Category: Politics

PHOENIX — After three straight days of MAGA infighting here at Turning Point’s AmericaFest, top Republicans — including Vice President JD Vance — tried to find agreement on Sunday afternoon, shifting their focus to countering the opposition.

“President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests,” Vance told the crowd to loud applause, adding later: “We have far more important work to do than canceling each other.”

In his speech, Vance ripped into “far left” Democrats, casting their policies as toxic to Americans and blaming them for Charlie Kirk’s September killing, which has loomed large over the gathering. He touted the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, vaccines and transgender issues, while calling for the crowd to engage ahead of next year’s midterms.

“If you miss Charlie Kirk, do you promise to fight what he died for? Do you promise to take the country back from the people who took his life?” Vance asked the crowd.

His speech at the Phoenix Convention Center is the culmination of a weekend-long festival for 30,000 of President Donald Trump’s most ardent supporters. But until Sunday, much of the weekend was clouded by an intra-party schism that kicked off during night one on Thursday, when conservative commentator Ben Shapiro ripped into a number of fellow MAGA-verse influencers, especially Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Steve Bannon.

“The conservative movement is in serious danger,” Shapiro said, especially from some “charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.”

Those themes carried through on Friday and Saturday, with presidential-hopeful turned Ohio GOP gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy casting the moment as “a time for choosing in the conservative movement.”

Like Shapiro, Ramasawamy focused significant time on Carlson and his interview with far-right influencer and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, listing some of his most inflammatory remarks and saying they “have no place in this movement.”

Then, Bannon hit the stage and reversed course, comparing Shapiro to a “a cancer, and that cancer spreads.”

“Ben Shapiro is the farthest thing from MAGA,” Bannon told the crowd.

The sold-out annual meeting is the group’s first since founder Charlie Kirk was gunned down in September. It has featured a broad array of figures from within the conservative movement, including top commentators, elected officials, candidates and religious leaders, culminating with Vance and Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday.

Johnson called the weekend an “epic and faithful battle that truly will determine the future of our great republic” while stressing the importance of keeping control of the House ahead of next year’s midterms.

Vance also spent much of his speech talking about the midterms, bashing Democratic Senate candidates Graham Platner of Maine and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, who are both running in competitive primaries.

“We are gonna kick their ass next November,” Vance said of Democrats as the crowd immediately burst into “USA” chants. Outside of Johnson and Vance, a number of other speakers on Sunday sought to bridge the divisions that emerged in the prior days.

“I choose to build a movement, be part of a movement, that stands on principle, on strength, that loves the people in the movement, even sometimes when they piss you off,” said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who is running for governor. “You can’t form a winning unit if you can’t stay focused on the mission at hand.”

Donald Trump Jr. also sought to shift the focus to Democrats.

“The real enemy? It’s not Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro, it’s the radical left that murdered Charlie and celebrated it on a daily basis,” Trump Jr. told the crowd.

The political beliefs of alleged Kirk shooter Tyler Robinson, who is facing multiple charges including aggravated murder, aren’t easily defined.

​Politics

President Donald Trump endorsed Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman in the New York gubernatorial race, a day after Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) ended her bid.

“Bruce is MAGA all the way, and has been with me from the very beginning,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social Saturday. “Bruce Blakeman is a FANTASTIC guy, will win the big November Election and, without hesitation, has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Governor of the ONCE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK (IT CAN BE GREAT AGAIN!). BRUCE BLAKEMAN WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Stefanik was long seen as the favorite in the Republican primary to face off against incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in 2026, months after Trump nudged fellow governor hopeful Rep. Mike Lawler into running for reelection to his competitive House seat by endorsing him to remain in Congress.

But Blakeman jumping into the race earlier this month complicated things for Stefanik, and Trump had publicly praised both Republicans as “fantastic people.”

Hochul still holds a double-digit lead over Blakeman in a potential head-to-head matchup, according to a Siena Poll of New York released earlier this week.

Stefanik, a once powerful voice inside Congress, has had a tumultuous year, as the president pulled her nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations over concerns about what her departure would mean for the slim GOP House majority.

But Trump also declined to endorse the Upstate New York congressmember for governor. In her announcement bowing out of the race, she said she would not run for reelection.

Blakeman attended a Hanukkah reception at the White House with the president earlier this week.

In a post on X following Trump’s endorsement, Blakeman said he was “grateful and blessed” to have the president’s support.

