Category: Politics

Pennsylvania is due to receive US$2.2 billion dollars from the national opioid settlements, and a new database shows the public where that money is going.

Starting in 2021, a national, bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, including now-Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, reached settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors who had directly contributed to the opioid addiction crisis.

That year, over 5,000 Pennsylvanians died from unintended drug overdoses. That number has since dropped, falling to about 3,300 in 2024.

The opioid settlement payments, which began in 2022 and are slated to continue until 2038, are supposed to fund opioid overdose prevention, treatment, harm reduction, recovery support and other programs. This includes a broad array of interventions in Pennsylvania, from first-responder training for law enforcement to handle people who have overdosed to stigma reduction education and support for medication-assisted treatment, to name just a few.

We are researchers from Penn State University, Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh who helped build a website, which launched in August 2025, that publishes and tracks opioid settlement fund spending data in Pennsylvania.

We are partnering with the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust, the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Career Development Association. Our team receives funding through the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust to help the trust with data collection, analysis and web design. However, our website is separate and independent from the trust.

Here are five things we believe Pennsylvania residents ought to know about the spending data, and how it can be used to improve public health:

1. Counties are in the driver’s seat

Out of the 48 states that have received settlements so far, Pennsylvania is one of nine states that have given majority control of settlement spending to local governments.

In Pennsylvania’s case, 70% of the funding goes to counties. Cities and other organizations that were involved in the lawsuits, such as county district attorney offices, get 15%. The remaining 15% goes to the state.

This means that in Pennsylvania, it is mostly up to counties to determine how to best spend the US$2.2 billion. Counties must interact directly with their communities through requests for proposals to distribute funds. They will face critical decisions about how to invest the funds in ways that move beyond pilot programs to sustainable, system-level change.

Requirements from the opioid settlement to spend at least 85% of the money on opioid abatement aim to avoid pitfalls of the 1990s tobacco settlement, when funds were often diverted to general budgets and spent on programs unrelated to getting people to quit smoking.

States that have not given majority control of settlement spending to local governments have created a variety of ways to spend the money. These include a mix of state and local disbursement, as well as special fund-governing bodies charged with deciding how settlement funds are distributed. In some states, the state is the primary decision-maker about how settlement funds are used.

The requirement in Pennsylvania that opioid settlement funds are primarily sent to counties creates an opportunity for local innovation. It will also, eventually, allow experts to evaluate the effectiveness of this local control of funds compared with state control or other structures.

2. Website improves transparency and accountability

When members of the public can see where the money is going, they can hold systems accountable for using the funds effectively. County leaders, meanwhile, can see what programs are currently being funded in other counties that they may want to replicate or scale up.

3. Spending is a marathon, not a sprint

Settlement dollars are just beginning to be distributed and spent. According to the tracker, over $80 million had been spent on approved opioid remediation programs as of Dec. 31, 2024. Settlement payments will continue over the next seven to 18 years, varying by company.

This is a marathon and not a sprint, so communities and decision-makers will have to balance spending that produces short- and longer-term objectives.

Additionally, not all counties are receiving the same amount of money, and that affects what they can do with it.

4. New challenges will arise in opioid crisis

Emerging issues in the opioid crisis will continue to evolve, such as how contaminants like the animal tranquilizers xylazine and medetomidine, or products derived from kratom, a tropical tree, have entered the street drug supply in recent years.

Systematically tracking data will help expand our knowledge base of all programs in Pennsylvania that aim to address the opioid crisis. Some of these programs are based on strong existing evidence, while others will help to build new evidence, especially considering the ever-changing landscape of the crisis.

5. Funding gaps will remain

Opioid settlement funds are an important opportunity to address the opioid crisis, but will not on their own cover all funding gaps needed to address the crisis or the broader public health crises that are its major drivers. These include food and housing insecurity, unemployment, lack of access to mental health care, and so many other related issues.

As the country faces major and rapid federal disinvestment in states and communities, these funding gaps will grow and increase the pressure on local decision-makers to make the most of each dollar while demonstrating evidence of impact.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter.

Jonathan Larsen receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust. He is the Chair of the Haverford Township Democratic Committee.

Amy Yeung receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust

Dennis Scanlon receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust.

Renee Cloutier receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has sparked a wave of political commentary.

There were the respectful and sincere comments condemning the killing. Former President Barack Obama said, “What happened was a tragedy and … I mourn for him and his family.” And former Vice President Mike Pence said, “I’m heartsick about what happened to him.”

But Kirk’s killing also elicited what many saw as inappropriate comments. MSNBC terminated commentator Matthew Dowd after he said, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” American Airlines grounded pilots accused of celebrating Kirk’s death.

Perhaps the most notable reaction to remarks seen as controversial about the Kirk killing hit ABC comedian Jimmy Kimmel. His network suspended him indefinitely after comments that he made about the alleged shooter in Kirk’s death.

Countless defenders of Kimmel quickly responded to his indefinite suspension as an attack on the First Amendment. MSNBC host Chris Hayes posted the following on X: “This is the most straightforward attack on free speech from state actors I’ve ever seen in my life and it’s not even close.”

But is it?

Free speech? It depends

The First Amendment limits government officials from infringing one’s right to free speech and expression.

For example, the government cannot force someone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the American flag, because the First Amendment, as one Supreme Court justice wrote, “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”

And government cannot limit speech that it finds disagreeable while permitting other speech that it favors.

However, the First Amendment does not apply to private employers. With the exception of the 13th Amendment, which generally prohibits slavery, the Constitution applies only to government and those acting on its behalf.

