Category: Politics

In an emergency hearing before Judge Sparkle Sooknanan on Aug. 31, 2025, lawyers for a group of unaccompanied migrant children from Guatemala asked her to stop the Trump administration’s deportation of hundreds of them back to Guatemala. Concerned that the Trump administration might not follow her order to stop, the judge emphatically repeated her order that temporarily barred the deportations. And then she said something unusual:

“I am trying to do the best I can to fulfill my obligation as an Article 3 judge …”

The Conversation’s senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, talked with former federal judge John E. Jones III, now president of Dickinson College, about the meaning of the term “Article 3 judge,” why Sooknanan might have used it, and why recent discussions of politics and law in the news have included notably more references to “Article 1,” “Article 2” and “Article 3,” normally terms reserved for discussions of constitutional law.

What is the ‘Article 3’ that Judge Sooknanen referred to?

The meaning is not something that a lay person can necessarily intuit.

It’s quite clear that the course that the Trump administration has taken in the many lawsuits against its policies is to say, “We will obey the Supreme Court of the United States, but we’re going to pick and choose the lower court opinions that we deign to follow.” And of course, Judge Sooknanan’s comment invoking the phrase “Article 3” was meant to say that, the same as a Supreme Court justice, she is a fully vetted and confirmed jurist chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate. That’s what’s known as an Article 3 judge, authorized under Article 3 of the Constitution.

So, inferentially, what she’s saying is, “I mean what I say, your administration can’t ignore it as you appear to have done with federal Judge James Boasberg, whose order you appear to have defied to return immigrants you deported. I’m going to do belt and suspenders and be very clear about this and not give you wiggle room because it is not an option for you to disobey the order of an Article 3 judge.”

OK, you’ve described Article 3. Tell us about articles 1 and 2.

Article 1 of the Constitution creates the United States Congress.

Article 2 creates the presidency and the executive branch. It’s somewhat light on details.

And Article 3, notably, creates the Supreme Court, but left it up to Congress to develop and create, as the article says, “such inferior courts.” I don’t love the word inferior; we tend to say “lower courts.”

Because of the caseload at the founding, the Supreme Court handled everything. The Supreme Court justices did what was called “riding the circuit.” They acted, in effect, as lower court federal judges, until business and commerce and the law burgeoned. Congress was then compelled to create district court judgeships and circuit court judgeships to relieve the Supreme Court of the burden of being everything to everybody in the federal courts.

That’s a helpful civics lesson.

I worked with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had a real predilection for civics education. One of her comments always resonates for me, that civics is something that has to be learned and relearned because it’s not stamped on our DNA.

In a recent NBC story headlined ‘Some Republicans object to Trump’s move to cancel spending, warning of a shutdown,’ Sen. Kevin Cramer from North Dakota said he wants spending decided not by the president but by Congress in a bipartisan appropriations process. ‘I think that Congress has every right to defend its Article 1 role,’ he said.

Constitutionally and by custom, Congress has the power of the purse. The president can propose a budget, but it has to be passed by Congress. And it’s quite clear that, in this Trump administration, Congress is abdicating its Article 1 powers, being compliant and dormant in allowing the president to cancel otherwise-allocated funds repeatedly. If Congress would flex its muscles under Article 1, this wouldn’t be happening.

And back to Article 3 news: There’s been some charged back-and-forth between federal judges and two Supreme Court justices over criticism of lower court judges. And 10 federal judges criticized – anonymously – the Supreme Court’s handling of the Trump cases in the so-called ‘shadow docket’ because the rulings were so brief they couldn’t take direction from them. Is this all normal?

There’s rank frustration on the part of lower court judges. The Supreme Court is forcing lower court judges to decipher meaning from Supreme Court decisions as if they’re the Rosetta stone. They are so abbreviated and less than clear that it’s maddening. Having toiled in the lower courts, the worst situation you could have is a lack of guidance from higher courts, and then you have to guess. When you have to guess, you make mistakes, and that’s the frustration you see.

I think there is a duty on the U.S. Supreme Court to not rubber-stamp lower court judges, of course, but also to have some comity with lower court judges who are struggling through this plethora of cases that have arisen because of the Trump administration flooding the zone.

What does this conflict over courts and judges mean to the average person?

The integrity of our system of justice and the judicial system is based on the trust that people place in the jurists that populate that branch, the third branch of government. And as Alexander Hamilton said, the judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, so it is the credibility of the judiciary that, at the end of the day, carries weight.

And when the president and highly ranked officials in his administration vilify lower court judges the way they have, and if the president says that he can pick and choose among lower court opinions, then I think you know, necessarily, his followers may think that they can do the same. That is not helpful to the rule of law and to our democracy. In fact, it tears at the fabric of our system.

John E. Jones III is affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

A federal judge ruled on Sept. 2, 2025, that the Trump administration broke federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to protests over immigration raids.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said that National Guard troops in Los Angeles had received improper training on the legal scope of their authority under federal law. He ruled that the president’s order for the troops to engage in “domestic military law enforcement” violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which – with limited exceptions – bars the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.