​Politics

The U.S. Department of Justice has made a partial release of documents from what’s become known collectively as the “Jeffrey Epstein files,” with more to follow at an unspecified time. On a special part of its website that the department titled “Epstein Library,” it lists documents such as court records and records released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests to the government.

Their release was ordered by Congress in bipartisan legislation passed in November 2025. The deadline imposed by Congress was Dec. 19, 2025, and the Department of Justice met it with the partial release of documents in its possession with eight hours to spare.

Those files will be read, dissected and discussed by politicians and the public and reported on by the news media. It will be the latest eruption in a story that has slipped in and out of the headlines for years, but in a very particular way. Most news articles ask a specific question – which powerful men might be on “the list”? Journalists and the public are watching to see what those documents will reveal beyond names we already know, and whether a long-rumored client list will finally materialize.

Headlines in the past have focused on unidentified elites and who may be exposed or embarrassed, rather than on the people whose suffering made the case newsworthy in the first place: the girls and young women Epstein abused and trafficked.

Alongside that, there has been a stream of survivor-centered reporting. Some outlets, including CNN, have regularly featured Epstein survivors and their attorneys reacting to new developments. Those segments are a reminder that another story is available, one that treats the women at the center of the case as sources of understanding, not just as evidence of someone else’s fall from grace.

These coexisting storylines reveal a deeper problem. After the #MeToo movement peaked, the public conversation about sexual violence and the news has clearly shifted. More survivors now speak publicly under their own names, and some outlets have adapted.

Yet long-standing conventions about what counts as news – conflict, scandal, elite people and dramatic turns in a case – still shape which aspects of sexual violence make it into headlines and which stay on the margins.

That tension raises a question: In a case where the law largely permits naming victims of sexual violence, and where some survivors are explicitly asking to be seen, why do journalistic practices so often withhold names or treat victims as secondary to the story?

What the law allows – and why newsrooms rarely do it

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government generally may not punish news organizations for publishing truthful information drawn from public records, even when that information is a rape victim’s name.

When states tried in the 1970s and 1980s to penalize outlets that identified victims using names that had already appeared in court documents or police reports, the court said those punishments violated the First Amendment.

Newsrooms responded by tightening restraint, not loosening it. Under pressure from feminist activists, victim advocates and their own staff, many organizations adopted policies against identifying victims of sexual assault, especially without consent.

Journalism ethics codes now urge reporters to “minimize harm,” be cautious about naming victims of sex crimes, and consider the risk of retraumatization and stigma.

In other words, U.S. law permits what newsroom ethics codes discourage.

How anonymity became the norm and #MeToo complicated it

For much of the 20th century, rape victims were routinely named in U.S. news coverage – a reflection of unequal gender norms. Victims’ reputations were treated as public property, while men accused of sexual violence were portrayed sympathetically and in detail.

By the 1970s and 1980s, feminist movements drew attention to underreporting and intense stigma. Activists built rape crisis centers and hotlines, documented how rarely sexual assault cases led to prosecution, and argued that if a woman feared seeing her name in the paper, she might never report at all.

Lawmakers passed “rape shield laws” that limited the use of a victim’s sexual history in court. Some states went further by barring publication of victims’ names.

In response to these laws, as well as feminist pressure, most newsrooms by the 1980s moved toward a default rule of not naming victims.

More recently, the #MeToo movement added a turn. Survivors in workplaces, politics and entertainment chose to speak publicly, often under their own names, about serial abuse and institutional cover-ups. Their accounts forced newsrooms to revisit assumptions about whose voices should lead a story.

Yet #MeToo also unfolded within existing journalistic conventions. Investigations tended to focus on high-profile men, spectacular falls from power and moments of reckoning, leaving less space for the quieter, ongoing realities of recovery, legal limbo and community response.

The unintended effects of keeping survivors faceless

There are good reasons for policies against naming victims.

Survivors may face harassment, employment discrimination or danger from abusers if they are identified. For minors, there are additional concerns about long-term digital evidence. In communities where sexual violence carries intense social stigma, anonymity can be a lifeline.

But research on media framing suggests that naming patterns matter. When coverage focuses on the alleged perpetrator as a complex individual – someone with a name, a career and a backstory – while referring to “a victim” or “accusers” in the singular, audiences are more likely to empathize with the suspect and scrutinize the victim’s behavior.