So, as a general rule, employers are free to discipline employees for their speech – even the employees’ speech outside of the workplace. In this way, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham correctly said on X, “Free speech doesn’t prevent you from being fired if you’re stupid and have poor judgment.”

This is why Amy Cooper’s employer, an investment firm, was free to terminate her following her 2020 verbal dispute in New York’s Central Park with a bird-watcher over her unleashed dog. She called the police, falsely claiming that the bird-watcher, a Black man, was threatening her life. The incident, captured on video, went viral and Cooper was fired, with her employer saying, “We do not condone racism of any kind.”

This is also why ABC was able to fire Roseanne Barr from the revival of her show, “Roseanne,” after she posted a tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a Black woman who had been a top aide to President Obama, that many viewed as racist.

But as a scholar of constitutional law, I believe Kimmel’s situation is not as straightforward.

Threat complicates things

Neither Cooper’s employer nor Barr’s employer faced any government pressure to terminate them.

Kimmel’s indefinite suspension followed a vague threat from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr. As complaints about Kimmel’s statement exploded in conservative media, Carr suggested in a podcast interview that Kimmel’s statements could lead to the FCC revoking ABC affiliate stations’ licenses.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said.

But the Supreme Court has been crystal clear. Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.

In a 2024 case, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, a unanimous Supreme Court plainly said that the government’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other coercion to suppress speech it doesn’t like violates the First Amendment. That principle is so profound and fundamental that it got support from every member of an often bitterly divided court.

A threat to revoke broadcast licenses would almost certainly be seen in a court of law as a government action tantamount to coercion. And Carr’s public comments undoubtedly connect that threat to Kimmel’s disfavored comments.

If the FCC had indeed moved to strip ABC affiliates of their licenses to broadcast because of what Kimmel said, ABC and its parent company, Disney, could have sued the FCC to block the license revocations on First Amendment grounds, citing the NRA v. Vullo case.

But the network seemingly caved to the coercive threat instead of fighting for Kimmel. This is why so many are decrying the Kimmel suspension as an attack on free speech and the First Amendment – even though they might not fully understand the law they’re citing.

Wayne Unger 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

It’s been nearly two years since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent start of the Israel-Hamas war – and still, antisemitism shows no sign of abating as one of the thorniest issues at American colleges and universities.

University administrators have responded in various ways to Jewish students’ reports of harassment and discrimination during and after pro-Palestinian protests in 2024 and 2025.

Some schools, such as Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, have banned student organizations associated with the protests, expelled student protesters and instituted anti-bias training programs on antisemitism.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, launched a task force to combat antisemitism at 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia. It has also withheld federal funding from a range of universities on the grounds of their alleged inaction over antisemitism.

These efforts have often been as controversial as the problem they’re trying to solve.

Critics have accused university administrators of violating academic freedom and penalizing legitimate political protests.

And federal judges have pushed back against – and in some cases blocked – the Trump administration from withholding federal funding to schools, echoing calls from commentators and many American Jews that concerns about antisemitism are merely a pretext for punishing political opponents.

Since the Oct. 7 attack occurred, my team at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University has been trying to understand how antisemitism looks and is changing on campuses.

Our findings show antisemitic ideas are not necessarily widespread among university students or faculty in the U.S. But that doesn’t mean antisemitism is not a serious problem, since just a few students or faculty members with extreme views can shape an entire campus’s climate.

Studying antisemitism on campus

We first surveyed about 2,000 Jewish college students in December 2023 at about 50 schools with large Jewish populations.

We surveyed those same Jewish students again in the spring of 2024, while also conducting in-depth interviews with students and Jewish campus professionals about their experiences with antisemitism on campus.

During this same time period, we also conducted a survey of over 4,000 mostly non-Jewish students at these same schools.

In the spring of 2025, we conducted a survey of over 2,000 faculty members at 146 research-intensive universities, often called R1.

Here are some of our most important findings.

1. Antisemitism isn’t just about harassment

Our December 2023 survey found that the majority of Jewish students said there was a hostile environment toward Jews on their campus. This hostility was much more prevalent at some schools than others.

Students reported personal experiences of antisemitic harassment – especially on social media. But they also said they feel shunned or excluded from campus life. Jewish students at schools with higher reported levels of hostility were also less likely to say that they fully “belong” on their campus.

In our 2024 interviews, Jewish students reported being told by peers that they could no longer be friends due to their – real or perceived – support for Israel. They also said that their non-Jewish peers were actively avoiding them.

As one Jewish student put it, “No one wants to have a conversation with Jews right now.”

The majority of Jewish students who identify as politically liberal were especially likely to feel alienated and isolated. They were also especially likely to feel estranged from other liberals on campus.

Jewish students we interviewed also reported being shunned by friends who were critical of Israel, regardless of their own views on the actions of the Israeli government.

Multiple other studies have found that non-Jewish students reported they would not want to be friends with anyone who supports Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

2. Some Israel comments cross the line

Our research also shows that when it comes to debates about what is or is not antisemitic, Jewish students see a clear distinction between criticizing the actions of Israel’s government and denying Israel’s right to exist.

When we spoke to Jewish students in 2023 and 2024, we found the vast majority felt that denying Israel’s right to exist was antisemitic. But there was no similar consensus around other statements, such as accusing Israel of committing genocide.

3. Small groups drive antisemitism on campus

Our research also found that about 34% of non-Jewish undergraduates, and about 10% of non-Jewish faculty held views about Jews or Israel that most Jewish students find antisemitic.