While he did not require the remaining soldiers to leave Los Angeles, Breyer called on the administration to refrain from using them “to execute laws.”

The Los Angeles case, President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to fight crime in Washington, D.C., and his recent vow to send the Guard to Chicago and Baltimore to fight crime blur practical and philosophical lines erected in both law and longtime custom between the military and the police.

As a policing scholar and former FBI special agent, I believe the plan to continue using National Guard troops to reduce crime in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore violates the legal prohibition against domestic military law enforcement.

Limited law enforcement function

State and local police training focus on law enforcement and maintaining order. Community policing, which is a collaboration between police and
the community to solve problems, and the use-of-force continuum – the escalating series of appropriate actions an officer may take to resolve a situation – also form part of training.

In contrast, the goal of National Guard basic combat training is to “learn the skills it takes to become a Soldier.”

The initial 10-week training program for National Guard recruits includes learning skills such as the use of M16 military assault rifles and grenade launchers. It also includes learning guerrilla warfare tactics, as well as tactics for neutralizing improvised explosive devices while engaging in military operations. While valuable in a military setting, such activities aren’t part of domestic policing and law enforcement.

While the National Guard has, by law, a limited law enforcement function in times of domestic emergencies, it’s a unique part of the U.S. military that typically responds – at the request of a state’s governor – to natural disasters and extreme violence.

Although rare, presidents can also call up the Guard, with or without the assent of a state governor. In 1992, for example, President George H.W. Bush sent Guard troops to Los Angeles – with the California governor’s approval – to quell widespread riots following the acquittal of white police officers who had been charged with assaulting Rodney King, a Black man.

But sending soldiers who are not well versed in policing increases the likelihood of mistakes. One of the most well-known examples is the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970, when National Guardsmen sent to the university by Ohio’s governor opened fire and killed four unarmed students during an anti-war protest on campus.

The erosion of restraint

U.S. presidents have historically exercised restraint in deploying military personnel to suppress domestic unrest. Presidents typically work with state governors who request federal assistance during times of crisis.

Thousands of National Guard troops were sent to multiple states at the request of state governors following Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Among other tasks, President Barack Obama’s administration directed the Department of Defense to support FEMA’s efforts to restore power to thousands of homes.

The last time a president bypassed a state’s governor in sending the National Guard to quell civil unrest was in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the National Guard to protect civil rights protesters without the cooperation of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a prominent segregationist.

Trump is changing this precedent by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles, despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom neither refused to follow federal law nor requested military support. In June 2025, Trump overrode Newsom and sent Guard troops to shield federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement from political protests.

The decision to send federal troops to a political protest in Los Angeles has raised core legal questions. The First Amendment’s protection of the right to political protest is a pillar of U.S. jurisprudence.

‘Federalizing’ the Guard

The governed have a right to hold the government accountable and ensure that the government’s power reflects the consent of the governed.

The right to protest, of course, does not extend to criminal behavior. But the use of military personnel raises a pressing question: Is the president justified in sending military personnel to address pockets of criminality, instead of relying on state or local police?

One of a president’s legal avenues is to use a federal statute to do what’s called “federalizing” the National Guard. This means troops are temporarily transitioned from state to federal military control.

What is unique about the deployment in California is that Newsom objected to Trump’s decision to federalize troops. California in June 2025 sued the Trump administration, arguing the president unlawfully bypassed the governor when he federalized the National Guard.

On Sept. 4, 2025, Washington, D.C., sued the Trump administration on similar grounds. The lawsuit follows Trump’s decision in August to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to police the capital.

For the president to legally take control of and deploy the California National Guard under federal statutes, it was necessary for the criminality in Los Angeles to rise to a “rebellion” against the U.S.

More generally, the president is prohibited from using military force – including the Marines – against civilians in pursuit of normal law-enforcement goals. This bedrock principle is based on the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and permits only rare exceptions, as stipulated by the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act empowers the president to deploy the U.S. military to states in circumstances relating to the suppression of an insurrection.

The Sept. 2 ruling by the federal judge in California determined that the administration deviated from these principles because the use of troops in Los Angeles did not meet the criteria established by federal law. Although the political protests in Los Angeles included some violence, the judge reasoned that the violence did not rise to a rebellion and did not prevent a traditional police response.

Federalism and the limits of executive power

In addition to the practical differences between the military and the police, there are philosophical differences derived from core principles of federalism, which refers to the division of power between the national and state governments.

In the United States, police power is derived from the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the United States.” It is the states that have the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety and health of the public.

The use of military personnel in domestic affairs is limited by deeply entrenched policy and legal frameworks.

The deployment of National Guard troops for routine crime fighting in cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, and the proposed deployment of those troops to Chicago and Baltimore, highlights the erosion of both practical and philosophical constraints on the president and the vast federal power the president wields.

The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

Luke William Hunt belongs to the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, which provides funding to The Conversation U.S. as a supporting member.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

In August 2025, the city of Philadelphia agreed to return a statue of Frank Rizzo to the supporters that commissioned the memorial in 1992.

The 2,000-pound bronze tribute to the former police commissioner-turned-mayor had stood in front of the city’s Municipal Services Building from 1998 until 2020, when then-mayor Jim Kenney ordered it removed days after protesters attempted to topple it during the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd.

