Category: Politics

Democrats are starting to finally see their path back to power in the Senate — if they squint really, really hard.

Party leaders have landed top recruits in Ohio and North Carolina, both pickup opportunities. They hope a snowball effect will push their favorite candidate in Maine, another offensive target, into that race in a state former Vice President Kamala Harris won.

There are other, rockier potential targets: Perhaps they could finally win Texas, where Republicans are locked in a messy, expensive primary. Or Alaska, where senior Democrats are courting a dynamic former congresswoman. Or maybe, they hope, Iowa could become a purple state again.

There’s no doubt that Republicans are still favored to hold onto the Senate after next year’s midterms. Democrats need to flip four GOP-held seats while also holding onto states that President Donald Trump won like Michigan and Georgia. Everything would have to go perfectly for them to pull it off — and this is not an era when things have typically gone perfectly for Democrats.

Still, Democrats are increasingly optimistic after former Sen. Sherrod Brown decided to run for his old seat and former Gov. Roy Cooper launched a bid in North Carolina.

“I’m not going to say we’re taking back the Senate right now, but it looks more possible than it ever was,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). “We’re recruiting great candidates and it looks like they’re not really doing the same. The map is expanding week by week.”

Earlier this year, many Democrats were pessimistic that Brown would run again — and without him, Ohio was considered hopelessly out of reach. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doggedly pursued Brown anyway, repeatedly calling and meeting with him. Brown is expected to officially launch his campaign against Republican Sen. Jon Husted any day now.

Brown, a frumpy populist who won three terms in the Senate even as Ohio grew increasingly redder, lost reelection by fewer than 4 percentage points last year. What makes Democrats nonetheless hopeful is that Brown kept the contest close even as Trump carried the state by 11 percentage points. With Trump in the White House but not on the ballot, they hope, next year’s midterm elections will almost certainly be a better political moment for Democrats.

“Unless you believe we’re headed into another negative environment for Democrats again, this is almost by definition a toss-up race,” said an Ohio Democratic strategist who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about a still-developing race.

Schumer also worked to persuade Cooper, a popular former two-term governor, to run. Cooper broke fundraising records when he announced his Senate bid and is now leading Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley in early polls.

Schumer’s recruitment efforts are reflective of a larger strategy to stake his party’s chances in several key states on well-established, older candidates, even as much of the Democratic base hungers for generational change. Along with Cooper, 68, and Brown, 72, Democrats are hoping to lure Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, into the race against Republican Sen. Susan Collins, 72.

The Democrats’ game plan doubles, in theory, as a way to avoid costly and divisive primaries. Cooper effectively boxed out most of the North Carolina field by keeping the door open to a run, and the sole other Democratic candidate, former Rep. Wiley Nickel, exited the race after Cooper launched his bid. Brown is also expected to clear the field in Ohio.

Nickel told POLITICO his initial decision to run was about “fighting for the best chance to flip North Carolina’s Senate seat,” but with Cooper getting in, he said the former governor “gives Democrats our best shot to flip this seat.”

The success that Senate Democrats have had in luring battle-tested candidates into the arena stands in contrast to Republicans’ efforts this cycle.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, widely seen as a strong potential contender to oust Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, decided against a run. Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu similarly opted against a bid for the seat left open by the retirement of Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, even after winning Trump’s support.

Republicans have also lost an incumbent to retirement — and there could be more.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis announced he was not running for reelection after Trump attacked him for voting against advancing his megabill. In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst has not formally announced she is seeking reelection, and the White House saw it necessary to encourage her to try for another term. Collins got her dream job as Senate Appropriations chair only to see her power undermined by Trump, and Democrats are praying she could be next, though she’s said she intends to run again.

Democrats are also hopeful that contentious GOP primaries could bolster their chances to hold Ossoff’s seat in Georgia and turn Texas blue if MAGA darling Attorney General Ken Paxton ousts incumbent GOP Sen. John Cornyn as polling indicates he might.

“From nasty, expensive primaries to a string of embarrassing recruitment failures and a toxic agenda, Senate Republicans are falling apart at the seams,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Maeve Coyle.

But Democrats have their own crowded primaries to contend with. An ambitious field of three well-funded Democrats in Michigan is threatening to divert resources from defeating Republican Mike Rogers, a former congressman who narrowly lost a Senate race to Elissa Slotkin last year. The GOP quickly consolidated behind Rogers rather than risk a contested primary.

And Democrats are still hoping for other top recruits to enter races. In Maine, Schumer has yet to persuade Mills to get into the Senate race. Ditto for former Rep. Mary Peltola in Alaska, where she is also eyeing the gubernatorial contest after narrowly losing reelection to the House last year.

There are other hurdles for Democrats. They lack a clear leader, are struggling to raise money, and remain unpopular with voters after their resounding defeat in last year’s election.

“The idea that Democrats, saddled with historically low approval ratings, will win in red states with candidates like Brown and Peltola — who voters just rejected — is absurd,” said Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

But optimistic Democrats know that a single strong candidate — perhaps a Cooper, Brown, Mills, Peltola — can singlehandedly reshape a race. And maybe if they can get a few more of them, their path to control starts to get a little clearer.

Even without squinting so hard.

​Politics

Former President Barack Obama met Thursday with Texas House Democrats to praise them for leaving the state to stop a GOP-backed redistricting effort.

Obama also pointed to the response by California — which launched its own redistricting retaliation on Thursday — as a result of the Texas Democrats’ own protest, which he views as a temporary offset. He told them he prefers congressional maps to be drawn by independent commissions rather than politicians, but recognized the need for a Democratic response.

“He acknowledged what Texas is doing is wrong, and you have to be able to stand up in this moment,” state Rep. Ann Johnson, who attended the meeting, told POLITICO.

“He was very clear: If we are all playing to our higher angels as politicians, we should want the people determining our lines,” she said. “We should be brave enough to let the voters pick our lines and compete on fair ideas. And that’s what he wants. That’s what all of us want.”

Obama was joined on call by former Attorney General Eric Holder, chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

The meeting comes as Obama will headline a fundraiser for the NDRC next week in Martha’s Vineyard in response to Republicans’ redistricting efforts.

The meeting was first reported by ABC.

The group of Texas Democrats have been in Illinois for nearly two weeks to deny Republicans the ability to pass a new map carving out five more seats at the request of President Donald Trump. The final day of the special session, ordered by Gov. Greg Abbott, is Friday. Democrats indicated on Thursday they are willing to return home if the session ends on Friday, and if California Democrats introduce their own map adding more seats in retaliation. That process is already in motion in California: Gov. Gavin Newsom formally launched his campaign for a new House map on Thursday.

During the 30-minute call, Obama heard directly from Texas Democratic Reps. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins and Rep. Christian Manuel, and he praised the lawmakers for standing up to the attacks they’ve faced since decamping earlier this month, including bomb threats and lawsuits.

​Politics

With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.

Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.

When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?

The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”

Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.

We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.

Compelled to disobey

U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.

Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.

Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”

When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”

Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”

Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.

The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”

One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”

Soldiers, not lawyers

But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.

Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.

Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.

“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”

Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”

Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.

This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.

Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.

This finding was also borne out in our survey.

When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.

Drawing the line

As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.

The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.

When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.

But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.

While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.

Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.

Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.

The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”

Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.

Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.

The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.

Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.

Zahra Marashi, an undergraduate research assistant at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, contributed to the research for this article.

Charli Carpenter directs Human Security Lab which has received funding from University of Massachusetts College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the Lex International Fund of the Swiss Philanthropy Foundation.

Geraldine Santoso and Laura K Bradshaw-Tucker 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.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

BORED MEETING: Mayor Eric Adams is leaving a financial predicament for his successor — who, as of now, is looking more and more like Zohran Mamdani.

A board of the state’s top fiscal authorities this morning slammed Adams’ $115.9 billion “Best Budget Ever” for rendering New York City unprepared for hard financial realities and looming federal clawbacks.

The New York State Financial Control Board, chaired by Gov. Kathy Hochul and tasked with overseeing the city’s fiscal planning, raised its concerns at a perilous moment for the city’s financial future. The Trump administration is looking to cut federal funding for expensive social services as the city is already facing its slowest jobs growth outside a recession in decades, per a New York Times report. But New York’s financial leaders, including State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and City Comptroller Brad Lander, warned the city’s financial woes predate Trump’s second term.

“Instead of planning for uncertainty, the Adams Administration has continued the opaque fiscal practice of underbudgeting of key services like shelter, special education, rental assistance, and overtime,” Lander wrote in his report. “Our estimates suggest that the June Financial Plan underestimates expenditures by $5.15 billion annually. That is not fiscal discipline — it is fiscal denial.”

The Citizens Budget Commission, a watchdog group that generally advocates for more conservative budgeting, also worried that Adams has left New York City ill prepared to backfill massive federal funding cuts.