About half the people in these groups expressed hostile views about Israel, such as denying that it has a right to exist and refusing to be friends with anyone who thinks differently.

The other half were less likely to express these extreme views on Israel but tended to agree with explicitly anti-Jewish statements such as “Jews in America have too much power.”

In contrast, two-thirds of non-Jewish students and about 90% of non-Jewish faculty did not hold views that Jewish students tend to see as antisemitic, even if they expressed deep criticism of Israel’s government.

4. Israel debates are relatively rare in class

Despite frequent news headlines about classroom discussions or protests related to the Israeli-Hamas war, 76% of faculty said that in the 2024-25 academic year the issue simply never came up in their class.

Other contentious topics such as climate change or racism in America were much more likely to be taught about or discussed in the classroom.

Responding to antisemitism

In our interviews, many Jewish undergraduates said they wanted their campus administrators to do more to address antisemitism. But some said that heavy-handed actions such as banning pro-Palestinian groups sometimes made things worse by further inflaming campus tensions and prompting criticism that Jewish students were receiving special treatment.

Similar concerns have been raised about the federal government’s approach, which, in the name of fighting antisemitism, has been focused on punishing entire schools and researchers in a wide variety of disciplines that have nothing to do with Jews or Israel, by withholding billions in federal funding.

The government has also initiated civil rights investigations and revoked visas for international students at some schools.

This approach, in my opinion, has the potential to alienate potential allies on and off campus, including faculty and students who oppose antisemitism in all its forms but are being harmed all the same by federal actions. Penalizing people in the name of helping Jewish students could also reinforce antisemitic stereotypes about oppressive Jewish power.

I think that healing Jewish students’ feelings of isolation and ostracism requires building, or rebuilding, social connections across ideological and religious lines. If university administrators, or the federal government, really want to help Jewish students, they should focus on bringing students together rather than driving them apart.

Graham Wright works for the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

One of Republicans’ most respected pollsters has identified an emerging group of swing voters who could help decide the 2026 midterms: Call them the weighted vest women.

They’re already flooding your social media feeds and neighborhoods — all while donning weighted vests, the latest fitness influencer fad of 2025. You don’t have to look far to find them. They’re covered on the pages of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop and can be seen in plenty of TikTok videos.

Christine Matthews — the pollster for former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s reelection campaign, former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ two campaigns and the president of Bellwether Research — first saw women wearing weighted vests all over her upscale neighborhood in Alexandria.

Matthews’ wanted answers to two simple questions: How many women were wearing weighted vests? And what were their politics? So she commissioned a poll of 1,000 women across the U.S., the results of which she shared exclusively with POLITICO.

Matthews found that about one in six women wear this year’s hottest wellness accessory. But more importantly, the weighted vest women broke for President Donald Trump by three points in 2024.

Going into 2026, though, this group backs Republicans and Democrats equally at 47 percent in a generic congressional ballot. Among all women surveyed, 48 percent would vote for Democrats compared to 35 percent for Republicans.

“The people who swing elections, it always sort of comes down — in particular in midterms — to suburban women,” Matthews said in an interview with POLITICO. “This, to me, is just a particularly interesting cohort that is a subset of that group that could swing these elections because they’re so engaged. They look like they’re definite midterm voters.”

These voters are “under age 45, have kids at home, and live in urban/suburban neighborhoods, [are] well-educated, higher-income and highly engaged with politics,” according to Matthews’ poll deck.

“While much more likely to ‘do their own research’ on health matters, they generally trust mainstream medicine and media,” according to the poll deck. “They aren’t vaccine skeptics or seed oil opponents. They are likely to be listening to a podcast while walking with a weighted vest. They are politically split.”

Matthews acknowledges that the weighted vest women comprise a small cohort, which could lead to a higher margin of error. “So we want to track them and get more data going forward,” she said.

More broadly, the poll found that 31 percent of Gen Z women disagree that vaccines are “generally safe,” and are turning to social media, influencers, podcasts and self-research over doctors and institutions for information. Gen Z women are twice as likely as Boomer women to be vaccine skeptics.

The survey also identified “a worrisome trend” among younger moms: 47 percent of moms to kids under 18 “primarily turn to doctors and the medical establishment for advice,” 32 percent “say they do their own research,” 15 percent “follow natural or holistic approaches” and 11 percent “rely on advice from friends/family.”

Some 71 percent of women say vaccines are safe. Democratic women are more confident about vaccine safety than Republican and independent women. Only 24 percent of Republican women strongly agree that vaccines administered in the U.S. are generally safe, while 49 percent of Democratic women strongly agree and 23 percent of independent women strongly agree. Meanwhile, 20 percent of GOP women and 16 percent of Democratic women say seed oils are unhealthy. And women who say seed oils are unhealthy are more likely to be vaccine skeptics.

It’s not yet clear what the defining issues for the weighted vest wearers in the midterms will be, and Matthews plans to commission more research about them in the coming weeks and months. But they appear to lean more conservative than the median voter.

“They have a modern diet of information that is heavily influenced by new media, social streams and podcasts,” Matthews said. “But it doesn’t cause them to go down weird fringe rabbit holes. It encourages them to adopt something like a weighted vest, but not, like, oppose vaccines.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

​Politics

Kamala Harris is going scorched-earth against her fellow Democrats, criticizing not just Joe Biden but a list of party leaders — and potential 2028 candidates — in her new memoir.

Recounting the whirlwind 107 days of her presidential campaign after Biden dropped out of the race in July 2024 following a disastrous debate performance, the former vice president tosses criticisms at a slew of major Democratic players, from her longtime friend California Gov. Gavin Newsom to party star Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

The memoir, titled “107 Days,” presents a raw retelling of the chaotic days between Biden’s bombshell announcement and the November election. Throughout, Harris bluntly describes the failings of a slew of pillars within the Democratic Party, pulling the curtain back on party leadership as Democrats stumble through attempts to land on cohesive messaging during a second Trump era and scramble to elevate possible standard bearers ahead of the 2028 election.

Here are eight Democrats Harris calls out in her new memoir:

Gavin Newsom

The California governor, and Harris’ longtime friend and competitor in their home state, was among the Democrats the former vice president exposed for their response in the hours after Biden dropped out of the race.

“Hiking. Will call back,” Harris wrote of Newsom’s response in notes from her calls that day.

“He never did,” she pointedly added in her memoir, skipping reference to Newsom’s subsequent endorsement hours later.

A spokesperson for Newsom previously declined to comment to POLITICO on the anecdote.

Harris and Newsom, both natives of the Bay Area , have had long and oftentimes overlapping political careers. While Harris, up until her book tour, has largely faded from view after her failed presidential bid, Newsom’s popularity has grown among Democratic voters, especially after the White House sent National Guard troops to the Golden State.

The California governor has come increasingly in the spotlight as one of the few Democratic voices willing to match Trump’s preferred tough-talking form of public sparring.

Gretchen Whitmer

Newsom wasn’t the only Democrat whose response the vice president described as lukewarm.

In her memoir, Harris recounted Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s reticence to commit to an endorsement. According to Harris, Whitmer said she needed to “let the dust settle” following Biden’s withdrawal from the race before making a public statement.

Whitmer, whose name had been floated at the time as a possible Democratic candidate to replace Biden, endorsed Harris the following day — and announced that she would co-chair Harris’ presidential campaign.

A spokesperson for the governor declined to comment on the record.

JB Pritzker

According to her call notes from the day of Biden’s withdrawal, which Harris presented in an italicized list in the early pages of her memoir, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also declined to immediately offer an immediate endorsement.

“As governor of Illinois, I’m the convention host,” Harris described as Pritzker’s response. “I can’t commit.”

Pritzker endorsed Harris the day after Biden dropped out.

“Gov. Pritzker fought hard to elect Vice President Harris and Democrats across the state and country,” said a spokesperson for the governor. “He’s proud to have helped lead a convention that built momentum and showcased the Harris-Walz ticket.”

Pete Buttigieg

In a shocking dig at the former Transportation secretary, whom Harris described as a “close friend,” Harris wrote that while Buttigieg was her top pick to join her on the presidential ticket, she ultimately didn’t select him because she didn’t believe America was ready for a Black woman and a gay man in the White House.

“We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk,” Harris wrote, adding that “I think Pete also knew that — to our mutual sadness.”

But according to Buttigieg, Harris’ concerns were “not something that we ever talked about.”

The former Transportation secretary told POLITICO on Thursday that he was “surprised” to read Harris’ thought process on his potential vice presidential candidacy in an excerpt of her book published this week, saying he believes in “giving Americans more credit” than assuming they wouldn’t vote for both of them.

Josh Shapiro

Shapiro, who was also in the running to be Harris’ No. 2, didn’t make the cut either.

Harris was concerned that the Pennsylvania governor’s ambition would prove an obstacle to his willingness to serve in a secondary role to hers.

Shapiro “mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision,” Harris recalled in the memoir, writing that she responded bluntly that “a vice president is not a copresident.”

She just couldn’t trust that he would settle for a role as No. 2.

And while Harris lauded Shapiro as “poised, polished and personable,” she said he “peppered” her and her staff with questions — including how many bedrooms were in the vice president’s home and “how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian.”

Shapiro also showed a “lack of discretion” in the process, Harris wrote, citing an incident when his car — with Pennsylvania plates — was filmed by CNN outside of her residence despite her staff’s efforts to secure the governor less obvious transportation.

A spokesperson for Shapiro pushed back on Harris’ characterization of the governor, telling POLITICO this week that “it’s simply ridiculous to suggest that Governor Shapiro was focused on anything other than defeating Donald Trump and protecting Pennsylvania from the chaos we are living through now.”

Mark Kelly

The Arizona senator, a former astronaut and retired naval officer, was a strong contender in the veepstakes, Harris recalled, describing him as “magnetic” and saying that she “admired” him.

But while Kelly was an “American ideal of selfless service,” he was also “untarnished” politically. He had yet to weather an “‘oh shit’ moment,” Harris wrote, saying that she “wasn’t sure” how he would handle the kind of attacks Trump was likely to lob his way.

Harris was also wary of the fact that Kelly was slow to sign the pro-labor PRO Act — a choice that she called a “red flag.”

The senator’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Joe Biden

After remaining quiet in the aftermath of her 2024 campaign, Harris finally opened the floodgates on her former boss, calling his decision to run for a second term “reckless.”

Though she did not believe it was “incapacity,” Biden was old, Harris wrote. And it showed. At 81, the president was tired, manifesting in “physical and verbal stumbles,” Harris wrote.

“I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the West Coast for a Hollywood fundraiser,” she said.

A spokesperson for Biden previously declined to comment on her book, but several former aides were critical of previously published excerpts in interviews with POLITICO.

But while she did have “concerns” about Biden’s ability to lead a successful campaign, Harris emphasized that “there was a distinction between his ability to campaign and his ability to govern,” writing that he “navigated successfully through intensely dangerous world events.”

Harris stressed that her relationship with Biden was a good one, describing their rapport as “genuine,” based on a foundation of shared values despite being people who “seemingly couldn’t have been more different.”

Still, Harris describes the frustration that she and her husband, Doug, experienced feeling that she had to repeatedly prove her loyalty to the president.

“I had to prove my loyalty, time and time again,” Harris wrote.

But Biden and his White House didn’t offer the same in return. When she was cast as a “DEI hire” or mocked for her laugh by conservatives, the White House stayed silent.

“Getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible,” she wrote.

She also specifically mentioned that Biden called her before her crucial debate with Donald Trump in 2024 to inquire why she supposedly was critical of him to donors. The call rattled her, she wrote.

Biden’s inner circle

But her broadsides weren’t just reserved for the former president.

Harris directed a volley of criticisms at Biden’s inner circle, blaming them for pushing her to the side as her popularity grew in a series of moves that she said ultimately held her back from beating Trump.

Biden’s team thrust thorny policy items onto her plate, reprimanding her after a viral speech she made and failed to defend her against attacks from Republicans and conservative media — even “adding fuel to negative narratives,” including reports of staff turnover in her office — Harris wrote.

And perhaps most of all, Harris blamed Biden’s confidants for not pushing him to step aside sooner.

“’It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.’ We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized,” Harris wrote.

But the former vice president dodged blame herself, saying that as Biden’s second in command, any move to encourage the president to step aside would have been seen as “incredibly self-serving.”

​Politics

Following the Sept. 10, 2025, death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, the Trump administration signaled that it intends to expand investigations into “leftist groups” for possible links to the suspect.

Kirk, who was 31 when he died, founded and led Turning Point USA, a conservative nonprofit that counted hundreds of thousands of young Americans among its members. Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man, is accused of killing Kirk with a single bullet at a crowded outdoor debate. He was, according to many accounts, raised by Republican parents in a conservative community. Although Robinson reportedly had recently adopted different political views, his precise motives remain unclear.

The Conversation U.S. asked Beth Gazley, an Indiana University scholar of nonprofits, local governance and civil society, to explain the significance of the Trump administration’s response to Kirk’s death in terms of free speech and nonprofit norms.

What are the Trump administration’s allegations?

High-ranking members of the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, are accusing certain progressive organizations of encouraging violence against right-wing public figures and suggesting they played a role in Kirk’s death.

Miller, for example, has likened those groups to “a vast domestic terror movement.”

Vance has said the government will “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence,” in a reference to nonprofits he alleges are supporting illegal activities.

President Donald Trump has blamed Kirk’s death on “a radical left group of lunatics” that doesn’t “play fair.” He has stated that they are “already under major investigation,” although no such probe has been disclosed to date.

Trump has raised the possibility of criminal charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as the
RICO statute, which is typically used to prosecute gangs and organized crime rings.

But, to be clear, the Trump administration has not yet produced evidence to support any of its allegations of wrongdoing by nonprofits and their funders.

What organizations are being targeted?

Some conservative media outlets and Trump administration members have singled out specific nonprofits and funders.

Their targets include billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations are among the country’s largest philanthropies, and the Ford Foundation, another of the nation’s top grantmakers. The outlets and officials claim that both foundations allegedly provided money to as-of-yet unnamed groups that “radicalized” Tyler Robinson and led to what the White House has called “organized agitation.”

Another target is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that regularly reported comments Kirk made disparaging Black, LGBTQ and other people.

The Ford Foundation is among more than 100 funders that signed onto an open letter posted to the Medium platform on Sept. 17, in which they objected to these Trump administration’s attacks. Open Society Foundations also signed the letter, and, in a post on the X platform, it denied the specific allegations directed at it by the Trump administration. The Southern Poverty Law Center has posted its own denial on Facebook.

Most but not all of the organizations Trump and his officials have accused of wrongdoing are charitable nonprofits and foundations. These organizations operate in accordance with the rules spelled out in Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code.

What can count as a charitable activity is defined very broadly due to the language that Congress approved over a century ago. It includes public policy advocacy, a limited amount of direct lobbying, social services and a broad range of other activities that include running nonprofit hospitals, theaters and universities. Churches and other houses of worship count as U.S. charities too.

The rights of nonprofits are also protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which entitles them to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble and “petition the government for a redress of grievances” – which cements their right to participate in public policy advocacy.

Obviously, institutions – including nonprofits – and the people who lead them can’t promote criminal activity or incite political violence without breaking the law. U.S. Supreme Court precedents have set the bar very high on what counts as an incitement to violence.

Are there any precedents for this?

The Republican Party has previously attempted, and failed, several times in the past few years to expand the executive branch’s power to deregister charities for partisan purposes.

Most recently, GOP House members drafted an amendment that was cut from the final version of the big tax-and-spending bill Trump signed on July 4.

But many nonprofit advocates remain concerned about the possibility of the Trump administration using other means to limit nonprofit political rights.

Are there precedents for the repression of US nonprofits and their funders?

Under the Bill of Rights, the U.S. has strong protections in place that shield nonprofits from partisan attacks. Still, there are some precedents for attempts to repress them.

The Johnson Amendment to a tax bill passed in 1954 is a well-known example. This law ended the ability of 501(c)(3) charities, private foundations and religious organizations to interfere in political campaigns.

Despite strong support from the public and the nonprofit sector for keeping it in place, the Trump administration has attempted to repeal the Johnson Amendment. What is largely forgotten is that Lyndon B. Johnson, then a member of Congress, introduced the measure to silence two conservative charities in his Texas district that supported his political opponent.

The Republican Party has also claimed in recent years that conservatives have been victims of efforts to suppress their freedom to establish and operate charitable nonprofits. A notable case was the GOP’s accusation during the Obama administration that the Internal Revenue Service was unfairly targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. Following years of outrage over that alleged partisanship, however, it later turned out that the IRS had applied extra scrutiny to progressive groups as well.

Some political observers have suggested that the Trump administration’s inspiration for targeting certain nonprofits and their funders comes from what’s going on in other countries. Hungary, Russia, Turkey and other countries have punished the activities of their political opponents and nongovernmental organizations as crimes.

What do you think could ultimately be at stake?

The economic and political freedoms that are the bedrock of a true democracy rely on a diversity of ideas. The mechanism for implementing that ideal in the U.S. relies heavily on a long-standing Supreme Court doctrine that extends constitutional rights to individuals and organizations alike. Nonprofits, in other words, have constitutional rights.

What this means for American society is a much greater proliferation of nonprofit activity than you see in many other countries, with the inevitable result that many organizations espouse unpopular opinions or views that clash with public opinion or the goals of a major political party.

That situation does not make their activities illegal.

Even Americans who disagree with the missions of Turning Point USA or the Southern Poverty Law Center should be able to agree that both institutions contribute to what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once called the “market place of ideas” necessary for an open democracy.

Is it easy to see what donors fund and what nonprofits do with their money?

This situation leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to know who is bankrolling a nonprofit’s activity.

Following the money can be frustrating. Federal law is somewhat contradictory in how far it will go to apply democratic ideals of openness and transparency to nonprofit activity. A key example is the long-standing protection of donor privacy in U.S. law, a principle that conservatives generally favor.

The courts have established that making a charitable gift is a protected free speech activity that entitles donors to certain privacy rights. In fact, the most recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling related to charitable giving, handed down in 2021, upheld a conservative nonprofit’s right to strip donors’ names from reporting documents.

This privacy right extends to foundations: They can decide whether to disclose the names of their grant recipients. Still, all nonprofits except churches need to make some disclosures regarding their finances on a mandatory form filed annually.

Looking forward, organizations that advocate for the charitable sector as a whole, such as the National Council of Nonprofits, are closely following the efforts of the Trump administration. Their role is to remind the public that nonprofits on both the right and left side of the political spectrum have strong advocacy rights that don’t disappear when bad things happen.

Beth Gazley 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

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s federally-focused campaign against vaccines is entering a new phase with allies intent on rolling back school and health care facility mandates.

Anti-vaccines advocates are now targeting Louisiana, Texas and Idaho, where they are pushing red state governors to follow Florida’s lead in removing requirements in schools for students to get certain shots. But those advocates, emboldened by recent victories in state legislatures, face steep political obstacles within their own party that will reveal how far GOP state leaders are willing to go to support the anti-vaccine wing of the Republican party.

That test for Republican governors and state lawmakers comes as the vaccine debate crescendos in Washington this week, with the charged testimony of ousted Centers for Disease Control and Prevention head Susan Monarez and the anticipated weakening of vaccine recommendations from its advisors. Kennedy had previously changed federal guidance advising Americans six months and older to get an annual Covid shot. The new guidance recommends it only for elderly people and those with underlying health conditions.

“They’re not going to want to run against the president’s policies, on one hand, but on the other hand, they also don’t want to eliminate the constituency which supports childhood vaccines,” Dorit Reiss, an attorney specializing in vaccine policy, said of the choice Republicans face. “So I think they’re going to have to sit down and do some math in an area that’s full of landmines.”

In Louisiana, lobbyists are planning to reintroduce a “medical freedom” bill that failed last year to ban vaccine mandates, but expanded to include schools.

“We feel like the climate is ready for it,” said Jill Hines, co-director of the anti-vaccine group Health Freedom Louisiana. “That conversation has already started with Florida’s foot in the door.”

In the Lone Star state – where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott capitalized on outrage over pandemic restrictions – Jackie Schlegel, president of anti-vaccine group Texans for Medical Freedom, promised “sweeping reforms in Texas in the coming years.”

“Putting parents as the sole decision maker and not the CDC or local school districts is what our legislators are talking about,” she added.

And Idaho lawmakers are expected to build upon an expansive “medical freedom” bill enacted earlier this year that prohibits businesses and schools from mandating “medical interventions,” including vaccines, although it allows for some exemptions.

But the politics of undoing vaccine requirements in schools – mandates that health experts credit with keeping injection rates high – are complicated. Polling shows Americans — including most Republicans — broadly support such mandates for schoolchildren. President Donald Trump’s own pollster warned Republicans against mistaking opposition to Covid shots among Republicans “as evidence that Republican voters are against all vaccinations. To do so would be folly.”

Yet the MAHA movement – which includes people who share Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccine safety – has emerged as a powerful force within the GOP, broadening the party’s tent and motivating some voters to turn out for Trump. Mothers comprise a large component of the MAHA coalition, and recent polling conducted by Bellwether Research revealed that nearly a quarter of women surveyed don’t believe vaccines administered in the U.S. are generally safe.

Months out from legislative sessions resuming across the country, no other state lawmaker or official has yet to step forward with plans to replicate Florida’s approach. But public health experts are fearful that Gov. Ron DeSantis could still set off a domino effect in GOP states. Florida is the first state to take sweeping executive action to remove school mandates, with its health department moving forward with rules to end requirements for four vaccines, including chickenpox. Removing mandates for measles and polio would require action from the state legislature.

“I would imagine that other red states are looking at this and trying to make an assessment about whether they want to follow Florida’s lead,” said Jennifer Kates, senior vice president at KFF, a health research group. “I don’t think it’s the end of the story.”

Following the pandemic, GOP states ushered in a wave of legislation allowing more exemptions to school vaccine mandates for religious or even personal beliefs. Pursuing outright bans in schools or medical facilities has long been anti-vaxxers’ on wishlists; now they believe Kennedy’s posture fosters a favorable political environment.

Aaron Siri, a vaccine injury lawyer who provides counsel for the Informed Consent Action Network, an anti-vaccine group that writes model state legislation, said “mandates are the tool of bullies, criminals and dictators.”

Like-minded groups may have trouble finding state lawmakers to propose their desired legislation though. Some legislators who have championed easing state requirements believe they’ve achieved most of what is politically feasible.

Louisiana Rep. Kathy Edmonston credited Kennedy’s MAHA movement for launching “a whole new way to look at public health.” But the Republican, who sponsored laws signed by GOP Gov. Jeff Landry prohibiting Louisiana schools from requiring Covid shots and requiring that they inform parents of their rights to an exemption, said she has “no plans to change what we’ve done.”

“We have everybody on the same page,” she said. “We’re requiring the parent to get your child vaccinated. But we’re telling you that if it goes against anything in your line of thinking, that you have the opportunity to exempt your child.”Louisiana already had one of the nation’s most lenient school vaccine policies, issuing exemptions on the request of a parent for any reason. No school system in the country requires Covid vaccination.

Alabama state Rep. Mack Butler recently reintroduced a bill to allow parents requesting a religious exemption to send a note to a child’s school instead of submitting a written objection and then getting approval from local health officials. Still, the Republican hasn’t heard of any initiative that would eliminate requirements altogether, and he called vaccines for mumps, measles and polio “tried and tested.”

Health care experts remain nervous about the potential for GOP leaders to bypass the legislature and act on their own to weaken vaccine policy. In Louisiana, Surgeon General Ralph Abraham last year directed the health department to no longer promote mass vaccinations. And while West Virginia lawmakers voted down a religious exemption bill in March, Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed an executive order that allows families to bypass vaccine requirements for religious reasons just hours after taking office this year. West Virginia is now mired in legal battles surrounding the implications of the governor’s order and the state Board of Education’s decision to continue requiring vaccines as the legal process plays out.

Rising anti-vaccine sentiment puts more pressure on state health officials to form a bulwark against efforts to chip away mandates, like in Mississippi, where its medical leadership has been steadfast.

“We have a really strong, educated legislature that values evidence-based medicine, and they’ve seen the importance of vaccines in preventing unnecessary deaths,” said Katherine Pannel, president of the Mississippi State Medical Association, a professional society for doctors. “They have been really valuable. So when any legislation to weaken the vaccine legislation has come up, they have been on target and have killed any kind of legislation.”

Florida is bound to face legal challenges that could slow or prohibit any repeal from going into effect, said James Hodge, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in vaccine law.

“We’re in a state of flux with Florida,” Hodge said. “We’re watching very carefully what and how far they go with this legally.”

Florida health care advocates intend to mount an aggressive campaign in opposition – and hope to send a warning about extreme political and health risks to other red states.

“I sincerely hope that other states don’t do this. We’re seeing at the national level an immense threat to the nation’s vaccine policy,” said Northe Saunders, president of American Families for Vaccines, an advocacy group that promotes immunization. “Any erosion at any level of government is going to put kids at risk and they’re going to get sick and unfortunately, people are going to die.”

​Politics

Democrats opened investigations, filed motions to subpoena and demanded the resignation of the Federal Communications Commission chair Thursday — a response to the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel that represented unusually swift pushback from a party struggling to find its footing.

But it’s not clear how Democrats will translate this relatively united front into an electoral strategy, as the party remains divided over how and how much to talk about threats to democracy ahead of next year’s pivotal midterm elections.

That tension began playing out in their descriptions of Kimmel’s suspension, as some Democrats urged their party to retool its messaging.

At a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce legislation to protect free speech, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) attacked President Donald Trump for “trying to destroy our democracy” and acting like “many would-be despots.” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) cautioned “fascism is not on the way, it is here.” But Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who is running for the U.S. Senate in a high-profile primary, warned that language may be “too abstract for people” and urged Democrats to “distill it down to something people get in their everyday life.”

“This is what we saw in 2024: When you talk about ‘fascism’ and ‘democracy’ and ‘oligarchy,’ it’s too big a concept,” McMorrow said. “People are so overwhelmed and when it’s too big, people just wonder, ‘well, what can I possibly do about it?’”

A House Democratic member, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly, warned of “a risk in talking about it in hyperbolic terms,” adding that there’s distinction in framing. “If you’re saying, ‘they’re taking away your speech and they’re canceling you,’ that’s more powerful than saying, ‘they’re taking away your democracy,’” the lawmaker added.

The Kimmel controversy — and how to talk about it — lands in the middle of an already-inflamed political landscape. Following last week’s killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Kimmel made comments Monday that appeared to align Kirk’s alleged killer with the MAGA movement. ABC announced Kimmel’s suspension on Wednesday night, after FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatened the network if it didn’t take action, telling a conservative podcaster, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

“It’s very clearly part of a crackdown on freedom of speech,” former federal Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told POLITICO. “If we can’t have comedians, let alone law firms or academics or journalists speaking their mind, then this isn’t a free country.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a statement with colleagues lambasting the FCC’s “corrupt abuse of power.”

Even so, veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod warned that Democrats must not lose focus.

“The main thing needs to be the main thing and the main thing is that people have struggles in their lives in this economy, and Democrats need to keep that the focus,” he said, “but that doesn’t mean that you can ignore what isn’t just a free speech issue.”

Trump celebrated Kimmel’s suspension during a press conference in the United Kingdom on Thursday, while arguing the late-night host “was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else.”

“He said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk,” Trump said. “You can call that free speech or not, he was fired for lack of talent.”

Even some Trump-friendly comedians and podcasters have raised concerns over Kimmel’s suspension. Tim Dillon, who interviewed then-vice presidential candidate JD Vance last year, posted on Instagram: “I am against Kimmel being taken off the air and against people being shot for their opinions. See how easy it is?” One of the hosts of the Flagrant podcast, who interviewed Trump in 2024, said, “in terms of censorship, freedom of speech is more under attack now, honestly, than I think it’s ever been.”

Democrats see it as an opening for breaking through to “people who are not hard partisans,” said Tim Hogan, a Democratic National Committee senior adviser.

“There is a broad audience that’s splintering from Trump’s coalition that understands everyone and anyone could be a target for something they say,” Hogan said. “This is not amorphous, this is going after your right to free speech.”

North Carolina state Sen. Graig Meyer urged his party to “meme this” rather than lecture voters on it, adding that, “yes, it’s authoritarianism,” but “Democrats should talk about it like, ‘Republicans want to take away your laughs,’” he said.

“The left is so bad at doing that type of culturally embedded storytelling and Republicans are so good at it,” Meyer said. “This is a chance to change the narrative around Trump, and it’s a chance to change the cultural narrative around Democrats, being willing to fight and providing an alternative.”

The flurry of controversial events is forcing a party in the political wilderness to confront anew an issue that bedeviled it during the presidential election last year.

Leaning on democracy as a campaign message didn’t help Democrats in 2024, when they deployed it against Trump and he nevertheless won the popular vote. Kamala Harris held one of her final campaign rallies last fall on the Ellipse, the same spot where Trump rallied his own supporters to march on the Capitol.

Several national Democrats said privately that Kimmel and free speech are “not going to be the top midterm issues Democrats are talking about,” one strategist said granted anonymity to discuss it candidly.

“Poll after poll shows that Trump’s threats to democracy aren’t a top issue for swing voters, and I don’t see it dominating in TV ads next fall,” said Democratic pollster Brian Stryker. “But sometimes you have to fight for things because it’s the right thing to do for the country and not because it’s going to win you an election. And if we don’t fight now, we may not have elections to fight to win in the future.”

Adam Wren and Cassandra Dumay contributed reporting.

​Politics

Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension from the late-night airwaves has thrust lawmakers, government officials and the president to the forefront of the debate over free speech while also deepening the partisan divide amid the fallout over conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.

Since Disney announced Wednesday night that it would pull Kimmel’s show indefinitely over the comedian’s comments about Kirk’s slaying, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr — who last night pressured ABC and local broadcasters to “to take action” against Kimmel — on Thursday morning defended his decision and accused the late-night show host of misleading Americans; House Democratic leadership in turn called on him to resign; and President Donald Trump told reporters in the U.K. that Kimmel was fired over bad ratings.

“They should have fired him a long time ago,” Trump said. “You can call that free speech or not. He was fired for lack of talent.”

Even former Vice President Mike Pence weighed in during an early Thursday morning appearance on CNBC to chide Kimmel for his comments while also expressing discomfort with Carr’s pressure campaign.

“The First Amendment doesn’t protect entertainers from being fired by their employers,” he said, adding, “I would have preferred that the FCC didn’t weigh in in the wake of this.”

The furor over Kimmel’s comments highlights how deeply divided America has become and how somewhat insensitive or even offensive remarks by public figures — and even the general public — have become fuel for those seeking to quelch opposing views.

Carr on Thursday accused Kimmel of upsetting “lots and lots of people” and hinted at going even further though, telling CNBC “we’re not done yet.”

“We’re in the midst of a very disruptive moment right now, and I just, frankly, expect that we’re going to continue to see changes in the media ecosystem,” Carr said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday was among those demanding Carr resign.

“I can’t think of a greater threat to free speech than Carr in many, many years,” Schumer told POLITICO. “He’s despicable. He’s anti-American. He ought to resign, and Trump ought to fire him.”

Trump Wednesday night celebrated Kimmel’s show being pulled before calling on NBC to cancel “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” and “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”

Former President Barack Obama on Thursday called the administration’s involvement in Kimmel’s cancellation “dangerous.”

“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” Obama said in a post on X on Thursday.

His comments follow remarks he made on Tuesday night during an event in Pennsylvania, where the former president called Kirk’s killing “horrific,” though he added that he disagreed with many of the conservative activist’s statements.

“We can also, at the same time, say that I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake,” Obama said. “I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power. I can say that I disagree that Martin Luther King was awful.”

The Trump administration has also faced backlash from Democrats and some conservatives after Attorney General Pam Bondi proposed the idea of cracking down on “hate speech” in the aftermath of Kirk’s shooting.

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker accused the administration of trying to “intimidate” companies.

“We’ve got the Trump administration literally targeting individuals — you saw it with [Stephen] Colbert, now you’re seeing it with Kimmel — anybody that’s criticizing this administration,” Pritzker said. “They’re using the power of government to intimidate companies to fire people.”

Back in Washington, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said her Republican colleagues have “selective outrage.”

“Republicans scream ‘free speech’… until the truth hurts their fragile politics,” she wrote on X. “Jimmy Kimmel gets suspended, but hate, lies, and conspiracy theories run free.”

​Politics