While the agreement states that the statue cannot be placed in public view, conservatives have still hailed its return as a triumph for Rizzo’s legacy. In the ongoing culture wars over historical memory and memorialization, Rizzo’s supporters have declared their repossession of the statue a victory over the “woke mayor” who unlawfully removed it.

As a historian and native Philadelphian, I have written extensively about the city. My first book, which will be rereleased with a new preface in February 2026, traces the rise of Rizzo’s political appeal and contextualizes his supporters’ politics in the broader history of the rise of the right.

My work recognizes Rizzo not only as the quintessential backlash politician of the 1960s and 1970s, but also as a harbinger of today’s identity-based populism that favors social and cultural victories over economic redistribution.

As police commissioner from 1967 to 1971 and mayor from 1972 to 1979, Rizzo became a hero to the white, blue-collar Philadelphians who clamored for “law and order” and railed against liberal policymaking. Until he died in 1991, while running a third campaign to retake the mayor’s office, Rizzo was an avatar of what I call “blue-collar conservatism.”

Understanding Rizzo’s career and political popularity can help explain the persistent appeal of this identity-based populism in the 21st century.

Rizzo, from cop to mayor

Francis Lazzaro Rizzo was born in South Philadelphia, in the mostly Italian-American neighborhood his parents settled in after immigrating from Calabria, Italy.

In a city where police work was often a family affair, Rizzo followed his father’s footsteps into the Philadelphia Police Department a few years after dropping out of high school.

Early on, he drew praise from superiors for his clean-cut image and aggressive policing. In the 1950s, Rizzo fortified that reputation while patrolling predominantly Black neighborhoods in West Philadelphia and leading raids on gay meeting places in Center City.

As deputy commissioner in the 1960s, Rizzo directly confronted the city’s civil rights movement. Among other exploits, he commanded the response to the Columbia Avenue Uprising in 1964, when North Philadelphia residents responded to an all-too-common act of police brutality with three days of urban disorder.

He also faced down protesters seeking to integrate Girard College, an all-white city-operated boarding school for orphaned boys in the heart of predominantly Black North Philadelphia.

While serving as acting commissioner in 1967, Rizzo led a throng of baton-wielding police into a crowd of high schoolers demanding education reform. The scene ended with police chasing down and beating mostly Black youngsters in front of the Board of Education headquarters.

Rizzo was promoted to commissioner later that year.

While African Americans and white liberals decried his “Gestapo tactics,” Rizzo grew increasingly popular among the city’s white, blue-collar residents.

He capitalized on their enthusiasm in 1971, when he campaigned and won his first election for mayor as both a Democrat and the self-proclaimed “toughest cop in America.”

For two terms he rewarded his supporters by opposing and limiting liberal programs they had fought, like public housing, school desegregation and affirmative action. When dissatisfied Democrats challenged his reelection in 1975, Rizzo vowed revenge by saying he would “make Atilla the Hun look like a fa—t.”

Finally, while campaigning for an amendment to Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter to allow him to run for a third consecutive mayoral term, Rizzo told an all-white audience of public housing opponents to “vote white” for charter change.

Populism then and now

Rizzo’s record makes clear why protesters targeted his statue in 2020. When Mayor Kenney ordered it removed, he called it “a deplorable monument to racism, bigotry and police brutality for members of the Black community, the LGBTQ community and many others.”

While Rizzo and his supporters were certainly part of the late 1960s backlash against civil rights and liberalism generally, his populism was more complex and durable than that narrative suggests.

He also offered affirmation to a beleaguered white, blue-collar identity. His supporters raved about his forceful policing and cheered his anti-liberalism as a last line of defense against policies they considered threats to their livelihoods. Just as important, they saw themselves reflected in the rough-talking high school dropout who worked his way up to the most powerful position in Philadelphia.

When Rizzo first ran for mayor, one of his supporters told a reporter that “He’ll win because he isn’t a Ph.D. He’s one of us. Rizzo came up the hard way.”

That kind of identity-based populism offered social and cultural victories even when it did little to address the declining economy that struck urban America in the 1970s. So while Rizzo’s populism had few answers for deindustrialization, in 1972 he was able to temporarily halt construction on a public housing project in an all-white section of his native South Philadelphia.

Trump’s similar appeal

Donald Trump offers a similar populist appeal in the 21st century. In fact, he has drawn comparisons to Rizzo since his first presidential campaign.

Like Rizzo, Trump’s appeal is more social and cultural than economic. Critics have argued that Trump’s promotion of traditional Republican economic policies belie the notion that he is a populist. Trump’s populism, however, lies not in his ability to deliver working-class prosperity, but conservative victories in the nation’s long-standing culture wars.

Trump’s policies may not fulfill his promise to lower the cost of groceries or health care, but mass deportations reward those who fear a changing American identity.

Sending troops into cities may not address the cost-of-living crisis, but it delights those who see disorder in urban society.

Trump’s attempt to recast national history museums in a patriotic mold may not usher in a new “Golden Age of America,” but it promises a victory to opponents of “woke” history.