In high-profile cases like Epstein’s, that dynamic intensifies. The powerful men connected to him are named, dissected and speculated about. The survivors, unless they work hard to step forward, remain a blurred mass in the background. Anonymity meant to protect actually flattens their experience. Different stories of grooming, coercion and survival get reduced to a single faceless category.

A window into what we think is ‘news’

That flattening is part of what makes the current moment in the Epstein story so revealing. The suspense is less about whether more victims will be heard and more about what being named will do to influential men. It becomes a story about whose names count as news.

Carefully anonymizing survivors while breathlessly chasing a client list of powerful men unintentionally sends a message about who matters most.

The Epstein scandal, in that framing, is not primarily about what was done to girls and young women over many years, but about who among the elite might be embarrassed, implicated or exposed.

A more survivor-centered journalistic approach would start from a different set of questions, including wondering which survivors have chosen to speak on the record and why, and how news outlets can protect anonymity, when it is asked for, but still convey a victim’s individuality.

Those questions are not only about ethics. They are about news judgment. They ask editors and reporters to consider whether the most important part of a story like Epstein’s is the next famous name to drop or the ongoing lives of the people whose abuse made that name newsworthy at all.

This is an update to a story originally published on Dec. 15, 2025, to reflect the release of documents by the U.S. Department of Justice on Dec. 19.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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

According to our recent survey of officials in Michigan communities, local democracy is humming along and city hall is taking care of business.

The federal government was shut down in October and November 2025, but cities and towns around the United States continued to fill potholes, purify drinking water, respond to emergency calls and issue construction permits, mostly with little fanfare.

But Michiganders should not take this local resilience for granted. Officials – especially in rural communities – are also raising some red flags about declining public engagement, deteriorating public discourse and harassment.

The view from city hall

At the University of Michigan’s Center for Local, State and Urban Policy, we have been surveying local officials in Michigan’s 1,856 cities, villages, counties and townships since 2009. About 70% of local governments in the state complete our survey each year, which means that our results reflect the opinions of everyone from township clerks in the Upper Peninsula to mayors of larger cities in the Metro Detroit area.

This Michigan Public Policy Survey has covered a wide variety of local issues over the years. One topic we track closely is how democracy is functioning in local communities.

While many public opinion surveys ask how Americans feel about democracy, very few examine the viewpoints of local officials whose job it is to carry out the daily work of democratic governance. For example, instead of asking whether people trust their government, we flip the question around and ask local officials whether they trust their residents to be responsible participants in policymaking.

Democracy at its grassroots is strong

To get a high-level understanding of local democratic health, we ask Michigan local officials to rate the overall functioning of democracy in their communities on a scale of 1 to 10, from total breakdown to perfectly functioning.

Statewide, 82% reported a score of 7 or higher when we surveyed them in the spring of 2025. This percentage has remained remarkably steady since we first began tracking it in 2020.

At the other end of the scale, only 2% of communities this year rated democracy poorly – 4 or below – falling from a high of 7% in 2024.

Small and rural communities are falling behind

While these high ratings are good news for local democracy in general, when we break down the results by whether communities consider themselves more urban or rural, we see some divergence. While 82% of communities overall reported relatively good democratic health this year, this reflects 92% of urban communities and 79% of rural communities.

We also see evidence of a growing urban/rural divide in resident engagement, an essential ingredient of democratic health. When we asked local officials how engaged their residents were with their local governments, 64% of urban communities said their residents were somewhat or very engaged, but only 41% of rural communities felt the same. In fact, 13% of rural communities said their residents are not engaged at all, compared with only 5% of urban communities.

Similarly, local officials in urban communities have higher levels of trust in their residents to be responsible participants in local policymaking – for example, by contributing ideas, volunteering or speaking with elected officials. In Michigan’s urban communities, 48% of local officials said they trust their residents nearly always or most of the time. However, only 38% of rural local officials had the same level of trust in their residents.

The big picture looks less rosy

While rural communities currently appear to be struggling more than urban communities to engage with their residents, looking over time, democratic participation is getting worse everywhere. For example, 18% of Michigan communities statewide reported this year that civic discourse among residents was somewhat or very divisive, up from 11% in 2012.

