Category: Politics

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

With help from Amira McKee

THE UNI-TEA: Brooklyn Democrats can be a fractious, feuding bunch. Today, for a short while at least, they buried the hatchet.

Bitter rivals stood side by side in boisterous support of Zohran Mamdani at the Flatbush Gardens housing complex, the second stop of the Democratic mayoral nominee’s “Five Boroughs Against Trump” tour.

The group included the leader of the Kings County Democratic Party and members of the New Kings Democrats faction, which sprung up as the reformist response to county bosses. It featured moderate Democrats as well as progressives and democratic socialists.

“First of all, media, I need you to understand what’s going on right now because I don’t think this group of people agree about nothing,” Public Advocate Jumaane Williams observed to chuckles before he launched into his remarks.

Williams said New York Democrats more broadly should follow their example in supporting the party’s nominee for mayor. Key party and Brooklyn leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Yvette Clarke, were not in attendance and have yet to endorse Mamdani.

Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary seven weeks ago, but many in his party say they still don’t know the young Queens state assemblymember well enough to get behind him. Some say his proposals to freeze rent and make buses free are too unrealistic. Others cite his criticisms of Israel and his reluctance to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” as reasons for concern. Mamdani has struggled to shore up support among politically moderate Black and Jewish voters.

For House Democrats focused on winning the majority next year, there’s additionally the concern that having a democratic socialist as the face of the party could hurt moderate Democrats in suburban battlegrounds.

But their colleagues in state and city government said today in central Brooklyn that the party needs Mamdani to face President Donald Trump.

State Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, chair of the county party, endorsed Eric Adams in 2021, Cuomo in this year’s primary and Mamdani immediately after he trounced the former governor in June by nearly 13 points.

“People just don’t understand that we all want the same thing,” Bichotte Hermelyn told Playbook, referring to Brooklyn Democrats. “The little political fights, it’s just surface. But we all want affordability. We’re all fighting for a working class, we want equity, we want fairness.”

The vibe had enough kumbaya to it that Bichotte Hermelyn and City Council Member Justin Brannan stood next to each other. Yes, the same two Democrats who waged one of the nastiest intraparty clashes in recent memory during Brannan’s 2023 campaign. (She revived bullying accusations against him, he won without party resources and concluded on election night that she’s “gotta go.”)

Progressive New Kings members had praise for both Mamdani and Bichotte Hermelyn in explaining how a diverse cross-section of Democrats could get on the same page.

“It’s indicative of his campaign and who he is,” Council Member Crystal Hudson said of Mamdani. “If all of us can come together behind him, he’s doing something.”

Council Member Chi Ossé told Playbook, “I really do applaud Rodneyse on immediately getting into lockstep and showing that Democratic unity is important here. … I think the entire party needs to continue doing what we’re doing in there.” — Emily Ngo

GOP SPLIT IN ASSEMBLY SPECIAL: Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a candidate for the looming special election to replace Democratic Assemblymember Billy Jones — but not the party leader with the most say in choosing a nominee.

Malone Mayor Andrea Dumas locked down support from Rep. Elise Stefanik last week. She was endorsed today by the Conservative Party and Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay.

But Stefanik put out a lengthy statement this afternoon calling on Clinton County GOP Chair Jerika Manning to resign for “threatening to tank” the special. “I am not going to let her torpedo Republican candidates in the North Country,” Stefanik wrote.

Manning controls 53 percent of the vote as party leaders choose a nominee for the race that’ll likely be held on Election Day.

Two individuals familiar with the situation said Stefanik’s statement came about after the county chair declined to join other Republican leaders in endorsing Dumas and continued searching for a new candidate. Manning did not return a request for comment.

Plattsburgh Supervisor Michael Cashman has been widely seen as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Bridie Farrell, a Child Victims Act advocate and former speed-skater who briefly ran against Stefanik in 2022, formally joined the Democratic field today as well. — Bill Mahoney

NOT SWEATING: Gov. Kathy Hochul shrugged at a Siena University poll released this morning that found Stefanik, a potential gubernatorial rival, running competitively in the suburbs and among independent voters.