Redistributive vs. identity populism

Despite the lopsided attention Trump’s social and cultural populism receives, a kind of progressive, redistributive populism persists in many American cities. This populism promises a redirection of resources from elites and toward working people.

In Philadelphia in 2023, the multicultural, left-populist Working Families Party won the two at-large seats reserved for minority-party representation in the city’s legislature. Currently, Zohran Mamdani’s upstart campaign for mayor of New York seems to be reviving a long tradition of progressive urban populism.

Redistributive populism, however, remains at odds with the identity populism once championed by Rizzo and now by Trump. While the Trump administration’s policies may promise social and cultural victories, they have done little to affect the economic prospects of working-class Americans.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Timothy J Lombardo 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

Across Pennsylvania, an estimated 65,459 children have a parent in jail or prison. That’s according to a recent email inquiry to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Nationwide, nearly half of adults have experienced a close family member being in jail or prison, and 1 in 14 children have lost a parent who was living with them to incarceration.

In May 2025, state Rep. Andre Carroll, whose district covers parts of northwest Philadelphia, and whose own father was incarcerated when Carroll was a child, introduced PA House Bill 1506. The proposed law “focuses on improving communication between incarcerated individuals and their families” by making phone calls and other communication with incarcerated individuals free. It would also prohibit the replacement of in-person visits with other forms of communication such as video calls.

I’m a psychologist and professor of human development and family studies who has studied children with incarcerated parents for more than 25 years.

In 2020, when in-person visits were stopped at jails and prisons due to the COVID-19 pandemic, my colleagues and I interviewed 71 jailed parents in Wisconsin to understand the strengths and challenges of remote video visits with their children.

The parents we spoke with strongly preferred in-person visits, where they are allowed to touch and hug, over virtual ones.

“Contact means a lot,” one parent told us. “This type of stuff breaks families apart, not being able to see a person face to face or touch a person.”

Another parent said, “Video visits are good as it fits into their schedule, but they are not the same. … Giving your child a hug is worth a hundred video visits.”

These findings are still relevant today because many local jails across the country are using video visits as a replacement for in-person visits. For example, an analysis of 40 county jails in Michigan found that 33 of them banned in-person visits.

State and federal prisons generally have in-person visits, with video visits sometimes offered as a supplement.

Benefits for kids

Kids whose parents are in jail or prison are more likely to experience problems in health and well-being compared to their peers, though a growing body of research shows that many children with incarcerated parents are resilient. Resilience refers to the development of competence despite experiencing significant hardship or stress.

In-person visits in particular have been shown to strengthen parent-child relationships, which are a key resilience factor.

In addition, research has shown that children benefit from visiting with their incarcerated parents when such visits are part of an intervention program that includes, for example, mentoring programs or child-friendly visits.

During child-friendly visits, children see their incarcerated parents face to face and can hug them, hold hands, be carried, or sit on their lap. They engage in meaningful activities together – such as playing games, reading together, doing art projects, or taking photos of themselves – that are designed to strengthen their relationship. They can also eat together, are free to move around the space, and are supported by trained staff.

In-person contact visits that allow touch are more developmentally appropriate for children than noncontact visits. For young children who are not part of an intervention, visits with incarcerated parents behind plexiglass can be confusing. The kids can see but not touch their parent, and they can only hear and speak to them through a device that looks like an old-fashioned telephone.

Benefits for parents

Incarcerated parents say that separation from their children is the most difficult part about being in prison or jail. They frequently report symptoms of distress and depression, especially when they have little contact with their children.

More frequent parent-child contact during parental incarceration – and visiting in particular – is associated with better mental health, fewer behavioral infractions, better relationships with the child’s at-home caregiver and more parent-child contact and better adjustment after release.

Other studies have found links between more visits with children and less recidivism, which also benefits society as a whole.

Furthermore, a study of 507 adults incarcerated because of felony charges in a county jail in Virginia found that more frequent contact with family members during incarceration related to more family connectedness, which in turn predicted better mental health during the first year after release.

Barriers to contact

Despite the benefits of visiting and other forms of contact, barriers can prevent communication from occurring regularly or at all.

Some of these barriers are economic. Supporting a loved one in prison or jail can be a major financial strain on family members, and children in families experiencing more economic hardship are less likely to visit their incarcerated parents.

Some prisons charge exorbitant fees for video and phone calls. The Prison Policy Initiative tracks the prices of phone calls from prisons in each state. In 2021, the average cost of a 15-minute in-state phone call from a Pennsylvania prison was more than $3.

The racial disparities in who is incarcerated mean that Black and Latino families disproportionately carry the financial load of incarceration-related expenses.

Other barriers involve distance that families live from the prison or jail, time and scheduling conflicts, and strict mail policies that allow incarcerated people to receive only postcards or scanned copies of their mail. Strained relationships between incarcerated parents and family members can further limit contact.

Keeping families connected

Transportation programs offered by the Pennsylvania Prison Society, an advocacy organization for people who are incarcerated and their families, and other groups can help when family finances are tight. PPS currently provides rides from Philadelphia to four state correctional institutions. A round-trip bus ticket, which is usually $20, is free for children under 18.