Between 2012 and today, despite their efforts to expand engagement opportunities, particularly online, local officials’ satisfaction with their residents’ level of engagement has plummeted from 58% in 2012 to 38% in 2025. Among the most common frustrations are that their efforts attract the same people over and over and that a small vocal minority of residents is negatively affecting overall engagement.

Even more troubling, about half of local officials who responded to the 2022 version of our survey have experienced some kind of personal harassment, with 39% reporting in-person harassment such as hostile or aggressive comments, 31% reporting online harassment and 3% reporting violent actions like assault or destruction of property.

Looking ahead

While only 17% of Americans currently trust the federal government to “do what is right” “just about always” or “most of the time,” according to a recent Pew survey, 65% of Americans still trust their local government. And as our survey results suggest, most local officials feel pretty confident that they’re being good stewards of local democracy, despite declining help and input from their residents.

To any Americans worried about the state of their democracy, may we suggest heading to the next meeting of the local planning commission? We hear there are sometimes even snacks.

Read more of our stories about Michigan.

Stephanie Leiser 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

The Trump administration, initially wary over the Justice Department’s release of Jeffrey Epstein documents, pounced on go-to villain Bill Clinton’s appearance in Friday’s trove of pictures, emails and interviews.

“I wonder why the Biden DOJ refused to release the files…,” DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin posted from his personal X account, alongside one partially-redacted photo of Clinton in a pool with an unidentified woman. Another swimming pool photo Gilmartin posted shows Clinton with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime co-conspirator who was convicted of sex trafficking charges in 2021.

Trump and the DOJ also resisted releasing the files until Congress passed a bill to do so. Trump signed the bill last month.

Clinton has long been linked with Epstein, contributing to his status as MAGA’s favored boogeyman. Some high-profile members of the movement cited him in pushing for the release of the files, and continued that message after the DOJ made public a trove of documents from the government’s investigation into Epstein.

“Slick Willy! @BillClinton just chillin, without a care in the world. Little did he know…” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung posted to X.

“Here is Bill Clinton in a hot tub next to someone whose identity has been redacted. Per the Epstein Files Transparency Act, DOJ was specifically instructed only to redact the faces of victims and/or minors. Time for the media to start asking real questions,” White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson posted to her personal X account.

The act also allowed the DOJ to redact material related to active investigations.

It’s unclear when the previously unreleased photo was taken and where the pool is located.

Clinton appears in photos posing with Epstein in coordinating shirts, interacting with a dancer, sitting with a redacted woman on his lap on what looks like an airplane and with someone who appears to be the late pop icon Michael Jackson. The music legend faced his own child sex abuse allegations as early as 1993, though he was never convicted of any crimes.

The former president is also seen at a dinner sitting next to rock star Mick Jagger, alongside Maxwell and Epstein.

Epstein faced state and federal charges over two decades related to the sexual abuse and trafficking of dozens of underage girls as young as 14. He pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges in 2008, one of which was for soliciting prostitution from someone under 18. He was awaiting trial on federal child trafficking charges when he died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. His connections to the wealthy and powerful, and efforts to keep information related to him from becoming public, has become part of the national political narrative – intensifying bipartisan sniping and deepening fractures in Trump’s base.

The files were heavily redacted. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said earlier Friday that the first dissemination would be partial, with as many as hundreds of thousands of more documents to follow in the coming weeks.

A spokesperson for Clinton said the Friday afternoon timing of the document release is “about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever.”

“So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton,” Angel Ureña, deputy chief of staff for Clinton, posted in a statement on X. “There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that.”

Clinton and Epstein have been linked since the early 1990s, having run in the same social circles. They have been photographed together several times. Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane in the early 2000s, taking trips to Europe, Asia and Africa. Ureña said those trips included stops for work connected to the Clinton Foundation.

The former president has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein, and said he was not aware of Epstein’s crimes, something a Clinton spokesperson reiterated in a social media post six years ago.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee this month released additional photos from Epstein’s estate that feature Clinton.

Trump has long suggested that Clinton repeatedly visited Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the location of alleged sex trafficking and abuse where the financier hosted high-profile friends. But White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said in a Vanity Fair interview published this week that Trump was “wrong” to tie Clinton to Epstein’s criminal activity.

Trump and Epstein were longtime friends before Trump said they had a falling out several years ago. The president has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that he took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation.

Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.

​Politics

After its first competitive mayoral election in 20 years, the city of Miami has a new mayor: former Miami-Dade County commissioner Eileen Higgins.

