue through housing.
We use what we call a “build first” strategy. Using funds from research grants and donations, we simply start building on heirs’ properties with the permission of families. In the process, we show that if tangled titles were no longer an obstacle, much more housing could be built.
One of our recent Rural Studio projects is the 18×18 House, a compact, multistory home built for a young man living on heirs’ property in Alabama.
The 18X18 House is a multistory home that was on heirs’ property in Alabama. Auburn University Rural Studio. Photo by Timothy Hursley, CC BY-SA
The home is nestled between several other family members’ homes. We had to work around existing electrical lines, a septic field, roads and steep topography. Despite these site constraints, the house is an ideal starter home: big enough for the young man and a future partner to live comfortably on the family plot. If he ever decides to leave, other family members can move in.
Rather than focusing on one-off products, our goal with the 18×18 House is to develop replicable housing prototypes that respond to the realities of intergenerational living on family land. We also hope that tangible housing will help policymakers understand the value of reform.
The question isn’t whether design can respond to these challenges, but how it can lead by pushing antiquated regulatory and legal frameworks to evolve.
Jennifer Pindyck receives funding from Fannie Mae, Wells Fargo and the Center for Architecture, in partnership with AIA New York. She is affiliated with the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture and is a registered architect in the state of Georgia.
Christian Ayala Lopez work is funded through a diverse range of organizations such as Fannie Mae, USDA, and Center for Architecture NY. He is affiliated to Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, and member of Florida Housing Coalition.
Rusty Smith receives funding from Fannie Mae, USDA, Wells Fargo and Regions Bank. He is affiliated with the Housing Assistance Council, the American Institute of Architects, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation Incubator, the EPA Collegiate/Underserved Community Partnership and the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Like most people, you probably would do some math before answering this question. You would add up the money in your bank accounts, the value of your investments and any equity in a home you own, then subtract your debts, such as mortgages and car loans.
But many economists believe this approach, known as calculating your net worth, leaves out a big chunk of your wealth: the benefits you’ll get in the future from Social Security, if you live in the United States, or similar government benefits programs that help retirees pay their bills in other countries.
As a sociologist who studies income and wealth inequality, I wanted to figure out just how much government safety net programs are worth to their recipients, and whether they truly can substitute for private savings.
A $40 trillion trove
A team of researchers recently estimated that future Social Security payments amounted to more than US$40 trillion as of 2019 – about $123,000 for everyone in the U.S. That huge number, which is not adjusted for inflation, was nearly one-third of the $110 trillion of Americans’ collective net worth in that year.
In a recent peer-reviewed study, published in April 2025 in Socio-Economic Review, I found that even this expanded definition of wealth leaves some important things out: unemployment insurance, the child tax credit and other widely available benefits. People who have access to these programs don’t have to dip into their savings as much when unexpected costs come up.
Social Security is by far the largest of these programs. As of 2019, the typical worker nearing retirement had banked about $412,000 in future Social Security benefits, I found – nearly as much as the $472,000 in private retirement savings such workers had. This estimate doesn’t include Social Security benefits to orphans, widows or people with disabilities.
The value of Social Security retirement benefits varies according to workers’ income and work history, ranging from $271,000 for the poorest 10% of recipients to $669,000 for the richest 10%.
Benefits from smaller safety net programs can also add up. Because some programs differ by state, I analyzed California and Texas, the two largest states. In California, I calculated that the average 45-year-old worker can count on almost $12,000 in unemployment insurance over 26 weeks, while in Texas the same worker would be eligible for more than $15,000 over the same period.
Meanwhile, under current law, many families having a child in 2025 can expect to receive about $29,000 through the federal child tax credit over the course of that kid’s lifetime.
Texas doesn’t mandate paid family leave, but California requires that each parent receive eight weeks of their salary. That’s worth another $13,000 to a family earning $90,000 a year – the median in my study – and more if the parents have higher incomes.
Where there’s even more hidden wealth
These somewhat hidden sources of wealth are worth far more in many other countries, especially Scandinavian ones. Norway provides a useful contrast.
The typical Norwegian worker retires with more than $510,000 in public pension wealth, I calculated. The exact amount they collect will vary depending on what they’ve earned and how long they live, as is the case with Social Security. But, unlike in the U.S., if they get sick, Norwegians are eligible for a up to a year of paid sick leave – worth about $57,000 to the median worker.
Norwegians can get unemployment insurance benefits for almost two years, amounting to $70,000 for the average worker, depending on their wages. And the combination of Norway’s child benefit and parental leave is worth between $60,000 and $80,000 from the time each child is born until they turn 18, depending on the parents’ exact income.
In the past few years, researchers have estimated the wealth value of public pensions – though not other government benefits – in several countries, including Australia, Austria, Germany, Poland and Switzerland, among others.
In many nations, this value rivals or exceeds that of all stocks, real estate and other private assets held by their residents combined.
Because so many people are eligible for Social Security or its equivalent public pension programs in other countries, there is also much less inequality in total retirement wealth than in standard measures of net worth.
Wealth vs. income
Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income just about everywhere. In the United States, for example, the richest 5% of the population has 32% of all income, but 70% of all wealth.
For these reasons, many politicians, scholars and activists have proposed ambitious policies to reduce inequality in private wealth, such as a wealth tax. Another idea gaining in popularity is to start issuing “baby bonds,” which give each newborn a prefunded savings account.
Wealth embedded in government benefits offers a complementary method of addressing wealth inequality. Even today, when Social Security and similar pension programs in other places are counted alongside private savings, inequality in retirement wealth is much lower than in privately held wealth alone.
Less flexible source of wealth
To be sure, the wealth you’re eventually due through Social Security and other government programs isn’t the same as the private assets you might own.
You can’t sell or borrow against your future Social Security benefits to meet an unexpected expense or make a down payment on a home. And if you die before reaching retirement age, you won’t receive any payments from the Social Security system yourself, although your spouse or heirs may be eligible for survivor benefits.
Also, government programs are not set in stone. Eligibility requirements can change, and benefit levels can be cut.
For these reasons, having a combination of private savings and government benefits offers the most promising way for everyone to prepare for their future. This can also help society address wealth inequality.
Robert Manduca has received funding from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
As summer arrives, people are turning on air conditioners in most of the U.S. But if you’re like me, you always feel a little guilty about that. Past generations managed without air conditioning – do I really need it? And how bad is it to use all this electricity for cooling in a warming world?
If I leave my air conditioner off, I get too hot. But if everyone turns on their air conditioner at the same time, electricity demand spikes, which can force power grid operators to activate some of the most expensive, and dirtiest, power plants. Sometimes those spikes can ask too much of the grid and lead to brownouts or blackouts.
Research I recently published with a team of scholars makes me feel a little better, though. We have found that it is possible to coordinate the operation of large numbers of home air-conditioning units, balancing supply and demand on the power grid – and without making people endure high temperatures inside their homes.
Studies along these lines, using remote control of air conditioners to support the grid, have for many years explored theoretical possibilities like this. However, few approaches have been demonstrated in practice and never for such a high-value application and at this scale. The system we developed not only demonstrated the ability to balance the grid on timescales of seconds, but also proved it was possible to do so without affecting residents’ comfort.
The benefits include increasing the reliability of the power grid, which makes it easier for the grid to accept more renewable energy. Our goal is to turn air conditioners from a challenge for the power grid into an asset, supporting a shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.
Originally, the U.S. electric grid was built to transport electricity from large power plants to customers’ homes and businesses. And originally, power plants were large, centralized operations that burned coal or natural gas, or harvested energy from nuclear reactions. These plants were typically always available and could adjust how much power they generated in response to customer demand, so the grid would be balanced between power coming in from producers and being used by consumers.
But the grid has changed. There are more renewable energy sources, from which power isn’t always available – like solar panels at night or wind turbines on calm days. And there are the devices and equipment I study. These newer options, called “distributed energy resources,” generate or store energy near where consumers need it – or adjust how much energy they’re using in real time.
One aspect of the grid hasn’t changed, though: There’s not much storage built into the system. So every time you turn on a light, for a moment there’s not enough electricity to supply everything that wants it right then: The grid needs a power producer to generate a little more power. And when you turn off a light, there’s a little too much: A power producer needs to ramp down.
The way power plants know what real-time power adjustments are needed is by closely monitoring the grid frequency. The goal is to provide electricity at a constant frequency – 60 hertz – at all times. If more power is needed than is being produced, the frequency drops and a power plant boosts output. If there’s too much power being produced, the frequency rises and a power plant slows production a little. These actions, a process called “frequency regulation,” happen in a matter of seconds to keep the grid balanced.
This output flexibility, primarily from power plants, is key to keeping the lights on for everyone.
I’m interested in how distributed energy resources can improve flexibility in the grid. They can release more energy, or consume less, to respond to the changing supply or demand, and help balance the grid, ensuring the frequency remains near 60 hertz.
Some people fear that doing so might be invasive, giving someone outside your home the ability to control your battery or air conditioner. Therefore, we wanted to see if we could help balance the grid with frequency regulation using home air-conditioning units rather than power plants – without affecting how residents use their appliances or how comfortable they are in their homes.
From 2019 to 2023, my group at the University of Michigan tried this approach, in collaboration with researchers at Pecan Street Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
We recruited 100 homeowners in Austin, Texas, to do a real-world test of our system. All the homes had whole-house forced-air cooling systems, which we connected to custom control boards and sensors the owners allowed us to install in their homes. This equipment let us send instructions to the air-conditioning units based on the frequency of the grid.
Before I explain how the system worked, I first need to explain how thermostats work. When people set thermostats, they pick a temperature, and the thermostat switches the air-conditioning compressor on and off to maintain the air temperature within a small range around that set point. If the temperature is set at 68 degrees, the thermostat turns the AC on when the temperature is, say, 70, and turns it off when it’s cooled down to, say, 66.
Every few seconds, our system slightly changed the timing of air-conditioning compressor switching for some of the 100 air conditioners, causing the units’ aggregate power consumption to change. In this way, our small group of home air conditioners reacted to grid changes the way a power plant would – using more or less energy to balance the grid and keep the frequency near 60 hertz.
Moreover, our system was designed to kept home temperatures within the same small temperature range around the set point.
Smart thermostats could have frequency regulation capabilities available to interested consumers, to help balance the electricity grid. Danielle Mead/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Testing the approach
We ran our system in four tests, each lasting one hour. We found two encouraging results.
First, the air conditioners were able to provide frequency regulation at least as accurately as a traditional power plant. Therefore, we showed that air conditioners could play a significant role in increasing grid flexibility. But perhaps more importantly – at least in terms of encouraging people to participate in these types of systems – we found that we were able to do so without affecting people’s comfort in their homes.
We found that home temperatures did not deviate more than 1.6 Fahrenheit from their set point. Homeowners were allowed to override the controls if they got uncomfortable, but most didn’t. For most tests, we received zero override requests. In the worst case, we received override requests from two of the 100 homes in our test.
In practice, this sort of technology could be added to commercially available internet-connected thermostats. In exchange for credits on their energy bills, users could choose to join a service run by the thermostat company, their utility provider or some other third party.
Then people could turn on the air conditioning in the summer heat without that pang of guilt, knowing they were helping to make the grid more reliable and more capable of accommodating renewable energy sources – without sacrificing their own comfort in the process.
Johanna Mathieu works for the University of Michigan. She has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, ARPA-E, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. She is affiliated with the IEEE.
Demonstrators clash with counterdemonstrators at the entrance to Lee Park in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12, 2017. AP Photo/Steve Helber
A man named Regan Prater was charged with arson for the burning of Highlander Center in New Market, Tennessee, on May 7, 2025. The nonprofit has a long history of involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. The FBI stated in a court document that Prater participated in neo-Nazi Telegram group chats online.
In the past several years, extremists have started using the term “accelerationism” to describe their desire to create social chaos and societal collapse that leads to a race war and the destruction of liberal democratic systems, paving the way for a white ethnostate.
Scholars who study extremism have used the term “accelerationism” since the 1980s, but it wasn’t widely associated with right-wing extremist violence until the late 2010s. People calling themselves “eco-fascists,” for example, often endorse mass violence as a means to reduce population and spark societal collapse.
Accelerationism is often connected to the white replacement theory, a white nationalist conspiracy theory that falsely asserts that there is a deliberate plot to diminish the influence and power of white people by replacing them with nonwhite populations.
While not all extremists who advocate violent confrontation use the label, the calls for violent disruption strive for the same results. Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the Australian white supremacist who perpetrated the Christchurch mosque shootings on March 15, 2019, in New Zealand, labeled an entire section of his online manifesto Destabilization and Accelerationism: Tactics for Victory.
Members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement salute and shout ‘sieg heil’ during a rally in front of the State House in Trenton, N.J., on April 16, 2011. AP Photo/Mel Evans
This primer provides an overview of some of the key groups that have embraced accelerationist thinking, posing significant threats to public safety, democratic institutions and social cohesion.
The Order
One of the first American groups to embody this ideology was The Order – also known as Brüder Schweigen, or the Silent Brotherhood – which continues to influence newer generations of extremist organizations, both directly and indirectly.
Robert Jay Mathews, who founded The Order in 1983, was inspired by the apocalyptic vision laid out in the novel “The Turner Diaries.” The 1978 book by William Luther Pierce – under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald – calls for a violent, apocalyptic race war to overthrow the U.S. government and exterminate Jews, nonwhite people and political enemies. Pierce founded the National Alliance – a neo-Nazi, white supremacist organization advocating for a white ethnostate and violent revolution – in 1974.
The call for violent insurrection and radical societal overhaul has since served as a blueprint for white supremacists and right-wing extremists.
The Order believed the U.S. federal government was under the control of Jews and other minority groups, and it aimed to overthrow it to create a white ethnostate. The Order funded its activities through robberies, including US$3.6 million taken from an armored car near Ukiah, California, on July 19, 1984.
Its criminal and violent actions escalated to murder, most notably the 1984 assassination of Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver by Order member Bruce Pierce.
Russell had been active on a neo-Nazi web forum IronMarch.org since 2014 and announced the group’s formation on the site. He used the handle “Odin” to connect with other far-right extremists.
AWD quickly gained notoriety for its violent, neo-Nazi ideology, advocating for a race war and the collapse of the U.S. government through terrorism. The group drew inspiration from the writings of white supremacist James Mason, particularly his collection of essays titled “Siege.”
By 2020, AWD unraveled due to law enforcement pressure, prosecutions and internal splits. Though not fully gone, it effectively stopped operating under its name. Members helped form the National Socialist Order, which continues to promote Mason’s “Siege” and violent accelerationism.
Neo-Nazi counterdemonstrators shout angrily at the marchers from behind police barricades during the Lesbian and Gay Pride March on Fifth Avenue in New York, on June 25, 1995. AP Photo/Kathy Willens
Beginning in December 2020, The Active Club Network formed as a loosely affiliated, decentralized web of white supremacist, fascist and accelerationist groups that operate under a shared banner promoting physical training, brotherhood and militant white nationalism.
The Base
Founded around 2018, The Base represents one of the most explicit modern expressions of white nationalist accelerationism: as it is known by members, its “Siege Culture.”
Founded by Rinaldo Nazzaro, an American living in Russia who used the name Roman Wolf, the group recruited ex-military and survivalists preparing for collapse through self-sufficiency, aiming to spark a race war. The Base was directly influenced by James Mason’s book “Siege.”
The Base operates as a decentralized network of cells trained in paramilitary tactics, sabotage and guerrilla warfare. Their online propaganda explicitly calls for violent action to destabilize society.
Although several members have been arrested and convicted on a variety of crimes, including conspiracy to commit murder, civil disorder, firearm charges, vandalism and other violent crimes, The Base illustrates a fundamental feature of accelerationism: “leaderless resistance,” or a lack of a centralized leadership, which helps it survive and thrive. Its ideology and tactics are spread through online forums dedicated to white supremacist propaganda.
The goals of the organizers of the Unite the Right rally included unifying the American white nationalist movement and opposing the proposed removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee, the general who led the Confederate troops of slave states during the Civil War, from Charlottesville’s former Lee Park. The rally sparked a national debate over Confederate iconography, racial violence and white supremacy.
The Patriot Front defines itself as an organization of “American nationalists.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, since 2019 the Patriot Front has been responsible for a majority of white supremacist propaganda distributed in the United States, using flyers, posters, stickers, banners and the internet to spread its ideology.
Understanding the motivations and tactics of accelerationist groups and individuals, I believe, is critical to recognizing and countering the dangers they represent.
Art Jipson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In Florida, a bill that bans cellphone use in elementary and middle schools, from bell to bell, recently sailed through the state Legislature.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law on May 30, 2025. The same bill calls for high schools in six Florida districts to adopt the ban during the upcoming school year and produce a report on its effectiveness by Dec. 1, 2026.
Parents are divided on the issue. According to a report from Education Week, many parents want their kids to have phones for safety reasons – and don’t support bans as a result.
We are experts in media use and public health who surveyed 1,510 kids ages 11 to 13 in Florida in November and December 2024 to learn how they’re using digital media and the role tech plays in their lives at home and at school. Their responses were insightful – and occasionally surprising.
Adults generally cite four reasons to ban phone use during
school: to improve kids’ mental health, to strengthen academic outcomes, to reduce cyberbullying and to help limit kids’ overall screen time.
But as our survey shows, it may be a bit much to expect a cellphone ban to accomplish all of that.
What do kids want?
Some of the questions in our survey shine light on kids’ feelings toward banning cellphones – even though we didn’t ask that question directly.
We asked them if they feel relief when they’re in a situation where they can’t use their smartphone, and 31% said yes.
Additionally, 34% of kids agreed with the statement that social media causes more harm than good.
And kids were 1.5 to 2 times more likely to agree with those statements if they attended schools where phones are banned or confiscated for most of the school day, with use only permitted at certain times. That group covered
70% of the students we surveyed because many individual schools or school districts in Florida have already limited students’ cellphone use.
How students use cellphones matters
Some “power users” of cellphone apps could likely use a break from them.
Twenty percent of children we surveyed said push notifications on their phones — that is, notifications from apps that pop up on the phone’s screen — are never turned off. These notifications are likely coming from the most popular apps kids reported using, like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram.
This 20% of children was roughly three times more likely to report experiencing anxiety than kids who rarely or never have their notifications on.
They were also nearly five times more likely to report earning mostly D’s and F’s in school than kids whose notifications are always or sometimes off.
Our survey results also suggest phone bans would likely have positive effects on grades and mental health among some of the heaviest screen users. For example, 22% of kids reported using their favorite app for six or more hours per day. These students were three times more likely to report earning mostly D’s and F’s in school than kids who spend an hour or less on their favorite app each day.
They also were six times more likely than hour-or-less users to report severe depression symptoms. These insights remained even after ruling out numerous other possible explanations for the difference — like age, household income, gender, parent’s education, race and ethnicity.
Banning students’ access to phones at school means these kids would not receive notifications for at least that seven-hour period and have fewer hours in the day to use apps.
Phones and mental health
However, other data we collected suggests that bans aren’t a universal benefit for all children.
Seventeen percent of kids who attend schools that ban or confiscate phones report severe depression symptoms, compared with just 4% among kids who keep their phones with them during the school day.
This finding held even after we ruled out other potential explanations for what we were seeing, such as the type of school students attend and other demographic factors.
We are not suggesting that our survey shows phone bans cause mental health problems.
It is possible, for instance, that the schools where kids already were struggling with their mental health simply happened to be the ones that have banned phones. Also, our survey didn’t ask kids how long phones have been banned at their schools. If the bans just launched, there may be positive effects on mental health or grades yet to come.
In order to get a better sense of the bans’ effects on mental health, we would need to examine mental health indicators before and after phone bans.
To get a long-term view on this question, we are planning to do a nationwide survey of digital media use and mental health, starting with 11- to 13-year-olds and tracking them into adulthood.
Even with the limitations of our data from this survey, however, we can conclude that banning phones in schools is unlikely to be an immediate solution to mental health problems of kids ages 11-13.
Grades up, cyberbullying down
Students at schools where phones are barred or confiscated didn’t report earning higher grades than children at schools where kids keep their phones.
This finding held for students at both private and public schools, and even after ruling out other possible explanations like differences in gender and household income, since these factors are also known to affect grades.
There are limits to our findings here: Grades are not a perfect measure of learning, and they’re not standardized across schools. It’s possible that kids at phone-free schools are in fact learning more than those at schools where kids carry their phones around during school hours – even if they earn the same grades.
We asked kids how often in the past three months they’d experienced mistreatment online – like being called hurtful names or having lies or rumors spread about them. Kids at schools where phone use is limited during school hours actually reported enduring more cyberbullying than children at schools with less restrictive policies. This result persisted even after we considered smartphone ownership and numerous demographics as possible explanations.
We are not necessarily saying that cellphone bans cause an increase in cyberbullying. What could be at play here is that at schools where cyberbullying has been particularly bad, phones have been banned or are confiscated, and online bullying still occurs.
But based on our survey results, it does not appear that school phone bans prevent cyberbullying.
Overall, our findings suggest that banning phones in schools may not be an easy fix for students’ mental health problems, poor academic performance or cyberbullying.
That said, kids might benefit from phone-free schools in ways that we have not explored, like increased attention spans or reduced eyestrain.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tatishe Nteta, Provost Professor of Political Science and Director of the UMass Amherst Poll, UMass Amherst
President Donald Trump signs an executive order barring transgender female athletes from competing in women’s or girls sporting events on Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington.AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Since becoming president, Donald Trump has aggressively sought to fulfill his campaign promise to reverse the Biden administration’s protection of transgender Americans.
Trump is not alone in attacking the rights of transgender Americans. In 2025, 53 bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress and over 900 bills have been introduced in 49 states that aim to limit the rights of transgender Americans in education, health care and athletics, according to the Trans Legislation Tracker.
While legal and ethical questions remain about these efforts, restricting the rights of transgender Americans seems to enjoy support among a majority of Americans.
For example, support for restricting the ability of medical professionals from providing gender-affirming care to minors has risen from 46% in 2022 to 56% in 2025, according to the Pew Research Center.
We wanted to know what factors contribute to majority support among Americans for these measures. We found that authoritarian attitudes – the desire for social conformity and an aversion to difference – play an important role in Americans’ willingness to restrict transgender rights.
A member, left, of the Idaho Liberty Dogs, a far-right extremist group, argues with attendee Kimberly Rumph near the entrance of the first Pride festival ever held in Nampa, Idaho, on June 9, 2024. Kyle Green for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Preferring conformity, suppressing social difference
Here, we refer to authoritarianism not as a type of political system or the characteristics of a leader, but rather as a person’s preference for social conformity and desire to suppress social difference.
According to this perspective, the attack on transgender rights is intended to appeal to Americans with authoritarian inclinations. As seen in authoritarian regimes such as Russia and Turkey, political leaders first mobilize their citizens on the basis of their desire to suppress transgender individuals in order to advance a broader movement to undermine democracy and restrict the rights of other groups that fail to conform to majority values.
While this perspective is quickly gaining media coverage, there hasn’t yet been hard evidence that authoritarians are particularly supportive of anti-trans legislation. Our goal was to assess the link between authoritarian attitudes and support for measures that restrict transgender rights.
We are political scientists who study the role of authoritarianism in American politics and who field polls that explore Americans’ views on a number of pressing issues.
In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults, asking about their perceptions of the first months of the second Trump presidency, their views toward various groups in society, and their policy preferences. We also asked them for their views about restrictions on the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender Americans.
Here’s how we analyzed and interpreted their responses.
To measure authoritarianism, scholars use a scale that asks respondents to express their preferences for a range of child-rearing practices. The scale asks whether a respondent tends to prefer children who are obedient, well behaved and well mannered or children who are independent, creative and considerate. Those who tend to favor obedient children are scored as having more authoritarian views.
Child-rearing preferences seem to be unrelated to attitudes about conformity in society. But there is good reason to believe that an adult who prefers conformity, obedience and uniformity in children also desires the same in society at large.
This work consistently shows that individuals who are less authoritarian are more likely to support policies that recognize diverse views. Those who rank high on authoritarianism prefer policies that highlight social unity and conformity.
Thus, we expected that Americans with more authoritarian attitudes would more strongly support state laws that seek to restrict transgender Americans’ access to gender-affirming care.
In line with other polling on this issue, our survey found that a little over one-third of Americans – 36% – express support for legislation that would make providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender youth a crime. Among the remaining respondents, 38% expressed opposition, and 26% expressed ambivalence toward this proposal.
We looked at support for banning gender-affirming care by level of authoritarianism. We found clear differences between the most and least authoritarian Americans.
Among those who score highest on the authoritarian scale, 46% express support for this ban, with 18% in opposition. The remaining 36% responded “neither support nor oppose” this ban. Examining the views of Americans who exhibit the least authoritarian views, we find that while 21% support these bans, 61% oppose them and 18% expressed an ambivalent view.
Authoritarianism remains an important contributor to Americans’ support for a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, even after we take into account other considerations that influence this attitude.
Republican partisanship, conservative ideology and religiosity all increase support for a ban on gender-affirming care. After accounting for these factors, as well as for characteristics such as education, income, age and knowing a transgender person, more authoritarian people are still more likely to support the ban.
The findings from our survey suggest that while partisanship, ideology and religiosity all play key roles in explaining the popularity of these policies, a missing piece of the puzzle is authoritarianism.
Given their aversion to diversity and difference and their preference for the status quo, Americans with authoritarian inclinations likely believe that transgender people pose a threat to the social order. Thus, they are more likely than Americans low in authoritarianism to support policies that seek to restrict transgender rights in order to restore social conformity.
It’s not clear whether the passage of anti-transgender policies alone will lead the nation to turn away from a largely diverse and open democracy toward a more closed and intolerant society. But the fight over transgender rights is not a sideshow in American politics. Instead, it is one of the first of many battles over diversity and difference that will determine the nation’s political future.
Jesse Rhodes has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the Demos Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation. He is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Adam Eichen, Lane Cuthbert, and Tatishe Nteta do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter C. Mancall, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
A statue of Christopher Columbus, toppled by protesters, is loaded onto a truck on the grounds of the state capitol on June 10, 2020, in St Paul, Minn.Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Nonetheless, Trump posted in April 2025, “Christopher is going to make a major comeback.” By using Columbus’ name, which means “Christ-bearer,” a president who covets the praise of faith leaders yoked the explorer to his campaign promise: “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”
By reasserting the importance of Columbus, the president took a stand against the toppling and vandalism of statues of Columbus. In this case, his act of retribution for his supporters focused on the holiday, which he could declare more easily than returning icons of a fallen man to empty pedestals.
As a historian of early America, I am familiar with how grievance marked the colonial era. Throughout this period, grievance fueled rage and violence.
European grievance in America
Europeans who arrived in the Americas following Columbus’ 1492 journey claimed the territories in the Western Hemisphere through an obsolete legal theory known as the “doctrine of discovery.”
Spanish, English, French, Dutch and Portuguese rulers, according to this notion, owned portions of the Americas, regardless of the claims of Indigenous peoples. This presumption of ownership justified, in their minds, the use of violence against those who resisted them.
In 1598, for example, Spanish soldiers patrolling the pueblo of Acoma in New Mexico demanded food from local residents, whom the colonizers saw as their subordinates. The town’s inhabitants, believing the request excessive, fought instead, killing 11 Spaniards.
In response, the governor of New Mexico, a territory almost entirely populated by Indigenous peoples, ordered the systematic amputations of the hands or feet of residents whom the soldiers thought had participated in the attack. They also enslaved hundreds in the town. Roughly 1,500 residents of Acoma died in the conflict, according to the National Park Service, a response seemingly driven more by grievance than strategy.
English colonizers proved just as quick to deploy extraordinary violence if they believed Native Americans deprived them of what they thought was theirs.
The English labeled the event a “barbarous massacre,” using language that dehumanized the Powhatans and cast them as villainous raiders. An English pamphleteer named Edward Waterhouse castigated these Indigenous people as “wyld naked Natives,” “Pagan Infidels” and “perfidious and inhumane.”
Opechancanough was paramount chief of the Powhatan Confederacy in present-day Virginia from 1618 until his death in 1646. mikroman6/Getty Images
War began almost immediately. Colonial soldiers embraced a scorched-earth strategy, burning houses and crops when they could not locate their enemies. On May 22, 1623, one group sailed into Pamunkey territory to rescue captives.
As historians who have studied the Salem witch trials have argued, many of the accusers in agricultural Salem Village – modern-day Danvers – harbored resentments against neighbors who had closer ties to nearby Salem Town, which was more commercial.
The aggrieved found a spokesman in the Rev. Samuel Parris, whose own earlier failure in business had led him to look for a new path forward as a minister. Parris’ anger about his earlier disappointments fueled his indignation about what he saw as inadequate economic support from local authorities.
In a sermon, he underscored his financial irritation by emphasizing Judas’ betrayal of Jesus for “a poor & mean price,” as if it was the amount that mattered. The resentful residents and their bitter minister fueled the largest witch hunt in American history, which left at least 20 of the accused dead.
The most obvious forerunner of today’s grievance-fueled politics was a rebellion in the spring and summer of 1676 by backcountry colonists in Virginia who battled their Jamestown-based colonial government. They were led by Nathaniel Bacon, a tobacco farmer who believed that provincial officials were not doing enough to protect outlying farms from attacks by Susquehannocks and other Indigenous residents.
Acts of grievance come in different forms, depending on historical and political circumstance. But the urge to reclaim what someone thinks should be theirs can lead to deadly violence, as earlier Americans repeatedly discovered.
Peter C. Mancall has received support from the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Oxford University to support his research on early America.
Imagine you’re a copper miner in southeastern Europe in the year 3900 B.C.E. Day after day you haul copper ore through the mine’s sweltering tunnels.
You’ve resigned yourself to the grueling monotony of mining life. Then one afternoon, you witness a fellow worker doing something remarkable.
With an odd-looking contraption, he casually transports the equivalent of three times his body weight on a single trip. As he returns to the mine to fetch another load, it suddenly dawns on you that your chosen profession is about to get far less taxing and much more lucrative.
What you don’t realize: You’re witnessing something that will change the course of history – not just for your tiny mining community, but for all of humanity.
An illustration of what the original mine carts used in the Carpathian mountains may have looked like in 3900 B.C.E. Kai James via DALL·E
Despite the wheel’s immeasurable impact, no one is certain as to who invented it, or when and where it was first conceived. The hypothetical scenario described above is based on a 2015 theory that miners in the Carpathian Mountains – now Hungary – first invented the wheel nearly 6,000 years ago as a means to transport copper ore.
The theory is supported by the discovery of more than 150 miniaturized wagons by archaeologists working in the region. These pint-sized, four-wheeled models were made from clay, and their outer surfaces were engraved with a wickerwork pattern reminiscent of the basketry used by mining communities at the time. Carbon dating later revealed that these wagons are the earliest known depictions of wheeled transport to date.
It has long been assumed that wheels evolved from simple wooden rollers. But until recently no one could explain how or why this transformation took place. What’s more, beginning in the 1960s, some researchers started to express strong doubts about the roller-to-wheel theory.
After all, for rollers to be useful, they require flat, firm terrain and a path free of inclines and sharp curves. Furthermore, once the cart passes them, used rollers need to be continually brought around to the front of the line to keep the cargo moving. For all these reasons, the ancient world used rollers sparingly. According to the skeptics, rollers were too rare and too impractical to have been the starting point for the evolution of the wheel.
But a mine – with its enclosed, human-made passageways – would have provided favorable conditions for rollers. This factor, among others, compelled my team to revisit the roller hypothesis.
A turning point
The transition from rollers to wheels requires two key innovations. The first is a modification of the cart that carries the cargo. The cart’s base must be outfitted with semicircular sockets, which hold the rollers in place. This way, as the operator pulls the cart, the rollers are pulled along with it.
This innovation may have been motivated by the confined nature of the mine environment, where having to periodically carry used rollers back around to the front of the cart would have been especially onerous.
The discovery of socketed rollers represented a turning point in the evolution of the wheel and paved the way for the second and most important innovation. This next step involved a change to the rollers themselves. To understand how and why this change occurred, we turned to physics and computer-aided engineering.
Simulating the wheel’s evolution
To begin our investigation, we created a computer program designed to simulate the evolution from a roller to a wheel. Our hypothesis was that this transformation was driven by a phenomenon called “mechanical advantage.” This same principle allows pliers to amplify a user’s grip strength by providing added leverage. Similarly, if we could modify the shape of the roller to generate mechanical advantage, this would amplify the user’s pushing force, making it easier to advance the cart.
Our algorithm worked by modeling hundreds of potential roller shapes and evaluating how each one performed, both in terms of mechanical advantage and structural strength. The latter was used to determine whether a given roller would break under the weight of the cargo. As predicted, the algorithm ultimately converged upon the familiar wheel-and-axle shape, which it determined to be optimal.
A computer simulation of the evolution from a roller to a wheel-and-axle structure. Each image represents a design evaluated by the algorithm. The search ultimately converges upon the familiar wheel-and-axle design. Kai James
During the execution of the algorithm, each new design performed slightly better than its predecessor. We believe a similar evolutionary process played out with the miners 6,000 years ago.
It is unclear what initially prompted the miners to explore alternative roller shapes. One possibility is that friction at the roller-socket interface caused the surrounding wood to wear away, leading to a slight narrowing of the roller at the point of contact. Another theory is that the miners began thinning out the rollers so that their carts could pass over small obstructions on the ground.
Either way, thanks to mechanical advantage, this narrowing of the axle region made the carts easier to push. As time passed, better-performing designs were repeatedly favored over the others, and new rollers were crafted to mimic these top performers.
Consequently, the rollers became more and more narrow, until all that remained was a slender bar capped on both ends by large discs. This rudimentary structure marks the birth of what we now refer to as “the wheel.”
According to our theory, there was no precise moment at which the wheel was invented. Rather, just like the evolution of species, the wheel emerged gradually from an accumulation of small improvements.
This is just one of the many chapters in the wheel’s long and ongoing evolution. More than 5,000 years after the contributions of the Carpathian miners, a Parisian bicycle mechanic invented radial ball bearings, which once again revolutionized wheeled transportation.
Ironically, ball bearings are conceptually identical to rollers, the wheel’s evolutionary precursor. Ball bearings form a ring around the axle, creating a rolling interface between the axle and the wheel hub, thereby circumventing friction. With this innovation, the evolution of the wheel came full circle.
This example also shows how the wheel’s evolution, much like its iconic shape, traces a circuitous path – one with no clear beginning, no end, and countless quiet revolutions along the way.
Kai James receives funding from The National Science Foundation.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08)
SOUTHERN PINES, NC – U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-09) announced the 2025 Congressional Art Competition winners from North Carolina’s 9th District.
“The Congressional Art Competition is an incredible opportunity to highlight the artistic talents of our District’s high school students, and I was very impressed by all of the submissions we received this year,” said Rep. Hudson. “I congratulate this year’s winners and thank everyone who participated in the competition. I look forward to showcasing their artwork in the Capitol and my office.”
Below are the winning selections for North Carolina’s 9th District:
First Place – Olivia Radder of West End, Pinecrest High School, Among Friends
Second Place – Jacey Wilson of Trinity, Trinity High School, Drawn Out
Third Place – Caroline West of Graham, Alamance-Burlington Early College, Death Metal
The first-place winner’s artwork will hang in the U.S. Capitol, second place will hang in Rep. Hudson’s Washington, D.C. office, and third place will hang in his Southern Pines office.
Each spring, the Congressional Institute sponsors a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation and in each congressional district. Since the Artistic Discovery competition began in 1982, hundreds of thousands of high school students have participated. North Carolina’s 9th District Congressional Art Competition is judged by a committee of local artists who reviewed submissions earlier this year.