“Rather than wisely save resources, control spending, and focus on efficiency, the city drove up spending by 7 percent, continued to underbudget programs, and added unaffordable spending during the budget process,” said Ana Champeny, CBC vice president for research.

Still, the FCB broadly approved of Adams’ budgeting and determined the city was in compliance with its standards — once again avoiding the stricter state oversight that was first implemented during the city’s fiscal crisis 50 years ago.

Adams acknowledged that sweeping funding cuts could produce a financial shortfall the city would struggle to bridge. Still, he appeared confident he’d be leading the legal fight against the White House, a battle that would likely outlast his first term.

“If dollars related to individual grants are clawed back, we’ll make a determination about how to proceed,” said Adams. “Along with other impacted cities and states, we will keep fighting in the courts for every dollar that has been awarded to the city.”

For Lander, who’s winding down his final months as the city’s money manager after losing in the mayoral primary, the opportunity to once again criticize Adams’ fiscal management comes as he’s viewed as a top contender to join the Mamdani administration, should the Democratic nominee maintain his lead in the polls.

The democratic socialist is not exactly running on fiscal restraint, and his plans for new spending are complicated by the $4.2 billion gap that’s been left for the next fiscal year, according to the city comptroller’s office.

Mamdani has said he would defend against likely federal cuts by raising revenue, primarily by increasing taxes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy. But Mamdani’s plans for building housing and rehabbing schools likely undercount their costs, and his tax plan is likely to face serious opposition in Albany, as POLITICO has reported. Mamdani’s campaign declined to comment.

In his response to the bevy of concerns raised by the board, Adams kept his remarks brief, thanking the members for their “informative” comments. — Amira McKee & Jeff Coltin

LOCKED OUT: Rep. Dan Goldman said today the Trump administration is once again violating the law by blocking him from visiting a federal jail in Brooklyn where ICE is detaining immigrants.

“I have a very specific statutory right under the law,” he said. “It’s a blatant violation of the law. We are in court right now suing the Department of Homeland Security for that purpose.”

Goldman was referring to his right to conduct oversight visits wherever the Department of Homeland Security is housing immigrants.

The Democrat waited outside the front gate of the Metropolitan Detention Center for 45 minutes this morning. He requested a visit last Friday, he said, but a spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons told him Tuesday night they wouldn’t be able to accommodate him, without providing a specific reason. He came anyway to make a point and speak to the press.

Goldman as well as Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez were denied entry for an unannounced visit last week. DHS didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The visit today came a day after a federal judge ordered ICE to improve conditions for detained immigrants at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan — a site where Goldman and fellow members of Congress have also been blocked from visiting. With a nod to that, Goldman said congressional oversight is now more important than ever.

“What are they hiding?” said Goldman. “Now we know.” — Jeff Coltin

HOCHUL’S GOT HIS BACK: Hochul hasn’t endorsed Mamdani even though he’s her party’s mayoral nominee, but she still found a way to show a little love.

As President Donald Trump escalates his attacks on the state lawmaker, Hochul insists she will be in Mamdani’s corner if he leads City Hall.

“He’s worked very hard with affordability front and center, something I believe in, and focusing on solutions,” the governor told NY1’s Bern Hogan. “If he becomes the next mayor, I will stand up and defend him against Donald Trump. You’re not going to come in and walk over our elected officials. So I’ll make it work. Trust us, NYPD, they know what they’re doing.”

Trump today once again lit into Mamdani, calling the 33-year-old democratic socialist “a communist.” On Monday, the president announced he would deploy the National Guard in Washington to address crime — and hinted that other big cities like New York could get the same treatment.

“I wish him well,” said Trump. “I may have to deal with him. I mean, it’s not even conceivable that could happen. Maybe he won’t win, but he won the primaries quite a bit. Shockingly, he won the primaries.”

Hochul has maintained an unusually steady working relationship with the Republican president. They have met twice in the Oval Office to discuss energy policy and the controversial congestion pricing toll program in Manhattan. — Nick Reisman

DELGADO CALLS OUT GOV: Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado took aim at Hochul today as he joined advocates at Foley Square to call for a special session in Albany to push back on the Trump administration.

“Don’t tell me that counties are acting as renegade counties, governor, when you have the ability to stop it, governor,” said Delgado. “Don’t tell me that we can’t close the loophole of making sure that ICE does not enter into agreements with the private prison industrial complex.”

In March, Hochul blasted “renegade” counties for signing agreements with ICE to detain undocumented immigrants.

Delgado appeared alongside state lawmakers, including state Sens. Julia Salazar and Jabari Brisport, at a rally organized by Citizen Action of New York, VOCAL NY and Make the Road New York. They called on Hochul to convene a special session to pass legislation to limit local law enforcement’s ability to collaborate with ICE and prohibit New York institutions from contracting with immigration detention centers.

The lieutenant governor, who’s running against Hochul in the Democratic primary, also took aim at the Democratic Party for not representing the working class.

“I’m so tired of my fellow Democrats talking about, ‘we’re worried about the rich leaving our state,’” he said. — Mona Zhang

— BROOKLYN DODGERS: New York isn’t collecting millions of dollars in penalties from a real estate firm that hasn’t built promised housing at Atlantic Yards because the company threatened to sue them if they tried. (Gothamist)

— PAY UP: Attorney General Letitia James sued the operator of Zelle, accusing the bank-owned payment platform of facilitating widespread fraud and failing to protect consumers. (POLITICO Pro)

— CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Newly released footage shows New York correctional officers beating a man in custody as the system has seen two high-profile deaths in the last year. (NBC News)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

Homelessness is on the rise in the United States, and in some places, it is becoming more common for the police to arrest someone for sleeping or living in a public space.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, Grants Pass v. Johnson, that determined it is constitutional to issue citations to or arrest homeless people, even when there is no available shelter.

The ruling reversed earlier federal appeals court rulings from 2019 and 2022 that determined cities cannot enforce anti-camping laws against homeless people if there are not enough shelter beds available for them.

The Supreme Court’s ruling also determined that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments does not protect homeless people from laws criminalizing resting in public places.

As someone who has spent more than a decade researching homelessness and speaking with unhoused communities, I have seen firsthand how enforcement of such laws imposes unavoidable hardships on homeless people and makes it harder for them to find a stable home.

A rise in punitive action against homelessness

In 2024, there were an estimated 771,480 people in the U.S. who experienced homelessness on a single night, the highest number ever recorded.

Since June 2024, almost 220 local measures have passed that restrict or ban acts like sleeping, sitting or panhandling in public in cities that include Phoenix; Gainesville, Florida, and Reno, Nevada.

The rate of unsheltered homelessness, meaning homeless people who are sleeping in places that are not meant for humans to rest in, like parks or cars, is the highest in California.

After the Supreme Court’s decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in July 2024 that directs state agencies and departments to adopt new policies that remove homeless encampments. Those are temporary outdoor living spaces used by homeless people, often on public or private property.

Following this executive order, more than two dozen California cities and towns adopted or considered adopting sweeping bans on homeless encampments.

Not every leader has embraced this approach of what some observers call criminalizing homelessness. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for example, rejected criminalizing homelessness as “backwards” in June 2024.

Nevertheless, many cities are enforcing existing and new bans on homeless encampments more aggressively than before the Supreme Court decision – despite evidence that such enforcement is not effective in dealing with the problem of homelessness.

The impacts of aggressive enforcement

Research shows that arresting someone without a home for sitting, resting or sleeping in a public place does not reduce homelessness.

Instead, encampment sweeps and camping bans typically displace people from one area to another, while discarding or destroying their personal belongings in the process, such as identification cards, medications and sleeping gear.

This approach also wastes public resources by paying groups to throw away people’s belongings instead of investing that money into actual housing solutions, like creating more affordable housing options.

Homeless encampment sweeps by police or other government officials are also shown to make people living in camps sicker, leading to increases in hospitalizations and even deaths among those dependent on drugs or alcohol.

A punitive shift in San Francisco

San Francisco is an example of an American city with a relatively large homeless population that has taken a more aggressive approach to enforcing bans on homeless encampments over the past year.

A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, then-San Francisco Mayor London Breed promised to be “very aggressive” in removing homeless encampments. She also said that “building more housing” would not solve the homelessness crisis.

City data shows that in the 12 months since the Supreme Court ruling, San Francisco police had arrested more than 1,000 homeless people for living in a public space – a scale of enforcement rarely seen in the city’s past. In the year leading up to the ruling, 111 people were arrested for illegal lodging

San Francisco identified approximately 8,300 homeless city residents in 2024.

In June 2025, I conducted a survey of 150 homeless people in San Francisco. About 10% of those people who gave a reason for a recent arrest reported being jailed for lodging without permission. Another 6% said they were arrested for trespassing.

In the same survey, which is part of an ongoing project, 54% of homeless San Francisco residents reported being forced to move from a public space at least once.

Another 8% reported being cited for another reason related to trespassing.

A less aggressive path in Portland

Other western American cities with large homeless populations have taken slightly different approaches to removing homelessness encampments since June 2024.

Portland, Oregon, for example, began enforcing a new daytime camping ban in July 2024. But Portland police have only made 11 arrests of homeless people for camping-related violations over the past year.

Other homeless people in Portland have received police citations for other offenses, like trespassing.

As part of my June 2025 study, I surveyed 150 homeless Portland residents. About 49% of respondents reported having been arrested at some point in their lives. Though no respondents were arrested for camping in a prohibited place, 68% of people I spoke with reported that police or other government officers forced them to leave a public space at some point over the past year.

And 13% of those who gave a reason for being cited by police said it was for camping in a prohibited place. Another 11% of homeless people were cited for some other reason related to living without shelter.

As part of the study, I also interviewed residents who had been arrested while living on the street. One Portland resident I interviewed – who asked not to be named to preserve their anonymity – told me they lost the chance to rent an apartment because they were arrested in 2023 on a preexisting, unrelated warrant after a police officer checked their ID – just days before they were supposed to pick up their keys.

“Many unhoused people have warrants simply for failing to appear after being cited for sitting or resting in public space,” they said. “I was supposed to go get the keys and, bam, I got picked up. I was arrested and went to court. Just me being in jail for five, six or five days screwed it all. I didn’t show up to get the keys, and then (the landlord) couldn’t get ahold of me, and they had no idea what was going on.”

The weeklong jail stay not only pushed this person back onto the street, but it also put them back onto a waiting list for housing – where they remain in 2025.

Looking ahead

The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling did not mandate that cities criminalize homelessness. But it effectively gave cities the green light to do so without fear of violating people’s constitutional protections.

The effects of this ruling will be further felt with President Donald Trump’s July 24, 2025, executive order that ended federal support for approaches like Housing First, a policy that prioritizes providing homeless people with housing, before any other needed help. The order also calls for involuntarily committing homeless people with mental illness to mental health institutions.

As more cities consider tougher encampment ordinances, I think it is worth considering if more punitive measures really address homelessness. Decades of evidence suggest they won’t.

Instead, arresting homeless people often deepens their poverty, increases displacement and diverts public funding away from the real solution – stable, affordable housing.

Stephen Przybylinski 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.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

When former President Joe Biden unveiled his US$1.9 trillion infrastructure plan in 2021, he found the perfect place to go public: Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station rail yard.

Over the din of crackling wires and grumbling engines, the president made his case for revitalizing the country’s roads, ports, airports and rail lines.

Behind Biden sat rows of gleaming Amtrak trains. Among them was a prototype of NextGen Acela, a sleek machine engineered to deliver the fastest passenger service in American history.

On Aug. 28, 2025, NextGen will finally hit the rails, after years of delays.

As the author of a book on the Northeast Corridor, the rail line that connects Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, I know this new train cannot come soon enough for many seaboard riders, even though it launches at a time of diminished political will for passenger rail.

Rail renaissance under fire

The French-designed, American-manufactured NextGen arrives years late due to mechanical defects and failed simulation tests mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration. The new Acela will begin whisking passengers along the corridor after a chaotic year that saw downed wires, busted circuit breakers and brushfires disrupt Amtrak operations.

Gone is Amtrak’s White House champion, railfan-in-chief Biden, replaced by Donald Trump, whose one-time adviser, Elon Musk, called Amtrak a “sad situation,” and who proposed replacing the government-owned carrier with private competitors.

Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner resigned in March 2025, and, in May, Amtrak cut 450 employee positions.

NextGen Acela promises an American rail renaissance in a moment when federally sponsored trains are fighting for their lives, as Biden’s infrastructure ambitions fall to an administration bent on cutting government costs.

These contradictions, however, are nothing new.

Not-so-fast trains

America’s love-hate relationship with fast trains stretches back to October 1964, when Japanese National Railways opened its Shinkansen high-speed line between Tokyo and Osaka.

Japan’s iconic 130-mph bullet train entranced audiences, many of whom saw footage of the new service during televised coverage of the Tokyo Olympics.

Americans wanted their own bullet train but were reluctant to pay the massive infrastructural costs of a Shinkansen system. When Congress passed the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, it prioritized the development of trains over the reconstruction of tracks, power systems and maintenance facilities.

The resulting services underperformed.

On Dec. 20, 1967, a gas turbine train manufactured by United Aircraft topped 170 mph while testing in New Jersey. But when the so-called TurboTrain entered service, it managed an average pace of just 63 mph on the weaving track between New York and Boston.

The electric-powered Metroliner, which began service in 1969, boasted similar potential but rarely held triple-digit speeds in service and broke down so often that its carrier, the Penn Central Railroad, struggled to keep the trains running between New York and Washington.

Historians usually regard these high-speed forays as resounding failures.

But riders loved them.

Technical flaws aside, both the TurboTrain and Metroliner were a hit with northeastern riders, so much so that Amtrak retained the Metroliner brand until 2006, long after it had retired the ‘60s-era trains.

Reflecting in 1999, rail journalist Don Phillips expressed disbelief “that those dogs were actually popular with the riding public.”

The birth of Acela

Amtrak opened a new era of high-speed rail in 2000 when it launched Acela Express.

Derived from France’s acclaimed TGV design, Acela carries passengers at speeds up to 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor.

Like the Metroliner before it, Acela suffered from design problems and mechanical faults, including cracked yaw dampers and brake discs, which temporarily sidelined the trains.

Rail writer Joseph Vranich described Acela as both “Amtrak’s crown jewel” and a “remarkable fiasco.”

And yet riders flocked to the service. Acela became one of Amtrak’s most popular and lucrative trains – so attractive that it lured business travelers off regional airlines.

When Acela entered service in 2000, Amtrak trains claimed just 37% of air-rail traffic between New York and Washington. By 2021, it had 83%. Between New York and Boston, that figure jumped from 20% to 75%.

Acela 2.0

Now, NextGen Acela takes up the fraught legacy of American high-speed rail. What can we expect of the new train?

NextGen is faster than the original Acela but will not set any world speed records. Its top velocity of 160 mph falls short of global benchmarks set by China’s Fuxing, which hits 217 mph, and Japan’s newest Shinkansens, which reach 200 mph.

With better tracks and signals, NextGen could conceivably ramp up to 186 mph, though such speeds won’t be possible anytime soon.

For now, NextGen will make do with an imperfect corridor. The train’s lightweight design means faster acceleration and lower energy consumption. An enhanced dynamic tilting system will let carriages lean into curves on the corridor’s twisting track, so they lose less speed on turns. The original Acela also tilted, but not as much.

The upgraded onboard experience includes winged headrests, seat-side USB ports and 5G Wi-Fi. More importantly, each NextGen train can seat 82 more passengers than its predecessor. When Amtrak’s full fleet of 28 NextGens enters service, sending the first-generation trains into retirement, Acela service capacity will have increased by 4,728 seats.

This figure may be the train’s greatest achievement in a congested region at a time when Amtrak is posting record ridership.

The effects of the Northeast’s post-pandemic passenger surge are nowhere more visible than the Philadelphia rail yard where Biden spoke four years ago. Amtrak is constructing a new maintenance shop beside the Schuylkill River that will service NextGen trains and cement Philly’s role in the railroad’s addition of a million annual seats to its non-Acela corridor trains. Powered by conventional electric locomotives, these slower, cheaper “Regionals” accounted for 77% of corridor ridership in 2024 and will continue to carry the bulk of northeastern passengers.

Meanwhile, a quarter-mile south of the maintenance shop, America’s third-busiest passenger hub, 30th Street Station, is receiving a generational overhaul with a new food court, exterior plaza, shops and underground access to rapid transit.

These projects demonstrate the economic power of fast, frequent trains in Philly and throughout trackside communities of the Northeast. America’s embattled but resilient high-speed rail tradition may never be the world’s best, but even incremental improvements, like NextGen, cannot help but transform the places they serve.

For Amtrak’s corridor region, the stakes have never been higher.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

David Alff is a member of the Empire State Passenger Association.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The Trump administration’s plan to unravel many of the nation’s climate policies hinges on rescinding what’s known as the endangerment finding. But its strategy for doing that appears to run afoul of several federal laws.

The endangerment finding is a 2009 determination by the Environmental Protection Agency that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to climate change and therefore pose a threat to public health and welfare.

The scientific evidence of these threats has gotten stronger in the years since the endangerment finding was made. That evidence is laid out in multiple national and international reports written by hundreds of scientists who reviewed the data and research.

In contrast, the EPA’s proposal to now rescind the endangerment finding is based in part on a new Department of Energy report written by five people, named as the “Climate Working Group.” All five have been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said he handpicked the group to write the report.

The group’s report cherry-picks information and misrepresents uncertainties. Some scientists whose studies it cites have complained that the authors misrepresented their research. Others are speaking out about factual problems with the report.

I have served in the federal government and on numerous scientific federal advisory committees, and I’ve seen firsthand the rigorous requirements that federal agencies are supposed to meet so that scientific information they disseminate can be trusted by the public.

The Energy Department and the EPA seem to have run afoul of four laws in particular that may be tricky for the administration to get around.

1. Has the Energy Department produced a credible report?

A casual reader might think the Energy Department climate report is credible.

Its inside cover affirms that it “is being disseminated … in compliance with” the Information Quality Act. The word “disseminated” means that this is a final report and not just a draft.

The Information Quality Act, passed by Congress in 2000, requires “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”

This law is the basis for federal guidance on scientific peer review for all agencies. It also requires agencies to provide the public with an opportunity to request corrections in final reports if they were not properly developed or lack balance, accuracy and objectivity. The agency decides whether to grant the request, but there is an appeals process.

Government scientific products considered final also must have previously undergone independent external peer review conducted in an “open and rigorous manner,” according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

One author of the Energy Department’s report stated that the report was reviewed by “eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE.” However, this does not meet the government’s standards for implementing the law, which requires a public record of review by scientific experts not affiliated with the department that issued the report.

2. Agencies cannot cherry-pick groups to give answers they want

The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, or FACA, addressed concerns that “special interest groups” could “exercise undue influence” in promoting “their private concerns” on “matters in which they have vested interests.”

The law requires a public process for creating and appointing groups to advise the government and requires that the properly appointed group operates in public view and takes public comments along the way.

According to the DOE’s own guidance, “FACA applies when a group is asked to render advice or recommendations as a group and not a collection of individuals.”

Thus, the group chosen to write the department’s report falls within the scope of FACA. The law requires that a committee representing a fair balance of viewpoints be chartered under FACA and that members be appointed only after a public nomination process with public opportunity to comment on the list of candidates.

Once appointed, a balanced group is also required to deliberate in public and receive public comments in formulating their report. That didn’t happen.

3. Federal agencies cannot be arbitrary or inconsistent in rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 requires federal agencies to allow public participation in rulemaking processes and to follow consistent procedures and practices when developing regulations.

The law prohibits actions that are “arbitrary and capricious” – meaning decisions made without justification or regard for facts – or an “abuse of discretion.”

Agencies are expected to examine relevant data. They must not only follow applicable laws, such as FACA, but also must follow procedures established to implement those laws, such as balanced membership of the committee and opportunity for public comment when formulating the report.

4. Science Advisory Board review is also required

The EPA is also subject to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978. The act mandated that the EPA must establish a Science Advisory Board. It also requires that agency make available to its Science Advisory Board relevant scientific and technical information on any “proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation.”

The board must be given time to review the scientific and technical basis of the proposed action – in this case, the disseminated Energy Department report – now that the EPA is using this report to inform its regulatory action.

Under the Information Quality Act, the EPA may not develop a regulation based on a draft report.

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board website lists zero members as of mid-August 2025. On Jan. 28, 2025, the EPA dismissed all of the board’s previous members. Nominations for new board members were due on June 2. At best, it will be months before the EPA can seat a new Science Advisory Board because of time needed to complete the selection, appointment and ethics review processes.

Either the EPA could follow the law and suspend any proposed actions until the Science Advisory Board is available, or accept legal risk for not following the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act.

What’s next?

These laws exist to protect the public by preventing the federal government from being unduly influenced by narrow interests when disseminating evidence that informs policy decisions. Science-based agencies such as the Energy Department and the EPA have a legal requirement to follow the science.

The public has a chance to comment on the EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and greenhouse gas vehicle standards until Sept. 15, 2025. And although the Energy Department disseminated its report as a final version, the department is accepting public comments on the report through Sept. 2.

For both, the most effective comments are evidence-based and not merely opinion.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, independent nonprofit institutions that advise the government, announced in early August that they will conduct a fast-track review of the science on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare to submit as a public comment.

Because the Energy Department report is presented as final, it is also subject to the “request for correction” process under the Information Quality Act within 60 days of its initial release.

Given the Energy Department report’s legal vulnerabilities, the Trump administration could consider withdrawing the report and starting over with a legally and scientifically valid approach. If these vulnerabilities are not corrected and the EPA rescinds the endangerment finding based on the Energy Department report, years of litigation are likely to slow the administration’s efforts.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey is currently a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University. He has served on numerous scientific advisory committees, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2004-2006), Science Advisory Board (2012-2018), and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (2008-2015). He was chair of CASAC from 2012 to 2015. He has served on study committees of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. He served at EPA from 2021 to 2022 as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Policy and from 2022 to 2024 as Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor. While in federal service he co-chaired the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked a Texas district court judge to jail former Rep. Beto O’Rourke over his fundraising pitches connected to the state’s intensifying redistricting battle.

Paxton’s request accused the Texas Democrat of violating a court order that the judge, Tarrant County’s Megan Fahey, issued last week that barred fundraising by O’Rourke and his nonprofit Powered by People intended to bankroll the efforts by Texas Democratic lawmakers to derail the redistricting effort.

In support of his claim, he highlighted a remark O’Rourke made at a Saturday rally — a day after Fahey’s order — saying “there are no refs in this game. Fuck the rules.”

But an attorney for O’Rourke says Paxton’s characterization of O’Rourke’s remark was an “outright lie.” O’Rourke’s comment, she noted, was a reference to the broader nationwide fight over redistricting — a call for Democratic states to counteract Texas’ redistricting push by undertaking their own partisan redrawing of political boundaries.

“In their zeal I guess to intimidate a political rival, they are actually lying to the court,” said O’Rourke’s attorney, Mimi Marziani, who said she would quickly alert the court to the context of O’Rourke’s comments and her intention to seek sanctions against Paxton.

Paxton’s request to jail a political rival comes amid calls by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Paxton and their allies to arrest dozens of Democratic state lawmakers who left Texas to prevent Abbott from holding a special session to pass his ultra-partisan redistricting measure — one expected to net Republicans five seats in Congress.

Paxton’s motion to hold O’Rourke in contempt accuses him of raising funds to directly cover the expenses and fines of the dozens of Texas Democratic lawmakers who bolted from the state to deprive Republicans a quorum to conduct legislative business. Fahey ruled that such fundraising would violate Texas laws against deceptive practices.

But Marziani emphasized that Fahey’s ruling was specific to raising funds that directly bankrolled the state lawmakers’ effort, as opposed to general political fundraising. O’Rourke, in court papers, has labeled Paxton’s bid to constrain his political activity “frivolous” and urged Fahey to transfer the case to his home base of El Paso.

“They have no basis for this lawsuit,” Marziani said.

​Politics

Sherrod Brown has decided to run for Senate in Ohio in 2026, according to two people familiar with his thinking, making a play for his old job just months after he was beaten by Republican Bernie Moreno last November.

The Democrat will face off against Sen. Jon Husted, whom Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed to the Senate after JD Vance left his seat to become vice president.

Brown was a top recruit for Senate Democratic leaders in their uphill battle to reclaim the majority in the upper chamber in 2026. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 and survived two hard-fought reelection campaigns, even as Ohio’s status as a Republican state only crystallized. In 2018, he bested Republican Jim Renacci by a nearly 7-point margin, even though President Donald Trump won the state two years prior.

But in 2024, Moreno won by more than 200,000 votes. Still, Brown ran nearly 8 points ahead of the top of the ticket, as Trump claimed victory in the state over former Vice President Kamala Harris by more than 11 points.

“I don’t see Nov. 5 as a failure,” he told POLITICO in an interview days after his election loss. “I see it as sort of a new start of continuing my work focusing on workers.”

Brown is the only major Democrat to run for the seat and will likely clear the primary field.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer first reported Brown’s plans. The two people familiar with Brown’s thinking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss his not-yet-public decision.

Democrats need to net four seats to reclaim the Senate in 2026, and Brown’s decision could yet put Ohio in play. But the math will be difficult. Only two of the 22 Republican seats up for grabs in the midterm elections come from states Trump lost or won by less than 10 points in 2024.

The winner in 2026 will only claim the right to finish Vance’s original term and would need to run again in 2028 to win a full six-year Senate stint.

A Brown spokesperson declined to comment.

Husted, who earned Trump’s endorsement in April, has already been preparing for a tough reelection fight. He has just under $2.7 million in his campaign account as of the end of June.

“Sherrod Brown’s far Left agenda was out of touch with Ohio voters last election, and it is even more out of touch today,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in an X post Tuesday. “Senator @JonHusted is delivering for Ohio, and he’s just getting started!”

Brown also considered running in the state’s open gubernatorial contest. One-time presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who met with DeWine to discuss the Senate appointment that eventually went to Husted, is running for governor. The most prominent Democrat currently in the race is former state health director Amy Acton, and former Rep. Tim Ryan is also considering a run.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

​Politics