During the heated campaign, both national political parties were active in organizing voters and providing resources. Many high-profile politicians weighed in with endorsements and visits. Notably, Republicans President Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis endorsed Higgins’ opponent, Emilio Gonzalez. Meanwhile, Democrats Ruben Gallego – a senator from Arizona – and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg supported Higgins.

Still, Miami’s mayoralty is officially a nonpartisan position. And as the saying goes, there are no Democratic or Republican potholes; they are all of local concern.

I’m a political scientist with a particular interest in local government, and I’ve lived in the Greater Miami area for 30 years.

So what are the “potholes” confronting Miami’s new mayor?

Civility on the dais

Former Mayor Francis Suarez has a charismatic persona, but was not a forceful presence on the dais. During his tenure, City Commission meetings turned into spectacles, with shouting matches, name-calling,
and allegations of corruption.

Higgins, a bilingual, soft-spoken policy wonk, has promised to set a new tone, leading with civility and compassion. The day after the election, she reiterated that promise: “The era of commissioners yelling at one another and threatening to punch one another is going to stop.”

Affordable housing

Affordability and the cost of living were the major substantive campaign issues, with the cost of housing topping the list.

For the second year in a row, the financial services firm UBS lists Miami as the city at highest risk for a housing bubble. Another study ranked the Miami metro area as the least affordable housing market nationally.

The good news: This rise in price appears to be fueled by a strong employment market. But the shortage of housing priced for middle- and working-class families is unsustainable.

While housing supply and prices are largely determined by market forces, government officials can set conditions to promote targeted investments. Higgins has suggested forming a city-run housing trust fund, similar to Miami-Dade County. She has also proposed dedicating city-owned land to affordable housing projects and reforming the city’s permit process.

Charter reform

Charter reform issues, including moving city elections from odd to even years to align with national elections, are on the agenda. Though a court deemed the City Commission’s attempt to move this year’s election invalid, Higgins said she supports moving the election date, pledging to cut her term short to facilitate. This change would require commissioners to hold a referendum and voters to support it.

There also is a debate about changing the size of the City Commission from five to seven or nine commissioners. Higgins supported this idea, noting that other Florida cities the size of Miami have larger commissions. This charter change would also require voter approval, but needs the commission to act or for citizens to initiate the process. The mayor’s role would be to advocate for the need for greater representation of neighborhoods and government responsiveness.

Immigration enforcement

In a city where nearly 60% of the population is foreign-born, immigration issues loom large.

In June 2025, after a contentious meeting, the commission voted 3-2 to approve a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to aid Trump’s enforcement measures.

While Higgins cannot remove the city from the agreement, she plans to minimize Miami’s involvement with immigration enforcement. “There’s no reason in the city of Miami that our police department should be in the job of federal immigration enforcement,” she told the press.

City finances

Municipal budgets have been squeezed by state policies and state Department of Government Efficiency efforts. Recent federal cuts to social service and transportation grants have exacerbated the problem.

Now, state leaders are proposing to eliminate property taxes in 2026, further straining local coffers. Public spending will need to be reduced, or revenues replaced. The mayor makes budget proposals, but it is commissioners who approve them. Higgins will need to lead through persuasion and clear explanations.

Sean Foreman 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

Colorado passed first-in-the-nation legislation requiring warning labels on gas stoves in June 2025. These warnings are similar to what is required by cigarette labeling laws.

The required labels urge consumers to educate themselves about the air quality implications of indoor gas stoves and direct consumers to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for information on the health impacts. This could have a substantial impact, as government agencies estimate that about one-third of Colorado’s households use gas as their primary cooking source.

The law went into effect on Aug. 6. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is now suing Colorado and is asking a federal court to temporarily block the law from being enforced while the case proceeds. The parties are awaiting a hearing on this request.

I’m a legal scholar with expertise in First Amendment law. I research and publish papers focusing on laws, such as the new Colorado statute, that compel businesses to disclose information to consumers.

In my opinion, in opposing warning labels, the gas industry and its trade association are weaponizing the First Amendment to undermine a commonsense regulation that aims to keep residents safe and informed.

Warning labels in the US

Walk down an aisle in any toy store and you’ll see tags alerting parents to the risk of choking. Flip over your prescription medication and you can read its side effects and interactions with other drugs. In the grocery store, food products have labels bearing information about calorie and sugar content to help consumers make healthier decisions.