In addition, some jails and prisons offer a limited number of free video visits or phone calls. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ website indicates that incarcerated individuals can receive up to four in-person visits per month in addition to six no-cost video visits.

Other organizations are trying to make sure that children and other family members have a chance to stay connected to their incarcerated loved ones in positive ways. Earlier this year, nonprofit legal advocacy organizations helped children in two Michigan counties file landmark civil rights lawsuits that asserted a constitutional right to visit their parents in jail.

As an expert witness in these cases, I hope that they help more children get the “right to hug” their incarcerated parents and raise awareness of the positive impacts that visits play in the current and future well-being of incarcerated individuals and their families.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Julie Poehlmann receives funding from the National Institutes of Health; the content of this article is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Poehlmann is also currently serving as an expert witness in several legal cases that involve incarcerated parents and their children.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

As a teen growing up in an abusive household, Morgan coped daily with physical and emotional harm from her mother. However, she felt safe and supported when she posted about her experiences on a fake Instagram account – widely referred to as a Finsta – which disguised her true identity.

Morgan (no relation to the co-author of this article) used her Finsta to tell peers what she was going through, and to send and receive encouraging words. Without that lifeline, she told us in an interview at age 21, “I probably would not have made it out.”

We are social work and public health researchers who study how people use digital technologies to seek help after they experience violence. We’ve found that social media has become a crucial outlet for young people to disclose abuse, connect with peers who’ve had similar experiences, and learn about safety strategies.

Every year in the United States, it’s estimated that more than 1 in 7 children face violence or neglect in their home. These experiences often go unreported. Some children don’t recognize their experiences as abuse. Others are ashamed. Many fear what will happen next if they speak out.

When young people reveal neglect or abuse, they are more likely to turn to informal support systems, such as friends, rather than authorities. In today’s digital world, those disclosures are increasingly happening online. In the midst of growing concerns about social media harming young people, its platforms offer important benefits for some vulnerable youth.

Sharing difficult stories

To understand how and why young people talk about maltreatment online, we began by analyzing posts about “family issues” made on a peer-to-peer support website called TalkLife. We found many examples of young people describing maltreatment.

They wrote about people in their households withholding food from them, sexually abusing them or physically harming them, leaving them with bruises or dislocated limbs. Usually these harms were inflicted by a caregiver – a parent, stepparent, grandparent or other guardian. The young people who shared these experiences typically were venting their feelings, asking questions or seeking support.

We also analyzed over 1,000 responses to these posts. Peers were overwhelmingly sympathetic, offering emotional support and advice, or commiserating about their own abuse or neglect. Responses that joked about and minimized the posters’ experiences, or were unsupportive in other ways, were comparatively rare.

To understand these dynamics more deeply, we next surveyed 18– to 21-year-olds across the U.S. Among 641 respondents, about one-third reported experiencing abuse or neglect during their childhoods. Of this group, more than half – 56% – had talked about their maltreatment on social media.

We interviewed a subsample of these participants to learn what motivated them to share their experiences on social media, and how these interactions affected them. Eva, age 21, said:

“…(it’s) a place where other people like me, who wanted attention and wanted to feel validated and wanted to talk about it in sort of a low stake situation, they’d come to that place. So, all of us together, we’re sort of supporting each other and saying like, hey, what you feel is valid.”

Why seek help online?

Most young people use social media to interact, express themselves and learn new things. Some users are exposed to new information that helps them identify their experiences as abuse or neglect.

One 20-year-old participant who posted about their experiences in a Reddit forum dedicated to support for mental health issues said: “I was born into (the abuse), right? So this was my normal, this was my everyday … the more that I started to get older, the more that I started to hear other people’s experiences. I went ‘ohh, something about this that I grew up with, I don’t think that’s normal.’”

Maltreated young people also turn to social media because they lack other options. Minors don’t typically have the legal or financial power to move out of an abusive home or start seeing a therapist without parental involvement.

“When you’re a kid, you don’t really have a lot of agency over things in your life … if all you have access to is social media and people online to talk to, that’s really the only way you can vent and express that you’re fed up and that you need help,” Kara, age 20, told us.

Even when resources such as school counselors are available, many young people avoid them because those people or agencies are subject to mandatory reporting requirements. Posting on social media allows youth to talk about their experiences, often anonymously, without fearing that the situation will escalate out of their control.

“It’s a very dangerous position to ask children to put themselves in to report their abuse, especially knowing the flaws in our (child protective services) system,” Dos, age 21, told us.

Participants in our study described supportive online relationships between individual users, as well as within broader social media communities. Eva, age 21, found that when she posted about her experiences, people online were “more willing to discuss it and have empathy for you than you would see in the average person on the street.”

But turning to social media also can have serious downsides for young people struggling with abuse or neglect. Lacking offline support systems, these users are highly vulnerable to online harm. Social media can expose them to misinformation, traumatic content or predatory behavior disguised as support.

Without safe adults to help them navigate these spaces, young abuse victims face a paradox: The internet may be their only option for connection, but it is not always safe or reliable.

The role of adults

Drawing from our interviews, we see three key takeaways for educators, policymakers and technology platforms:

– Young people need better access to safe, reliable information and resources about dealing with abuse and neglect that offer anonymity and do not trigger mandatory reporting. While reporting laws are designed to protect children, they can discourage disclosure if young people fear that seeking help will trigger an immediate and unwanted intervention.

In our view, creating resources that balance safety with autonomy is critical. Confidential hotlines, like the National Child Abuse Hotline, are among the only places where children can talk with an adult anonymously.

– Policies that ban social media or require parental permission for minors may unintentionally increase risks for maltreated youth. Creating safer pathways for internet use is a more effective way to protect young people online.

– Since caregivers and other adults aren’t always available or willing to protect children online, we believe that platforms should be held accountable for design features, such as algorithms, privacy controls and moderation strategies, that can make sites unsafe for vulnerable youth seeking support.

Social media can’t replace offline resources for children who are being maltreated. But for many young people, these platforms have become a first step toward recognition, connection and survival. By learning how and why abused youth share their experiences digitally, adults can better understand their needs and build systems that meet them where they are.

Editor’s note: All names quoted in this article are pseudonyms that were chosen by the research participants.

Morgan E. PettyJohn receives funding from the Kalman & Ida Wolens Foundation. She is a member of the Society for Social Work and Research, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. She also serves on the editorial board for the American Psychological Association journal, Psychology of Men and Masculinities.

Laura Schwab Reese receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, North Central Health Services, Childhelp Inc, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She is a member of the American Public Health Association, Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research, International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse & Neglect, Association for Computing Machinery, Association of Internet Researchers, and American Communication Association. She serves as Associate Editor for Journal of Family Violence and Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, and on the editorial boards of Child Abuse & Neglect and the American Journal of Public Health.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Democrats are scrambling to keep their nascent crusade against President Donald Trump’s national redistricting push from fizzling out.

House Democrats are considering establishing an organization to raise and spend for their remapping efforts as they look to counter an aggressive Republican move that could determine control of the chamber next year, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has privately discussed redistricting with blue-state governors, according to another person.

The Center for American Progress is urging blue states to abandon their independent redistricting commissions. And, through private strategy sessions and public appeals, Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu is asking Democrats across red and blue states to take a no-holds-barred approach to resisting GOP redistricting. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin praised Wu during a meeting in Minneapolis last week for “igniting a national movement within this party.”

“This is an all-out call to arms,” Wu, who helped lead Texas Democrats’ quorum break, said in an interview. “That chorus of ‘everyone needs to get off their ass and do something’ is growing louder and louder. And more and more elected Democrats who are seen as doing nothing — their commitment to our country is going to be questioned.”

But Democrats face a lopsided fight.

They’re hamstrung by constitutional restrictions or independent commissions in some states, while Republicans are generally free of those legal barriers and have leadership trifectas in Indiana, Florida, Missouri and Ohio, promising state lawmakers fewer restrictions to draw Democratic rivals out of their seats. Florida’s constitution has language restricting partisan gerrymandering, though its conservative-majority state Supreme Court recently upheld a GOP redraw.

Against this backdrop, Democrats are grasping for ways to counter Trump’s maximalist campaign to redraw congressional maps to protect Republicans’ three-seat House majority in the midterms. With a counteroffensive already underway in California, Democrats are turning to other blue states to take up the charge — and finding some open-minded participants in governors with 2028 ambitions.

Democrats see the promise of netting three seats in Maryland and Illinois, whose governors — Wes Moore and JB Pritzker, respectively — have spoken with Jeffries about redistricting, according to one person granted anonymity to describe those private conversations. The minority party is also eyeing a pickup opportunity in Utah, after a judge ruled the state must redraw its map. Jeffries has also spoken with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, though any changes in the Empire State are unlikely before 2028 and thus wouldn’t impact the upcoming midterms.

The blowback started as a tit-for-tat response to Trump’s efforts to grow the GOP’s majority next year, kicking off with a push for five more red House seats in Texas. Now Missouri is moving ahead with a new map as the White House bears down on Indiana.

One national Democratic operative, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the tumultuous situation, described jumping into the redistricting arms race as “the price for entry to the 2028 presidential primary.”

Caifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose popularity is soaring as he emerges as Democrats’ remapping champion, has been encouraging his counterparts to follow his lead, saying at POLITICO’s California Summit Wednesday, “We’re going to have to see other governors move in a similar direction.”

An array of party officials and organizations are lining up.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee is fielding calls, providing technical support and legal expertise to state leaders looking at their own congressional maps, according to a person directly familiar with their efforts.

Wu, the Texas House Democrats leader, discussed messaging and other tactics with legislators from seven states where Republicans are eyeing redistricting during a Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee strategy session last week, per a summary of the call provided to POLITICO. And former President Barack Obama called Texas state Rep. James Talarico — a potential U.S. Senate candidate — to voice support for his role in his state’s redistricting battle.

But in some states, messaging is all Democrats can do. Republicans in Indiana, for example, hold a supermajority and can pass any map without a single Democrat in the chamber.

It’s not just Democratic officials who are getting involved. Unions that banded together to condemn Republicans’ gerrymandering in Texas are now pledging to put manpower behind Newsom’s ballot campaign in California and holding strategy discussions about combating Trump’s next moves in other states. And activists affiliated with the progressive group Indivisible have made roughly 5,000 calls to governors and lawmakers across 15 states with Democratic trifectas urging them to responsively redistrict.

“This isn’t something we had to go pitch people on the importance of. This is something people were banging down our doors about,” said Andrew O’Neill, Indivisible’s national advocacy director.

And it “does seem that this is something that has broken through with these governors and has the potential to create what I’ve been calling a productive ambition,” O’Neill said. “These people might be thinking about future job prospects for themselves and they view being a leader in this fight as a route to do that.”

Democrats’ pressure campaign is struggling in Colorado, Washington and Oregon, whose governors have all but closed the door to redistricting, and the party lacks the legislative means or the interest to change their maps.

Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib sent a recent memo to county officers outlining the near-insurmountable challenges in mimicking California’s ballot campaign, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO. Petitions attempting to circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission are being filed without the state party’s backing.

Washington Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen shut down the possibility in a letter to a concerned constituent shared with POLITICO, noting Washington’s Democratic-heavy congressional delegation already does not reflect the political makeup of the state. And state Democratic Party Chair Shasti Conrad acknowledged “lots of pressure and desire” to take up redistricting, but pointed to a broad recognition that it’s “practicably impossible.”

On the East Coast, New Jersey Democrats are similarly hamstrung by state constitutional issues and though Moore told POLITICO “everything’s on the table” when it comes to redistricting, a state court tossed Maryland Democrats’ previous attempt to gerrymander.

But Democratic activists are increasingly discontent to let anyone in their party sit on the sidelines as they fight what they view as Trump’s latest power grab.

“These are serious times, and I’m not sure how much more serious things have to be for [Democratic governors] to get off their ass and get in the batters box and swing for the fences,” said California-based Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo. “This is infuriating.”

Natalie Fertig and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.

​Politics

The age of the millennial politician is here — nowhere more obviously than in city halls around the country. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb surprised Ohio’s political establishment in 2021 by soaring to victory at the age of 34. The former Obama intern-turned-Key Bank executive is now the president of the Democratic Mayors’ Association and a rising star within the party.

I met up with Bibb — clad in his signature round tortoiseshell glasses and a slim-cut navy suit suit even on a hot and humid Sunday in July. We talked about his city and its relationship with the federal government — from the impact federal cuts may have on his city’s hospital system to his desire to work with Republicans and President Donald Trump on permitting reform.

Over a plate of mac and cheese at trendy Cleveland bistro Luxe, Bibb said that Democrats at large have missed the fact that millennials are impatient — not willing to wait their turn to run for office, deeply entrepreneurial and chomping at the bit to solve the crises they’ve spent their entire lives navigating.

“When I ran for mayor, a lot of folks — a lot of establishment Democrats in the party — told me to wait my turn,” Bibb explained. “We are impatient about this country, because we know what crises look like … because we’ve experienced them firsthand.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

You’re from Cleveland.

Born and raised in Cleveland. I lived in the southeast side, in the Mount Pleasant/Union Miles neighborhood.

I’m not that familiar with Cleveland. So tell me what that means, vibes- or identity-wise.

It’s got a crazy identity in terms of its history. At the height of Cleveland’s prominence — and we were once the fifth largest city in the United States — it was a Jewish middle-class neighborhood. Then you have white flight, redlining, and it became a Black middle class neighborhood.

To this day, there’s still remnants of that. When I was growing up in the 1990s at the height of the crack epidemic in the city, it still had a strong Black middle class, still strong main streets. And one of the reasons why I ran was to try to reverse that decline.

In an interview earlier this year, you mentioned that housing was a policy space where this Congress might make some progress. Have you seen anything helpful since then?

Nothing yet. And what concerns me is that with the passage of this “big beautiful bill,” it’s adding to the deficit, which is going to lead to an increase in interest rates, which is going to lead to an increase in the cost of buying a home.

If there was one space where I think Trump could have some real bipartisan support, it’s around housing. He’s a builder, right?

I think every mayor or governor you talk to wants to see Congress support us on permitting reform at every level of government. And every mayor or governor you talk to wants HUD to streamline regulations so it’s easier to build in America.

Are there other places you see a missed opportunity, where interests align?

I know that the administration is looking at opportunity zones and … childcare tax credits.

And then on immigration reform … The best thing for us to do to be a competitive economy is to pass common sense immigration reform. So instead of all this theater and chaos and this other bullshit, let’s get back to work and let’s find common sense immigration reform. Everybody wants a secure border, but we also need to give people a pathway to citizenship, because if we don’t, we can’t be globally competitive.

You have connections with many other mayors because of the Democratic Mayors Association. Is there any housing policy you’re seeing in other cities that excites you?

A lot of us right now focus on permitting reform. Cleveland will be launching that effort this fall, where we’re streamlining the process to upload your drawings and to get a permit from City Hall.

Really proud of the work that Mayor Todd Gloria has done in San Diego, where he has really worked quickly to decrease street homelessness in the downtown parts of San Diego. That’s declined over 60 percent since he took office.

I look at what Andre Dickens has done in Atlanta, where he has taken old shipping containers and vacant lots and made it a homeless shelter where people have dignity and support to get the second chance they deserve.

What about some of the cuts that have come out of D.C. recently, on education funding or Medicaid. Are you finding any ways to backfill these cuts? 

I think every mayor in the country will agree with this: There is no replacement that we can find to plug in the gaps from the federal government.

Cleveland is home to our only safety net hospital, Metro Hospital, and they could go out of business if these cuts go through. What’s striking is that [Trump] worked to put some provisions in this bill with Republican senators to help rural hospitals, but nothing to support urban hospitals. That’s gonna decimate our public health infrastructure.

And residents in Ohio are going to feel any impacts sooner, because Ohio also rolled back state Medicaid expansion — right?

Correct.

The state cuts … will put a further strain on hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic, Metro Health and emergency hospitals. It’s an issue of public safety, because people may be committing crimes out of survival now, because we no longer have a strong social safety net.

All these things are interconnected. It’s easy for the president and Republicans in DC to try to say, “Democrat-run cities are unsafe.” But they’re the ones making our country less safe by passing these uncompassionate, crazy bills.

I totally understand that you can’t replace the federal cuts. But you said at your State of the City address that you were looking for philanthropic avenues to try to help in other ways. 

I’ll be convening healthcare CEOs and hospitals, I’ll be convening my foundation leaders, to figure out what we can do to stand in the gap until we get change from the federal government.

One idea is how do we start to promote more preventative care to make sure that folks aren’t getting sick before they need to go to hospital. I’ll be working with Metro Health Hospital, our local social safety net hospital, to get folks enrolled in the exchanges before these changes occur so they can get the care they need. And I have a mobile health clinic that we deploy at my department of public health as well. So all of the above is on the table.

You’re a millennial. What are Democrats missing about millennials?

That we’re impatient.

Say more. 

When I ran for mayor, a lot of folks — a lot of establishment Democrats in the party — told me to wait my turn. We are impatient about this country, because we know what crises look like … because we’ve experienced them firsthand — from 9/11 to the great recession to two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the pandemic.

But we’re also the most entrepreneurial generation as well.

Follow-up question — though I don’t know how qualified we (millennials) are to talk for them — about Gen Z. In the 2024 election, nationally, millennials stayed the most blue. Gen Z swung toward Trump. 

Gen Z sees a rigged system.

But we (millennials) do too, right? Why does it hit different?

I think for Gen Z … they see all the massive amount of wealth being created because of technology and the proliferation of Amazon, Uber, what have you. They don’t understand why we can’t get our shit together and fix this stuff quickly.

They looked to someone like Donald Trump, who is the disrupter, to fix it.

The reason why he’s losing his base on Epstein and the Epstein files is because they thought they could trust him as the disruptor. He would be transparent. We want transparency … and now they’re not getting that.

What do you want Democrats in D.C. to do more of?

Listen to mayors. We are closest to the challenges and the pain of what this federal destruction looks like, but we’re also closest to the damn solutions. We know how to fix America’s housing problem because we’re doing it. We’re fixing public safety in cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Atlanta. We know how to create good quality jobs with union and labor being a key partner.

The answer to the Democratic Party’s future and problems will not come from congressional D.C. Democrats. It needs to come from America’s mayors and America’s governors.

Your summer playlist — What are you listening to right now?

Drake is solid. I listen to a lot of Jungle, I love Jungle. I’ve been in a classic Jay Z mode too, recently. I feel like Jay Z [and] Memphis Bleak is like my quintessential growing up in this city [in the] summer vibe that gets me in a good mood.

I just sent my barber my [Spotify] day list. It was called “luxury barber shop Sunday afternoon.” And he’s like “Dude, it’s straight bangers.”

You know he’s playing it at the barbershop right now … And they’re like, “this is the mayor’s playlist.”

[laughing] Exactly, yeah.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb’s neighborhood residency. He does not currently live where he grew up.

​Politics

President Donald Trump discontinued former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection on Thursday, according to a memo reviewed by POLITICO.

In a memo titled “Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security,” and dated Aug. 28, Trump directed the Secret Service to revoke Harris’ security protections, effective Sept. 1.

“You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,” the memo read.

The move, first disclosed by CNN, comes as Harris is set to embark on a 15-city tour to promote her new book, “107 Days,” starting next month. The tour will place the former vice president — who has remained largely out of the public eye since leaving office in January — back in the spotlight.

“The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety,” Harris spokesperson Kirsten Allen said in a statement.

Former President Joe Biden had initially extended Harris’ Secret Service protection — which had been set to last until only mid-July — for an additional year, according to a person familiar with the move who was granted anonymity to discuss security arrangements. While presidents receive lifelong protection after leaving office, coverage for vice presidents typically lasts only six months after they leave office.

A White House spokesperson confirmed protection has been revoked but did not comment further.

Trump similarly ended extended security protections for Hunter Biden and his half-sister Ashley Biden earlier this year.

​Politics