“I’ll let you all figure it out,” she told reporters. “I’m working hard every single day putting money back in peoples’ pockets, making streets safer and fighting the damn Trump administration.”

The survey found Hochul with a 14-point lead over Stefanik, 45 percent to 31 percent. The gap between the Democratic governor and the House Republican, while comfortable, is smaller than the 23-point difference Hochul held in June.

“I’ve been through countless polls and, guess what, team, there’s going to be a lot more between now and November,” she added. — Nick Reisman

ADULT LEARNERS EYE FREE TUITION: More than 16,500 New Yorkers applied to a free community college program for older students, Hochul announced this morning.

The City University of New York received about 7,000 of the applications from students seeking associate degrees in high-demand fields, CUNY Chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez said. The remainder went to the State University of New York. The initiative — aimed at adult learners between the ages of 25 and 55 — applies to the 37 community colleges run by SUNY and CUNY.

The program, set to begin this fall, is part of Hochul’s affordability push, as she faces a tough reelection bid next year.

“I’m going to keep doing my part, focusing on families — my fight is for your family,” Hochul said during a press conference at LaGuardia Community College in Queens. “Focusing on affordability — this is a major part of it, but also putting more money back in people’s pockets.”

Hochul insisted the state “has no limit” on the number of applicants because enrollment is still lower than it was before the Covid-19 pandemic. Some 4 million working-age adults in New York do not have a college degree or credential, according to the governor’s office.

State lawmakers and higher education advocates told POLITICO earlier this year that community colleges don’t have enough money to implement the plan. The governor allocated $47 million in the state budget for the upcoming school year.

When asked by Playbook about those concerns, Hochul pointed to record investments in SUNY and CUNY. — Madina Touré

TAKEOVER TAKES: Trump’s unprecedented effort to take over law enforcement in Washington drew a reaction from Mayor Eric Adams today.

Asked about Trump’s actions, Adams touted recent decreases in major crime categories to make the case that New York City does not need the type of federal intervention playing out in the nation’s capital.

“I’m not part of the group that says we don’t want to work with the federal government, but we don’t need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus,” Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, said during an unrelated news conference. “We’ve got this under control.”

Rival independent candidate Andrew Cuomo claimed the turn of events in Washington is “exactly what will happen” if Mamdani wins the general election this fall, though Trump would be more limited in the control he could exert over the NYPD.

“Trump will flatten him like a pancake,” Cuomo posted Monday on X. “In 2020, Trump sent the National Guard into other states. Not New York. There’s only one person in this race who can stand up to Trump: the one who already has, successfully and effectively.”

Mamdani warned Trump against trying a similar militarization in New York City, as the president has repeatedly floated, while chiding Cuomo for comments he made during a June CBS interview where he warned federal immigration officers are “going to do things that are illegal and unconstitutional” but cautioned New Yorkers not to overreact.

“Donald Trump is not above the law and if he comes for New York City, he will have to go through me,” Mamdani said in a statement today. “As Mayor, I will not downplay or enable his authoritarianism — and I certainly will not tell New Yorkers not to ‘overreact’ as Andrew Cuomo did when Trump’s militia tried to bulldoze Los Angeles.” — Maya Kaufman and Joe Anuta

ENDORSEMENT WATCH: Former Gov. David Paterson is set to endorse Adams’ reelection bid during a Wednesday event at City Hall, according to a person with direct knowledge of the gathering.

The nod comes a month after Paterson held a press conference that called for a united front to defeat Mamdani in the general election.

So far, the former elected’s wishes are not playing out.

Neither Cuomo, Adams nor GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa have expressed any intention of dropping out of the race. Paterson backed Cuomo in the primary, but his support has waned after Cuomo’s decisive loss to Mamdani in the June 24 primary. — Joe Anuta

GUILTY PLEA: A former Adams aide pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, admitting to organizing a fundraiser for the mayor at which he knew money would be raised by illegal straw donations.

Bahi’s plea in Manhattan federal court comes four months after Judge Dale Ho dismissed the related charges against Adams after Trump’s Department of Justice sought to drop the case.

Bahi said that an unnamed “volunteer of the campaign” had told him Adams’ political operation would raise money by straw donations at a December 2020 fundraiser with Uzbek-American business leader Tolib Mansurov and would then seek to match the contributions with public funds.

It wasn’t clear which volunteer Bahi was referring to, though Adams’ indictment suggests it was Ahsan Chugtai, another man who was later hired by Adams’ City Hall as a Muslim community liaison. Adams adviser Frank Carone did not respond when asked about it, saying the case has “no connection at all or relevance” to the Adams campaign. Adams’ lawyers have maintained that he was not aware of any of the numerous confirmed illegal contributions to his 2021 campaign.

Bahi did not respond when reporters asked how he felt about pleading guilty when Adams got off. Turkish-American developer Erden Arkan also pleaded guilty to making straw donations in January, and his sentencing is scheduled for this Friday.

Bahi was hired as a Muslim liaison in the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit after Adams won. He resigned last October, the day before he was arrested and charged with witness tampering and destruction of evidence. He’s been in plea discussions with the government since at least February. Bahi agreed to pay $32,000 restitution, Ho said, and could face up to six months in prison and a $20,000 fine at sentencing, which is scheduled for Nov.ember 18. — Jeff Coltin

— SPY-FI: The Adams administration is using its flagship broadband program to give police real-time access to NYCHA camera feeds — without telling anyone. (New York Focus)

— AI, ESQ.:  A Queens judge is fining a landlord’s attorney for using fake, AI-generated court cases to support his argument. (Hell Gate)

— TEAM ZOHRAN: Mamdani is growing his inner circle, a group of trusted advisers that lean younger and farther left than that of his rivals. (New York Times)

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

​Politics

Donald Trump’s unprecedented takeover of Washington, D.C.’s police force is testing the limits of his presidential authority and ratcheting up fears that other cities also led by Black elected officials will soon be caught in his crosshairs.

Trump, citing flimsy and misleading statistics, declared a “crime emergency” in the nation’s capital, seizing control over local law enforcement from three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser and deploying some 800 National Guard troops to city streets.

“This is Liberation Day in D.C. and we’re going to take our capitol back,” Trump proclaimed, echoing World War II-era language associated with emancipation of Italy from facism and the German Nazi occupation. Trump added that his action would “rescue our nation from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.”

The National Guard troops, who will work alongside the Metropolitan Police officers, will be tasked with clearing homeless encampments, protecting landmarks and keeping order in the city. It’s an unprecedented presidential power grab that Bowser herself said is unnecessary, but has very little recourse to stop given the “special conditions” outlined in the Home Rule Act.

While Trump’s supporters have cheered him on, his detractors say the move is nothing more than the president, once again, leaning into racist tropes to cast Black elected officials as incompetent and minority citizens as threats to society.

“We don’t yet know the full impact this decision will have on D.C. and the Black and minority communities Trump has suggested he may target next,” said the Congressional Black Caucus in a statement posted on X, “we do know this: militarized over-policing will inevitably lead to increased fear and mistrust among communities that have too often been treated as occupied populations, rather than as citizens who deserve to be served and protected.”

During his wide-ranging press conference, Trump also singled out Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Oakland — all of which have Black mayors and large minority populations that overwhelmingly voted against him in his three presidential runs — as crime ridden.

“He has never thought well of Black elected leaders, and he’s been explicit about that,” said Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She added that she views Trump’s actions as a tactic to undermine liberal dissent.

“It’s also clear from his previous statements that he has always searched for excuses to assert might over places he does not have political support and that will not just do his bidding,” she added. “Washington, D.C., has been one of those cities.”

Bowser worked to quell tensions between her and Trump stemming from his first term, which included painting over the yellow letters of the city’s Black Lives Matter Plaza, which was formed in a response to police brutality during the national protests of 2020. Prior to Trump’s inauguration she traveled to Mar-a-Lago to discuss possible areas of collaboration.

In late April, with Trump’s backing, Bowser helped lure the Washington Commanders NFL franchise from suburban Maryland back to D.C. Days later, she appeared with him at the White House to announce the city would host the NFL Draft in 2027. (Last month, Trump injected himself again by threatening to scuttle the deal to bring the football team back to D.C. if the team didn’t return to its original name, which is considered a racial slur against Native Americans.)

None of that appears to have deterred Trump from launching his federal takeover.

“I think this is a moment for the mayor to question whether her strategy, which has been appeasement, has been a success,” said Paul Butler, a Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor.

He described Trump’s actions as a “bogus declaration” but suggested there is likely little reprieve D.C. officials will gain trying to challenge the president’s declaration in court.

“While the court reviews whether he appropriately has this power, the Supreme Court and other lower courts [have] generally allowed him to … proceed with what he wants to do, until they get around to deciding the case,” Butler added. “It opens the doors to further militarization of the police, not just in the District, but in the other cities that he named.”

New York City mayor Eric Adams on addressed the possibility of Trump deploying federal assets to his own city following a string of shootings over the weekend that left at least two dead and eight injured.

“When you have those high profile shootings it sends a signal sometimes across the country that we’re dealing with a crime issue in New York, and we’re not,” Adams said Tuesday. “I’m not part of the group that says we don’t want to work with the federal government, but we don’t need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus. We’ve got this under control.”

Trump has ignored the wishes of local officials and deployed federal troops in recent weeks. During the height of federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, which sparked protests that turned violent, Trump federalized some 2,000 California Guard troops against the objections of Mayor Karen Bass, who is Black, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott told The Recast that Trump’s actions in D.C. and his singling out of other Black-led jurisdictions, including his own, is nothing more than a “diversion and distraction tactic” to shift the focus from a volatile economic climate and the release of materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.

“It’s also the continuation of the president, unfortunately, spouting these racist-based, right-wing propaganda talking points about cities and Black-led cities,” said Scott, who last month said his city is in the midst of a historic reduction in violent crime. “For the president to say that we’re too far gone — it’s just obscene, obnoxious and just not based in reality.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a combat veteran, chastised Trump for using military personnel for political gain.

“These actions by the president lack both data and a battle plan,” Moore said in a statement.

“[The president] is simply using honorable men and women as pawns to distract us from his policies, which continue to drive up unemployment and strip away health care and food assistance from those who need it most.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson echoed Moore’s sentiments.

“If President Trump wants to help make Chicago safer, he can start by releasing the funds for anti-violence programs that have been critical to our work to drive down crime and violence,” Johnson said. “Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts.”

The pretext of Trump’s actions appears to be a response to an attack on Edward Coristine, who is white and a former staffer at DOGE who goes by the nickname “Big Balls.” He was allegedly assaulted by approximately 10 juveniles near Dupont Circle this month, according to a police report obtained by POLITICO.

It caught the attention of Trump, who posted on his Truth Social platform a photo of a bloodied Coristine and called for D.C. laws to be changed so that teenagers who commit violence can be tried as adults “and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14.”

Trump is deputizing key administration officials to help oversee the D.C. police, which he can maintain control of for up to 48 hours, but if he sends a special message to certain congressional leaders, he can extend that control for up to 30 days. Attorney General Pam Bondi will be in charge of D.C. police, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will direct the order to call up troops, while the District’s U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said on Monday that she is preparing to bolster prosecutions.

Bowser, the D.C. mayor, delivered a measured response to the federal takeover in her remarks following Trump’s announcements.

“While this action [Monday] is unsettling and unprecedented, I can’t say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we’re totally surprised,” she said.

Maya Kaufman and Shia Kapos contributed to this report. 

Like this reporting? Subscribe to The Recast.

​Politics

A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for Aug. 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it’s likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal.

How do wars end?

Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, “Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.”

And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, “That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.”

What we’ve seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.

So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, “Enough.”

Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it’s got nuclear arms and it’s got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They’re nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don’t want to? I kind of doubt it.

How does this upcoming Trump-Putin meeting fit into the history of peace negotiations?

The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler’s Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It’s hard to compare anything to that.

But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, “Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They’re not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.” And they were poised to invade.

The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees.

Czechoslovakia wasn’t there. This was a peace imposed on them.

And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, “No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.” And thus World War II started.

Can you spell out the comparisons further?

Czechoslovakia wasn’t at the table. Ukraine’s not at the table.

Again, I’m not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military.

Security guarantees were given to Czechoslavakia and not honored. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, “If you’re going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we’ll make sure you’re never invaded.” And they’ve been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn’t step up.

So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low.

What kind of expertise is required in negotiating a peace deal?

Here’s what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries.

The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve.

And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, “This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?”

And then the experts say, “Oh, we do this and we do that, and we’ll assign staff to work it out. We’ll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we’ll come up with numbers and maps.”

With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the U.S. not only has a new group of political appointees – including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they’re doing in terms of national security – but also many who don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn’t there.

That’s a real problem. The U.S. national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best.

How will this be a problem when Trump meets Putin?

You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don’t meet on a few days’ notice. It would have to be a real crisis.

This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week.

And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You’d have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You’d meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional.

They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down.

None of that’s going to happen in Alaska. It’s going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.

Could a peace deal possibly be enforced?

Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I’m not sure how well this could be enforced.

Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that’s the problem. What’s Putin’s bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they’ve gained since then? OK, maybe.

Then let’s put ourselves in Ukraine’s shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, “No.” Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, “No.”

I’m curious what your colleagues in the diplomatic world are saying about this upcoming meeting.

People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won’t.

Donald Heflin 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

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is warning President Donald Trump and Republican governors that if they go forward with redistricting proposals, he will also implement mid-decade redistricting efforts in his state.

In a letter to the president Monday, Newsom said California “cannot stand idly by” as Texas — and other GOP-led states — attempt to follow Trump’s directive to create Republican-favored congressional maps.

“If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,” Newsom said. “But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Newsom’s letter comes as the battle over the Texas congressional map has begun to spread to other states, including Indiana.

With Democrats needing to flip just three seats to reclaim a House majority, Trump pressed the Texas Legislature to draw a new map that would give Republicans an additional five congressional seats. Democrats around the nation condemned the effort even as Texas officials began to move forward with a plan. Texas Democrats have left the state to avoid voting on the new map, with some settling indefinitely in California.

Vice President JD Vance, meanwhile, headed to Indiana last week to urge Republicans in the Hoosier state to also create a new map. Separately, Ohio is mandated to redraw districts in the state, while talks are underway in Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. In total, Republicans could gain 10 or more seats ahead of the midterms.

Newsom on Monday called the efforts “hyper-partisan” and an attempt to “rig” upcoming midterm elections.

“You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,” Newsom wrote. “This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy.”

While Democrats have previously threatened to gerrymander their own maps if Republicans move forward with theirs, no moves have been made yet.

In his letter, Newsom said district maps should be drawn by “independent, citizen-led efforts.”

In a Monday afternoon interview with Fox News, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to escalate his state’s redistricting plans if Newsom moves forward with retaliatory redistricting.

“If California thinks they’re going to move their needle to the extreme and eliminate five Republican numbers of the United States Congress there, Texas is not going to do five: We will add 10 more Republican seats using the same procedure they are using in California,” Abbott said.

Jacob Wendler contributed to this report.

​Politics