Often taken for granted, these warning labels provide critical information to protect Americans’ health and safety. Perhaps the most recognizable warning labels can be found on cigarette packages, required in the U.S. since 1965, to inform customers about the health harms of smoking. Despite the fact that warning labels on cigarettes have saved millions of lives, the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against them to keep consumers in the dark. Since that time, federal, state and local laws requiring businesses to make truthful factual disclosures about their products have become commonplace.

Colorado lawsuit

In its lawsuit, the gas industry invokes the First Amendment’s compelled speech doctrine. This doctrine prohibits the government from forcing people to make ideological statements they don’t actually believe, such as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

In 2018, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly expanded this rule and opened the door for challenges to government efforts to require businesses to disclose truthful statements of fact. The court held that the government cannot compel businesses to disclose factual information if it is “controversial.”

Of course, it would be hard to find a manufacturer who does not think such disclosures are controversial, given that businesses are likely to disagree that their products are dangerous. If a subjective claim that a disclosure is controversial is all it takes to strike a law down, many such laws are vulnerable to legal attacks.

Interest groups representing the tobacco industry, the gas industry and others have seized on this opportunity to dismantle what most people understand to be routine labeling requirements. For example, companies have filed lawsuits challenging federal laws requiring companies to disclose that they use “conflict minerals” and local laws requiring beverage manufacturers to disclose that drinking sugar-sweetened drinks “contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.”

In its lawsuit, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, a trade association that lobbies on behalf of the home appliance industry, argues that Colorado’s law compels gas stove manufacturers to place warning labels on their products that it believes contain “scientifically controversial and factually misleading” information around gas stoves.

However, abundant evidence shows that cooking with a gas stove releases pollutants that harm human health. Multiple studies have shown that burning methane gas produces nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and benzene that can worsen respiratory illnesses such as asthma and increase the risk of cancer.

Furthermore, in 2022, the American Medical Association recognized that gas stove use can increase household air pollution, the risk of childhood asthma and asthma severity. The same year, the American Public Health Association recommended putting warning labels on gas stoves as an official policy position.

Public health advocates contend that the gas industry has known about the health harms of gas stoves for decades, but that the industry has repeatedly attempted to paint its products in a better light.

A 2023 expose by The New York Times, for example, revealed that the gas industry paid toxicologist Julie Goodman to downplay the health impacts of gas stoves. Just eight years earlier, Goodman provided testimony on behalf of tobacco companies. A judge described her testimony on tobacco as “contrary to consensus of the scientific community.”

Risk to consumers

If the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers’ claim succeeds in court, it could, in my analysis, make it much easier for companies to fund biased research or bring in experts to argue that something is not well-established science.

For example, a drug manufacturer could hire an expert to dispute the side effects of a drug. Food producers might claim their experts disagree with the science underlying nutrition and calorie information required by government regulation. Even manufacturers of everyday items such as lawnmowers or toasters could hire experts and proclaim that their products pose no safety harms.

Everyday people would bear the brunt of harm from the invalidation of warning label laws. These people currently have the right to know critical health and safety information before buying any product. If we let corporate interests undermine regulations such as warning labels, I believe we will no longer be able to inform the public about commonsense steps they can take to protect their health.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Alan K. Chen 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

A group of college students braved the frigid New England weather on Dec. 13, 2025, to attend a late afternoon review session at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Eleven of those students were struck by gunfire when a shooter entered the lecture hall. Two didn’t survive.

Shortly after, a petition circulated calling for better security for Brown students, including ID-card entry to campus buildings and improved surveillance cameras. As often happens in the aftermath of tragedy, the conversation turned to lessons for the future, especially in terms of school security.

There has been rapid growth of the nation’s now US$4 billion school security industry. Schools have many options, from traditional metal detectors and cameras to gunshot detection systems and weaponized drones. There are also purveyors of artificial-intelligence-assisted surveillance systems that promise prevention: The gun will be detected before any shots are fired, and the shooting will never happen.

They appeal to institutions struggling to protect their communities, and are marketed aggressively as the future of school shooting prevention.

I’m a criminologist who studies mass shootings and school violence. In my research, I’ve found that there’s a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of these technological interventions.

Grasping for a solution

Implementation has not lagged. A survey from Campus Safety Magazine found that about 24% of K-12 schools report video-assisted weapons detection systems, and 14% use gunshot detection systems, like ShotSpotter.

Gunshot detection uses acoustic sensors placed within an area to detect gunfire and alert police. Research has shown that gunshot detection may help police respond faster to gun crimes, but it has little to no role in preventing gun violence.

Still, schools may be warming to the idea of gunshot detection to address the threat of a campus shooter. In 2022, the school board in Manchester, New Hampshire, voted to implement ShotSpotter in the district’s schools after a series of active-shooter threats.

Other companies claim their technologies provide real-time visual weapons detection. Evolv is an AI screening system for detecting concealed weapons, which has been implemented in more than 400 school buildings since 2021. ZeroEyes and Omnilert are AI-assisted security camera systems that detect firearms and promise to notify authorities within seconds or minutes of a gun being detected.

These systems analyze surveillance video with AI programs trained to recognize a range of visual cues, including different types of guns and behavioral indicators of aggression. Upon recognizing a threat, the system notifies a human verification team, which can then activate a prescribed response plan.

But even these highly sophisticated systems can fail to detect a real threat, leading to questions about the utility of security technology. Antioch High School in Nashville, Tennessee, was equipped with Omnilert’s gun detection technology in January 2025 when a student walked inside the school building with a gun and shot several classmates, one fatally, before killing himself.

Lack of evidence

This demonstrates an enduring problem with the school security technology industry: Most of these technologies are untested, and their effect on safety is unproven. Even gunshot detection systems have not been studied in the context of school and mass shootings outside of simulation studies. School shooting research has very little to offer in terms of assessing the value of these tools, because there are no studies out there.

This lack is partly due to the low incidence of mass and school shootings. Even with a broad definition of school shootings – any gunfire on school grounds resulting in injury – the annual rate across America is approximately 24 incidents per year. That’s 24 more than anyone would want, but it’s a small sample size for research. And there are few, if any, ethically and empirically sound ways to test whether a campus fortified with ShotSpotter or the newest AI surveillance cameras is less likely to experience an active shooter incident because the probability of that school being victimized is already so low.

Existing research provides a useful overview of the school safety technology landscape, but it offers little evidence of how well this technology actually prevents violence. The National Institute of Justice last published its Comprehensive Report on School Safety Technology in 2016, but its finding that the adoption of biometrics, “smart” cameras and weapons detection systems was outpacing research on the efficacy of the technology is still true today. The Rand Corporation and the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention have produced similar findings that demonstrate limited or no evidence that these new technologies improve school safety and reduce risks.

While researchers can study some aspects of how the environment and security affect mass shooting outcomes, many of these technologies are too new to be included in studies, or too sparsely implemented to show any meaningful impact on outcomes.

My research on active and mass shootings has suggested that the security features with the most lifesaving potential are not part of highly technical systems: They are simple procedures like lockdowns during shootings.

The tech keeps coming

Nevertheless, technological innovations continue to drive the school safety industry. Campus Guardian Angel, launched out of Texas in 2023, promises a rapid drone response to an active school shooter. Founder Justin Marston compared the drone system to “having a SEAL team in the parking lot.” At $15,000 per box of six drones, and an additional monthly service charge per student, the drones are equipped with nonlethal weaponry, including flash-bangs and pepper spray guns.

In late 2025, three Florida school districts announced their participation in Campus Guardian Angel’s pilot programs.

There is no shortage of proposed technologies. A presentation from the 2023 International Conference on Computer and Applications described a cutting-edge architectural design system that integrates artificial intelligence and biometrics to bolster school security. And yet, the language used to describe the outcomes of this system leaned away from prevention, instead offering to “mitigate the potential” for a mass shooting to be carried out effectively.

While the difference is subtle, prevention and mitigation reflect two different things. Prevention is stopping something avoidable. Mitigation is consequence management: reducing the harm of an unavoidable hazard.

Response versus prevention

This is another of the enduring limitations of most emerging technologies being advertised as mass shooting prevention: They don’t prevent shootings. They may streamline a response to a crisis and speed up the resolution of the incident. With most active shooter incidents lasting fewer than 10 minutes, time saved could have critical lifesaving implications.

But by the time ShotSpotter has detected gunshots on a college campus, or Campus Guardian Angel has been activated in the hallways of a high school, the window for preventing the shooting has long since passed.

Emily Greene-Colozzi receives funding from the National Institute of Justice.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation