Category: Uncategorized

Detroit Mayor Mary Sheffield delivered her first State of the City address on March 31, 2026, at Mumford High School on the city’s northwest side.

In the speech, Sheffield touted the accomplishments of her administration’s first 90 days, which included bringing the cash assistance program RxKids to Detroit. Sheffield also announced a new initiative called Ride to Rise, which offers free bus service to the city’s K-12 students year-round.

Sheffield stressed mandates to tackle poverty, support youth development and seniors, build more single-family homes, increase homeownership and make the city a welcoming place for small businesses to grow and thrive.

That commitment to improving the lives of Detroiters, according to Sheffield, is reflected in the $US3 billion budget she introduced on March 9, 2026.

“This budget is a statement of our priorities and our values,” Sheffield said during the address.

Giving residents a say

One thing that’s missing from her budget proposal is any mention of participatory budgeting – something that Sheffield often championed during her 12 years serving on the City Council.

On the campaign trail, Sheffied said that participatory budgeting allows “residents to feel empowered and have a direct say in how their tax dollars are spent.”

I’m a professor of political science and author of a recent book called “Budget Justice” about grassroots politics. I think Sheffield had it right on the campaign trail – communities around the country want to democratize the budget process so that local governments better address their needs and increase transparency and accountability.

I gained this perspective by serving on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s transition team on community organizing, mass governance and participatory budgeting.

Participatory budgeting is a democratic experiment that gives constituents, rather than elected officials, power to decide how to allocate a portion of public funds. Although Detroit often holds community engagement forums and open calls for grant funding, participatory budgeting differs because it puts the power of the purse into the people’s hands.

Cities need democracy between elections

I first encountered participatory budgeting in 2011. Leaders from the grassroots organization Community Voices Heard and others helped to bring it to New York City during the Occupy Wall Street protests. Protesters who were part of that movement questioned why banks received governmental bailouts while households struggling with predatory student debt did not. I joined the rulemaking steering committee for New York’s new participatory budgeting process and stayed involved for the next decade.

New York’s process consists of four stages each year. In the fall, residents learn about the process through public service announcements, local media, door-knocking outreach or word of mouth. They then attend neighborhood assemblies where they pitch thousands of proposals for community projects. Frequently, a simple question gets them started: “How would you spend $1 million of the city’s budget?”

Meeting face to face matters. I’ve observed dozens of these assemblies, and people are much less likely to troll others in person than they are online, when they are anonymous and fueled by keyboard courage.

Over each winter, some residents volunteer to research and curate the proposals that will end up on the ballot. They also work with city agencies to develop ideas into full-fledged proposals. In New York, these projects have ranged from curb extensions at intersections identified as dangerous by local residents to summer arts camps and conflict resolution training programs.

Each spring, residents vote for the proposals that they want implemented.

Each summer, winning projects get funded.

In New York City, voting week for 2026 participatory budgeting proposals is April 11-19.

Engagement beyond voting

In the fiscal year 2026 budget cycle, New Yorkers allocated $30 million in public funds as part of the city’s $116 billion budget.

The nonprofit Community Development Project reported that 68% of the 17,000 people who voted on participatory budget proposals at the time of the survey had never worked together on a community issue before. Roughly 1 in 4 stated that they were not eligible to vote in regular elections, primarily because of being under age 18 or holding an undocumented immigration status.

For many, participatory budgeting helped them to understand their communities in new ways. As one participant put it, “I was able to see the needs (of) the community in a way I’ve never seen before. … I didn’t know how bad of an asthma cluster there was in public housing. I don’t have kids, so I don’t know about needs at school. I don’t have any relatives who live in senior housing, so I didn’t know about the issues they faced.”

Participatory budgeting also produced ripple effects. Participants were 8.4% more likely to vote than those who had not participated in the process. The effects are even greater for those who have lower probabilities of voting, such as low-income and Black voters.

In Detroit, only 22% of voters took part in the most recent municipal election. Participatory budgeting could be a tool for increasing turnout.

No shortcuts for meaningful participation

In my experience, participants need to feel they are doing meaningful work.

Research shows that participatory budgeting works best when communities allocate significant pots of money through the process, when residents are trained and encouraged to stay engaged beyond the process, and when combined with efforts to change practices in other parts of government, too.

In Boston, the Better Budget Alliance works to make sure projects that didn’t get funded through the city’s participatory budgeting process still get included in community demands for the larger city operating budget, and vice versa.

In New York, the Mamdani administration has just announced a new Office of Mass Engagement that aims to deepen the levels of transparency, listening and follow-through in the city.

In other words, experiments such as participatory budgeting can serve as an entry point to transformational change.

That change may look like the ambitious and growing national people’s budgets movement, which brings together local residents and community groups to protest budget cuts on essential services, articulate budget priorities and democratize the budget process. Unlike participatory budgeting, the movement’s campaigns often ask questions regarding divestments – for example, from jail expansions – as well as investments. It also concerns itself with taxes and the revenue side of the budget, and how budgetary powers should be shared by the mayor, city council, agencies and residents.

A beginning in Brazil

In Brazil, where participatory budgeting first began, the process was seen as an investment in working-class residents. Brazilian cities that implemented the process collected 16% more in taxes than cities that did not implement the process. Cities with participatory budgeting were seen as more legitimate, making their residents more willing to support additional taxes. These cities also boasted of higher tax collection and compliance rates.

Participatory budgeting also helped residents to harness the popular pressure and political will to reject development projects – such as luxury hotels – that they felt reflected business interests more than public needs. Because citizens expressed interest in providing funds for prenatal health, prominent political scientists even credit participatory budgeting with lowering infant mortality.

In American cities such as New York and Detroit, participatory budgeting processes could in time take on more challenging issues, such as universal day care or social housing.

Opaque budgets and an austerity mindset lead to distrust in government, perpetuating anti-tax sentiments.

This undermines the capacity of government to get things done. Robust participatory budgeting can help residents press for what they value most and serve as a tool to help cities such as Detroit thrive.

Celina Su served on New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s transition team subcommittee on community organizing. She also served on the New York city-wide steering committee for participatory budgeting and advised the process for its first decade, from 2011 to 2021.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Cars on the road today are 99% cleaner than they were in 1970. Air quality in the United States is much, much better as a result. In Los Angeles, where I live, lead levels in the air were 50 times higher in the 1970s than today, and the amount of lead in kids’ blood has plummeted.

What made that drop possible is arguably the most important environmental technology ever invented: the catalytic converter.

California has long had the authority under the federal Clean Air Act to set emissions standards for cars and trucks that are higher than the nation’s, and its early use of that authority is a major reason why catalytic converters are now standard in vehicles and people are healthier across the country.

At a time when the Trump administration is attacking California’s ability to cut air and climate pollution and revoking its Clean Air Act waivers, it’s helpful to remember just how important the state’s leadership has been in making the air Americans breathe so much healthier.

As I recount in my forthcoming book, “Smog and Sunshine: The Surprising Story of How Los Angeles Cleaned Up Its Air,” California’s role in the emergence of catalytic technology is often downplayed. The passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act is typically given the credit. That law deserves accolades for its key role. So does William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But without California’s willingness in the early 1970s to push automakers to meet tough standards, the technology would have developed more slowly and the air would have remained dirtier for many more years.

Birth of the catalytic converter

Eugene Houdry invented the first catalytic converter technology in the 1950s. Years earlier, he had developed the Houdry process for catalytic cracking, which makes converting crude oil into gasoline much easier. That invention in the mid-1930s helped spur the mass adoption of cars and trucks in the U.S.

Widespread car ownership altered American life, changing where people lived, worked and vacationed. But cars also brought terrible smog as their use skyrocketed. When Houdry realized his life’s work was choking the air of Los Angeles, he decided to do something about it. By the late 1950s, Houdry had invented a rudimentary catalytic converter.

You might think that this invention, which Houdry said could make “the lung cancer curve dip,” would lead carmakers to install the technology on their new vehicles.

But that is not what happened. Instead, auto manufacturers engaged in what the government described as a yearslong conspiracy to keep emissions-limiting technology off the market, ultimately leading to an antitrust legal settlement.

It wasn’t until the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act that carmakers got serious about improving upon Houdry’s invention for mass market installation.

The Clean Air Act’s ambition

The 1970 Clean Air Act is a remarkable piece of legislation. Passed with only one negative vote and signed into law by President Richard Nixon, the act set wildly ambitious goals. They included a requirement that carmakers cut auto pollutants by 90% by 1975.

Congress passed this requirement knowing that the technology to cut emissions wasn’t ready for prime time. Houdry’s catalytic invention couldn’t work with leaded gasoline, and it hadn’t been tested in tough conditions, such as freezing cold or sweltering heat.

The Ford Motor Co., with Lee Iacocca as its president, told Congress in 1970, “If such (pollution cuts) are established … the technology as we know it today would not permit us to continue to produce cars after January 1, 1975.”

Congress ignored Ford’s dire warning and passed the stringent cuts.

Automakers responded with two separate tactics. The first was to gear up – alongside companies like Corning Glass and the Engelhard Company – to develop technology to meet the 90% cuts. Most of their efforts focused on improving the catalytic converter, made more plausible when Engelhard determined that catalytic converters wouldn’t corrode with unleaded gasoline. The EPA’s Ruckelshaus ordered gas stations to make unleaded gasoline available as of Jan. 1, 1975.

While the auto companies worked to meet the congressional mandate, they also pressured Congress and the courts to weaken or delay it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit obliged, ordering Ruckelshaus to extend the deadline for compliance by a year. Congress eventually extended the deadline to 1981.

But California did not let up.

A gamble that paid off

California has the authority under federal law to issue its own automobile pollution standards, as long as the standards are stronger than federal standards and the state receives a waiver from the EPA. No other state has similar power, but states can adopt California’s higher standards.

After the federal appeals court gave carmakers an extra year to comply with the federal rules, California decided it would not let car companies off the hook.

The state asked Ruckelshaus to grant a waiver for California to issue standards tough enough that carmakers would have to install catalytic technology to meet them.

Ruckelshaus faced enormous pressure to deny the waiver, with automakers arguing that the technology was neither effective nor available. But in a hint of the resolve he would later show in refusing Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, Ruckelshaus gave California the go-ahead in 1973, and the state’s rules went into effect for the 1975 model year.

He reasoned that doing so would maintain “continued momentum toward installation of (catalyst) systems … while minimizing risks incident to national introduction of a new technology.” In other words, California could serve as a guinea pig for the rest of the country by adopting tough standards.

The gamble paid off. Since California was the nation’s largest auto market, companies had strong economic incentives to change their models to meet the state’s standards. Catalytic technology is now not only standard on American vehicles but also on vehicles around the world, and air quality in the U.S. is vastly improved.

With the adoption of the catalytic converter, leaded gasoline was banned and eventually phased out, and lead levels began to drop almost immediately.

Continuing California’s legacy

Catalytic converters have removed 8 billion tons of pollution from the air in the U.S. They have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and led to the removal of a deadly neurotoxin, lead, from the atmosphere.

California’s standards have spurred important technological innovations for vehicles, including new types of less-polluting gasoline and vehicles that emit no pollution at all.

But the state’s ability to set higher standards is under attack. Congress – at the behest of the Trump administration – has overturned three waivers the state was granted to cut even more pollutants and the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The Trump administration has also sued California to invalidate its mandates for automakers to sell zero-emissions vehicles.

Today, California officials are searching for alternative ways to continue to make cars and trucks cleaner. The state has set aside money to replace federal tax incentives for electric vehicles, and the Legislature is exploring creative ways to hold indirect sources of emissions, such as rail yards, ports and warehouses where vehicles are constantly running, accountable for air pollution.

But these alternatives aren’t as powerful as the authority to exceed federal standards to make the air cleaner.

Ann E. Carlson’s research was supported by UCLA. President Biden appointed her to serve as Chief Counsel and Acting Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 2021-2024.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The British- and American-backed plot to overthrow Iran’s prime minister in 1953 laid the groundwork for the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and decades of hostility with the U.S. that have now culminated in a war launched on Iran by the U.S. and Israel.

Many Americans only know the anger and tension with Iran that has grown from those roots set down during the middle of the last century. But as an archaeologist who has spent over 50 years specializing in Iran, and from my research on Iranian history in the context of changes undergone by Iran’s nomadic population through time, I believe it is worth recalling the time when the two countries had a distinctly different relationship.

In the 1800s, American missionaries journeyed to what was then called Persia.

The missionaries helped build important institutions – schools, colleges, hospitals and medical schools – in Persia, many of which still exist.

Dr. Joseph Plumb Cochran, an American physician fluent in Persian, Turkish, Kurdish and Assyrian, founded a hospital in Urmia in 1879, as well as Iran’s first medical school. When Cochran died at Urmia in northwestern Iran in 1905, over 10,000 people attended his funeral.

This image clashes with most American stereotypes of Iran and its people, and is at odds with decades of anti-Iranian sentiment emanating from Washington.

Iran and the United States, in fact, have a deep history of mutual respect and friendship.

From 1834, when the first Protestant American mission was established in Urmia, until 1953, when the CIA’s involvement in Iran’s internal affairs set the United States on the road to conflict with Tehran, Americans were the good guys.

Imperial bad guys

For years, Americans have seen images of Iranians shouting “Death to America.” President Donald Trump returned the sentiment during his first term, vowing to bring Iran death and destruction. And on Feb. 28, 2026, after weeks of threats and military preparation, the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; that war continues to this day.

But before all that happened, when Americans were the good guys, there were other countries who were instead manipulators and who exerted undue influence over Iran.

The bad guys, at whose hands Iran suffered most, were Russia and Great Britain. Those two nations – often at the invitation of Iran’s leaders – economically exploited Persia to further their own imperial ambitions, using sustained diplomatic, military and economic pressure.

After two ill-judged wars fought against Russia – the First (1804-1813) and Second Russo-Persian Wars (1826-1828) – Persia (the name Iran was officially adopted in 1935) lost large amounts of territory to the czar.

Much later, Russia found another means of exerting control over the Persian crown, loaning millions of rubles to its rulers, like Mozaffar ed-Din Shah, who reigned from 1896-1902 and needed capital to fund his lavish lifestyle.

With the exception of the Anglo-Persian War (1856-1857), Persian relations with Great Britain were less openly hostile. But what they lacked in martial vigor was more than compensated for by economic exploitation.

Toward the end of the 19th century, the shah granted exclusive concessions to the British for everything from telegraph lines to tobacco. Rights to Iran’s oil were given to the Anglo-Persian (later Anglo-Iranian) Oil Company.

So assured were Britain and Russia in their control of Persia that, in 1907, they signed the infamous Anglo-Russian Convention. That agreement divided the country – unbeknownst to its Parliament, let alone its inhabitants – into Russian, British and “neutral” spheres of influence. After it became public it provoked the outrage of ordinary Persians and the international community at large.

America the good

Iran’s relations with the United States were completely different.

The 19th- and early 20th-century history of British and Russian imperial ambitions and involvement in Iran put Iran in a dependent, exploited position at the hands of the governments of these two countries.

But the presence in Iran of American missionaries and, later, invited government technocrats, was of an entirely different quality. These were Americans offering aid, with no expectation of advantage to be gained officially for the United States government.

American Presbyterian missionary efforts in Iran began in 1834 and focused on education, with 117 schools established around Urmia by 1895. Efforts were also directed at medical and social welfare. These were nongovernmental missions. The U.S. government was conspicuous by its absence in Iran and Iranian affairs.

By the late 19th century, the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions had opened new stations in cities across northern Iran, from Tehran to Mashhad. American diplomatic relations with Persia were established in 1883. A decade later the American Presbyterian Hospital was founded in Tehran by John G. Wishard.

After the First World War, Presbyterian schools for both boys and girls proliferated, the most famous of which were the American College of Tehran for boys, established in 1925, and Iran Bethel School for girls.

In 1910, the Persian Parliament, aware that the country’s finances were in disarray, invited the U.S. to identify a “disinterested American expert as treasurer-general to reorganize and conduct collection and disbursement of revenue.”

Despite Russian attempts to block the initiative, W. Morgan Shuster, a distinguished career civil servant, was appointed by Persia in February 1911. He arrived in Tehran in May, bringing with him four other Americans.

The mission was a failure, lasting only eight months, and, unsurprisingly, was adroitly sabotaged by the combined efforts of British and Russian diplomats in Tehran.

The country’s financial situation after the First World War was still precarious. With none of the colonialist baggage associated with the two European superpowers, America was turned to, almost as a last resort, to fix what ailed Iran. Riza Shah, father of the last shah, appointed an American, Arthur C. Millspaugh, as the administrator-general of the finances of Persia.

When Millspaugh arrived in Tehran in 1922, a newspaper editorial addressed him with these words: “You are the last doctor called to the death-bed of a sick person. If you fail, the patient will die. If you succeed, the patient will live.”

Despite his often testy relations with foreigners, Riza Shah acknowledged Millspaugh’s American Financial Mission was “the last hope of Persia.” The fact that the mission was far from an unqualified success does not detract from its importance. Nor did it diminish America’s image as an honest broker in Iranian eyes, in contrast to that of Russia and Great Britain.

Of course, not every Iranian-American interaction during this period was positive. Robert Imbrie, the American consul in Tehran, was brutally murdered in 1924, allegedly because a fanatical religious leader accused him of being a Baha’i and poisoning a well.

Riza Shah used the episode to crack down on dissidents and impose strict controls on public gatherings.

America the bad

America’s benign image in Iran was forever shattered in 1953 when the CIA, working with Great Britain, engineered a coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister who had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Even though the overthrow of Mossadegh damaged Iranian trust in America, the years just prior to Iranian revolution in 1979 saw the number of Iranian students in the United States steadily rise.

Over one-third of the approximately 100,000 Iranian students pursuing university degrees abroad in 1977 were in the U.S. By the time of the Islamic revolution two years later, that number had climbed to 51,310, making Iran by far the biggest single source of foreign students in America, with 17% of the total foreign student population. The next-largest contributor of foreign students, Nigeria, accounted for only 6%.

“Iranian students have been here for nearly a century … there are deep and abiding connections that reveal themselves when you look at the historical record,” researcher Steven Ditto, who wrote a report on Iranian students in the U.S., told The Washington Post in 2017.

The legacy of American goodwill, personal friendship and doing the right thing by Iran has not been completely lost, although the war now underway may make it seem as though America’s good relationship with Iran has been lost irretrievably.

Deep friendships dating back well over a century can withstand a great deal. A reservoir of goodwill and affection may lie dormant while political storms rage. Iran and America were good friends in the past, and for good reason. I believe that Americans would do well to remember that.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Aug. 19, 2020.

Daniel Thomas Potts 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

What does gentrification in Philadelphia look like?

“High-rise, modern apartment buildings.”

“(A) modern look that’s so out of place with our traditional row homes that have been here for a hundred years.”

“Six- to seven-floor high-rises with garages in the basement. They charge an extra $200 to park.”

“Gray, industrial looking.”

“The houses are ugly as heck. No architectural style. They’re probably two-bedroom, some probably one. And they usually put a deck up. It’s not geared for kids or families. A lot of steps.”

These are some of the descriptions that longtime residents of gentrifying neighborhoods in Philly used to describe the new construction popping up around them.

We are Ph.D. candidates in architectural engineering and geography, environment and urban studies at Drexel and Temple universities in Philadelphia. Working with a multidisciplinary team of professors and students, we recently developed a new way to map gentrification in Philly neighborhoods using a combination of accounts from longtime residents, Google Street View images and machine learning.

Using AI to spot gentrification

Our team posited that the best source for knowing what gentrification looks like comes from the perceptions of longtime residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

So we held focus groups in three rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods – one in Northeast Philadelphia and two in the River Wards section north of Center City and along the Delaware River.

We asked residents to identify the visual cues of building designs, materials, colors and landscaping choices that they associate with gentrification.

Many of these residents could recount, in great detail, the exact street intersections where they saw gentrification-related development occur over the decades.

We corroborated each location they identified through historical Google Street View imagery. By examining the exteriors of these buildings, we could expand upon the more generalized language used in the discussions, such as “modern” or “boxy,” to , such as “presence of bump-out windows” and “increased floor area ratio,” which is a measure of how much of the surface area of a land parcel a building takes up.

When pulling panoramas of residential building exteriors from Google Street View, we looked at two distinct time periods: 2009-13 and 2017-21.

AI is getting better at spotting the visual signs of gentrification. Researchers refer to AI systems that categorize scenery according to certain characteristics, like seeming “gentrified” or “not-gentrified,” as “deep mapping” models.

Deep mapping models use neural network algorithms, which can pick up on patterns in big datasets. The particular model we used is able to pick up subtle, pixel‑level differences between two images.

The model learned to approximate how residents distinguish gentrified scenes from unchanged ones. When we tested the model’s output, we found that it was able to separate “gentrified” from “not‑gentrified” images with an accuracy of about 84%. This showed us that visual cues guided by residents’ observations can be translated into a reliable machine learning signal.

Gentrification doesn’t always look the same

As a neighborhood becomes gentrified, wealthier people move in and long-standing residents can be displaced through rent hikes or the loss of housing. Gentrification can also lead to the disappearance of a “sense of place” – characteristics that make a neighborhood feel familiar and like home.

With deep mapping models, researchers and neighborhood stakeholders can pull their own data on landscape changes related to gentrification and better understand how gentrification changes physical environments. With better data, they can map hot spots of new development and use machine learning models that predict future trajectories of change.

For example, several of our focus group participants in one neighborhood noted that gentrification was connected to the demolition of old buildings that likely contained hazardous substances, such as asbestos and lead. They wondered about the potential for air pollution. With accurate data on where development is occurring, researchers can model relationships between new construction and environmental conditions such as air quality.

Moreover, this process can also give legitimacy to neighborhood groups that may see changes occurring around them but lack the quantitative data to legitimatize their concerns to the media and to city government.

By being more explicit about how gentrification is defined when we categorize images and train our machine learning model, researchers can be more transparent about how image data is prepared and prevent personal biases from guiding the model and the patterns it learns.

For example, certain research finds that gentrification leads to increased greenery. However, some participants in our focus groups reported that gentrification resulted in the loss of community gardens and greenery. This experience runs contrary to common assumptions in gentrification research.

Transparency in training models builds trust

By defining how gentrification is perceived by residents, researchers like us can add clarity to how we prepare the model data. Even with more clarity, however, these AI systems are still “black box” in nature. A black box model means that the connection between inputs and outputs is unclear to the model user.

One way to make the model more transparent is by applying an additional model called XAI, or explainable artificial intelligence. Through XAI, there is potential to better understand which characteristics in an image are more important to the model prediction. For example, does the model focus on the windows of a building or the relative height of buildings?

Answering these questions will help researchers and stakeholders trust model predictions.

At the same time, one of us is leading a complementary line of research focused on explaining the reasoning behind the machine learning model decisions. In Philadelphia and many other U.S. cities, street scenes can have a dense mix of cars, vegetation and architectural styles that can confuse the model. There is a lot of complicated visual information to parse through, a lot of variety. Understanding the model’s internal logic helps ensure that its predictions reflect real neighborhood dynamics rather than irrelevant details in the imagery.

Together, these research directions aim to deepen our understanding of how gentrification unfolds on the ground and how AI can help illuminate patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed.

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

Maya Mueller receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

Isaac Quaye received funding from the National Science foundation.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

On Feb. 24, The Conversation hosted a webinar titled, “What Americans can learn from other nonviolent civil activism movements.”

Executive editor and general manager Beth Daley interviewed John Shattuck, professor of practice at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and Oliver Kaplan, associate professor at Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs at the University of Denver and a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

Shattuck is the former president of Central European University in Hungary, where he defended academic freedom against a rising authoritarian government. Kaplan is the author of “Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves.” This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

Beth Daley: What is an authoritarian regime, and what are their characteristics?

John Shattuck: The authoritarian, often referred to as a “king,” is the ideal role from the point of view of the king, but certainly not from the point of view of the people. Authoritarian characteristics include centralized unlimited power, the opposite of democracy; no accountability and no rule of law; no independent courts; no checks and balances on how the king operates; rule by fear and coercion, and when necessary, in order to carry out the king’s orders, rule by by force. There are no individual rights or civil liberties except those the king decides to allow those who are loyal to him to have, at least until he decides to take them away.

That’s a nutshell informal description of an authoritarian regime. A special threat today is that an authoritarian can emerge from a democratic election, and, indeed, a democratic election can be used to turn a weak democracy into an authoritarian regime. But when this happens, it opens the door to challenge the authoritarian in a subsequent election if civic activism can defend the electoral process by which the authoritarian was elected.

BD: What are we seeing and not seeing in the U.S. that other countries have gone through in terms of authoritarian government?

Oliver Kaplan: I think we are heading toward an autocracy, if not there already. In their 2026 report, the Varieties of Democracy Project writes that the U.S. is no longer a liberal democracy and is moving into “competitive authoritarianism,” marked by executive overreach and erosion of judicial and legislative checks. The report notes that U.S. democracy is being dismantled at a speed that is “unprecedented in modern history.”

We are seeing shifts in terms of concentration of power to the executive branch and a disregard of the rule of law, things like ignoring court orders and difficulty with holding the executive branch accountable. We are also seeing the militarization of law enforcement, monitoring of U.S. citizens, and what some refer to as the dual state – that the state is working for some people while causing more challenges for or oppressing other people.

One of the things we’re not seeing at full force yet is a complete shutdown of civic space. We’re able to hold this kind of conversation, and people are still able to dialogue and go out on the street. There are some efforts at curtailing free speech, and I think there’s some self-censorship possibly happening. But there’s still this open space and a powerful mass movement growing in this country.

BD: John, you were on the front lines, particularly in Hungary as the head of Central European University. What did you see there that has parallels today to the U.S.?

JS: There’s certainly a parallel between Hungary and the U.S., even though the countries are very different in size, history and background. What I saw in Hungary when I became president of Central European University in 2009 was a weak, new democracy that was only established in 1990 after 70 years of fascism and communism.

I was in Hungary from 2009 to 2016 and, despite the differences, I could begin to see some parallels. Many people had grievances in Hungary about how their economy was operating, particularly after the global financial crisis that affected Hungary more than any other Eastern European country. Then there was an urban-rural divide, the urban elite versus the rural majority in the country.

Along came a cynical populist-nationalist politician, Viktor Orbán. Orban started manipulating these grievances, and did so to significantly divide Hungarian society. He attacked many of the institutions of democracy, which were increasingly unpopular because of people’s grievances. He went after elites, and foreigners, and migrants, and the media. And he blamed all of them for the country’s problems. He then was able to ride these grievances into office.

Once in office, Orban amended the constitution and laws relating to the parliament. He undermined the independence of the media and the judiciary so as to centralize power. All of this happened while I was running an international university in Budapest, which remained independent because it received no funding from the Hungarian government. We were able to resist the increasingly authoritarian regime over issues of academic freedom. The government tried to shut down our programs of migration studies and gender studies, and tried to censor aspects of our history department.

These authoritarian attacks are similar to what we’ve seen happening in the U.S., and in fact, Viktor Orban was greatly admired by Donald Trump, and a lot of the playbook that Orban has followed was mirrored in Project 2025 in the U.S. under Trump.

BD: How do communities respond in different ways to authoritarian regimes?

OK: Pro-democracy movements and protection types of movements at the local level often co-occur. For example, in Colombia there have been various leftist movements and political parties that have pushed for greater democratic opening while communities mobilize to keep people safe and help them cope with repressive conditions. In places like Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, communities built trust and support networks to provide aid, such as for people who needed food assistance. This provides space to independently operate and preserve the community.

The U.S. has parallels, such as innovating early warning networks to get advance notice of risks and threats, by communicating using the Signal app. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, villages set up radio networks, and in Ukraine they have sophisticated early warning networks to get word of airstrikes and drone attacks.

Fact-finding and countering stigma are important, and in the U.S. we’re seeing that in the form of the video recording and publicizing of harmful actions. This has played out similarly in Syria with fact-finding to protect nongovernment organizations.

There’s also accompaniment where outside actors come in to provide support to communities. Around the world, church organizations play important accompaniment roles. We’re seeing clergy in the U.S. step up and visit places that are at risk.

And then, there are protests, the most visible kind of action. In Minnesota, we’ve seen communities actually setting up community barricades, which has also happened in Mexico, Colombia and Northern Ireland. Communicating the nonviolent nature of these movements is important to avoid any pretext for additional crackdowns.

I think Americans have been taking similar actions to places around the world in part because there are some similar background conditions: repression and strong social capital networks. Those two things come together to produce these strategies.

BD: Could you speak more about the need to build a clear narrative and a positive one?

JS: There are two basic rules for how to resist authoritarianism that I’ve learned from experience: Build a diverse coalition and develop a unifying theme. You need a diverse coalition in order to appeal to a broad range of the public, and in order to do that, you need agreement on the goal and values of what you’re trying to accomplish. You need a clear and unifying narrative. The narrative often involves economic issues and issues of corruption, since there’s often a great deal of corruption in authoritarian regimes.

Hungary will have its next parliamentary election in April in which Orban will seek his fifth term as prime minister. The opposition has developed a broad coalition and a unifying theme, while Orban is using the centralized instruments of government and media that he controls to try to manipulate public opinion. The opposition coalition is headed by Peter Magyar, who was once a major supporter of Orban’s government. Magyar’s name can be magical in Hungary – sort of like a “Joe America” in the U.S.

With Magyar as its head, the opposition is aiming to peel off supporters of the regime. It’s campaigning on economic grounds, with a positive message and on moderate terms. And most importantly, it includes parties from the left, right and center.

Poland has succeeded in doing what the Hungarian opposition is attempting. It managed to vote out an authoritarian government by putting together a broad coalition to defend the independence of the Polish judiciary. That became a coalition to elect parliamentarians in 2023, and that succeeded in changing the government.

BD: How important is the preexisting social fabric of a community to the success of a protest movement?

JS: It’s important, but complicated. Hungary had a very weak civil society after 70 years of totalitarian fascism and communism. When I was there, the very word to “volunteer,” which we think of as the essence of community action and service, was seen to be a bad word in Hungarian because it was closely associated with collaborating with the regime.

In the U.S., we’re the opposite in a sense, although the U.S. is now slipping on this. We have a long history of volunteerism, we have all these civil society organizations, we have a tradition of barn raising, people getting together with their neighbors and doing things in their communities. This is very much a part of the American spirit and a core value.

But today, I would say a combination of consumerism and economic individualism coming out of decades of economic deregulation has caused our civil society to fray. But the authoritarian challenge that we face now, and the way in which we are beginning to respond to it, is in fact bringing communities back together again. I think what happened in Minneapolis is an example of that. And this may reflect a growing capacity to resist an authoritarian regime.

Former President, Central European University (2009-2016)

Oliver Kaplan 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

Operation Epic Fury – the latest round of military strikes against Iran – began when Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States to renew restrictions on its nuclear program.

This is not the first time the United States has bombed Iran during nuclear negotiations.

In June 2025, while its representatives were in talks with Iran over that country’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, Washington launched Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Washington has been broader in its selection of targets in Iran this time around, even though one stated U.S. goal has been to ensure that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons capability.

Conducting military strikes against a country that is engaged in negotiations to reduce its nuclear capacity sets a dangerous precedent. As a scholar of the global nuclear order, I believe that the conflict has jeopardized all future diplomacy to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military action during negotiations has also undermined Washington’s ability to conduct diplomacy to end the war. Iranian officials negotiating with mediators have expressed their concern that they “don’t want to be ‘fooled again,’” according to a report in Axios, and that any new set of negotiations might just be a ruse to conduct more attacks.

Breaking trust

The key components of any negotiations are trust and good faith.

Parties coming to a negotiating table to discuss their nuclear programs must trust that those across the table are acting in good faith. Past negotiations on nuclear arms control and risk-reduction measures between entrenched enemies, such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union or even India and Pakistan, have seen trust as a key component of coming to the table.

Trust has its own diplomatic cachet. It allows negotiating states to be a little more vulnerable, thus facilitating the possibility of softened positions leading to landmark agreements.

In the 1960s, negotiations were held to establish a global agreement – the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Nations without nuclear weapons had to trust that countries with them would not use their atomic arsenals to gain military advantage over them as they committed to forswear the possession and development of these weapons. Today all but one of the nonnuclear countries of the world – South Sudan – are signatories to the treaty.

The consequences of Washington’s military strikes would be even more grave if a new nuclear deal between Iran and the United States was truly within reach in the negotiations in Geneva days before the conflict started. This is because the reported concessions from Iran were substantial enough to have warranted a pause in Washington’s military strategy.

A day before Operation Epic Fury began, Oman foreign minister Badr bin Hamad al Busaidi, the principal mediator in the talks, announced that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling. That is, Tehran would give up its enriched uranium, would down-blend – nuclear-speak for diluting – all material that was previously highly enriched to a neutral level, and be subject to “full and comprehensive verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If true, these terms could have made any new agreement between the U.S. and Iran as consequential as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated between the United States and Iran under President Obama’s administration.

The violation of trust by the U.S. will be keenly observed by North Korea. In early March 2026, that country conducted tests of what it called “strategic cruise missiles” – missiles it suggests could have nuclear capability – stating that its ability to attack from under and above water was growing and that it was arming its navy with nuclear weapons.

Any possibility of bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs will now be marked by the unreliability of the U.S. as a good faith negotiator.

Imperiled future

With its actions in Iran, the U.S. has lost credibility as a leading international interlocutor in service of global nonproliferation diplomacy.

Key to a nation’s credibility during negotiations is the reputation that it builds from its past actions. Both instances of the U.S. bombing Iran while negotiating with it will make it very unlikely that other countries will engage with Washington in future nuclear diplomacy.

Those countries that want to take part in nuclear diplomacy involving the U.S. will likely ask that other, trusted countries participate as well. They will also likely seek security guarantees before engaging in negotiations. This will mean that China and the European Union – countries, alliances or institutions that might help keep the United States accountable – will likely have to be a part of any such diplomacy.

Loss of trust in the United States’ good faith will likely continue across future U.S. administrations after the Trump presidency. This will be because of uncertainty over the credibility of international commitments made by the United States. An agreement made by one administration could be reneged on by the next.

Another area of concern is that in the future a country on the threshold of gaining nuclear weapons might not arrive at the negotiating table fully ready to give up all parts of its nuclear program. Even if a country does make concessions, it might choose to hold on to some part of its nuclear or missile program as a guarantee against a future American military strike.

The future of negotiations over nuclear proliferation may yet expand beyond that focus to ballistic missiles as well. Recall that Trump began the latest conflict saying that Iran’s ballistic missiles were an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and its bases abroad. Nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missile programs often go together. Countries with such missile programs that are not allied with the U.S. might also be future targets of bilateral diplomatic and military action.

The loss of trust and good faith has substantially reduced the ability of the U.S. to diplomatically address not only broader nuclear and missile nonproliferation concerns but also its own national security needs. Under these circumstances, military action might be the most tempting option for Washington to secure these goals – and that is dangerous.

Debak Das 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

There is a pall over the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement. Donald Trump overpromised. His public support has fallen. Some “America First” die-hards now openly criticize him.

Amid war, economic challenges, democratic backsliding, the Epstein files and Americans shot dead in the street by government agents, Trump’s support is softening and his vow to bring a “golden age of America” is looking more like a political winter for Trump and his MAGA movement.

This is my big takeaway from this year’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The event, organized by the American Conservative Union, launched with an international summit on March 25, 2026, and runs through March 28 in Grapevine, Texas.

Don’t get me wrong. The attendees are decked out in red, white and blue MAGA merch: sequined “Trump” purses and jackets, USA flag bags, ties and headbands, and, of course, iconic red MAGA caps. As always, they chant “USA,” even if not as often or as loudly as before.

Starting with the first talk by Rev. Franklin Graham, speakers here are still singing Trump’s praises. They underscore what they regard as major Trump 2.0 accomplishments: combating illegal immigration, cutting taxes, a budding economic boom, deregulation, U.S. gas and oil output surging, administrative state winnowing, pro-Christian policies and pulling the plug on the “woke” agenda.

These issues are foregrounded in sessions with titles like “Walls Work,” “Don’t Let Woke Marxists Raise Your Children,” “MAGA vs. Mullah Madness,” “Commies Go Home” and “Cancelling Satan.” In between, pro-Trump advertisements checklist Trump’s accomplishments.

This rose-tinted view is to be expected. After all, CPAC – a cross between a political rally, networking mixer and MAGA Comic-Con – is all about galvanizing the conservative base. Beneath the surface, however, MAGA is churning.

Major grievances

An anthropologist of American political culture and author of the book “It Can Happen Here,” I have been studying MAGA for years and attending CPAC since 2023. Attendees at last year’s CPAC, held a month after Trump’s inauguration, were jubilant, with nonstop talk of “the comeback kid” and “the golden age.”

Read more:
I went to CPAC as an anthropologist to see how Trump supporters are feeling − for them, a ‘golden age’ has begun

Why is the mood at this year’s CPAC more subdued?

Enthusiasm for Trump is dampened because some of his supporters feel he has betrayed America First principles, failed to fulfill key campaign promises and been unable to supercharge the economy. Here are their major grievances:

‘America First’ vs. ‘Israel First’

“America First” is the guiding principle of MAGA. It encompasses border security, prioritizing the U.S. economy and ensuring rights such as free speech. It also means avoiding unnecessary wars.

This is why Trump’s support of the June 2025 “12-day war” on Iran led Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and other MAGA influencers, who have tens of millions of followers, to criticize Trump. The conflict, they contend, served Israel’s interest – their phrase is “Israel First” – not those of the U.S.

Their criticisms became even more pronounced after the U.S. again began bombing Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. The criticism is part of a growing MAGA fissure with pro-Israel stalwarts such as conservative activists Mark Levin, Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro, who support U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Things got so bad that after Levin called his fellow conservative media personality Megyn Kelly “unhinged, lewd and petulant,” she dubbed him “Micropenis Mark.”

But the MAGA unease with the war extends well beyond the “America First” influencers.

It includes figures from the fringe far right such as provocateur Nick Fuentes, center-right “brocaster” Joe Rogan, and even the Trump administration itself – as illustrated by an intelligence officer whose resignation stated, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Notably, none of the main Trump critics have been scheduled to speak at this year’s CPAC. Some now call it “TPAC,” or the Trump Political Action Conference.

The Epstein files

MAGA also has a strong populist and anti-elite streak of conspiracy thinking.

Large numbers of Trump supporters, for example, believe there is an elite plot to what they call “replace” the white population with nonwhites through mass immigration. Many also bought into the QAnon conspiracy theory, which centers on the idea that Trump is fighting Satanic, deep state elites who are running a child sex trafficking operation.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to take down political, deep state and global elites. He also promised to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, which QAnon conspiracists and others believe prove elite debauchery, including pedophilia.

Trump didn’t deliver. He backtracked and stonewalled on the release of the Epstein files, raising MAGA suspicion that Trump himself is implicated or is protecting elites. Remarkably, one recent poll found that roughly half of Americans, including a quarter of Republicans, believe the Iran war was partly meant to distract from the Epstein files.

Economy and immigration

Trump is also facing headwinds on the bread-and-butter issues of the 2024 election: the economy and immigration.

At CPAC, speakers have repeatedly given him kudos for shutting down the border. Acknowledging the MAGA in-fighting, conservative commentator Benny Johnson said he wanted to “white pill” – or buck up – the audience by reminding them that Trump had stopped an “invasion” and brought “criminal alien border crossings down to zero.”

As a photo of Trump’s bloodied face after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, was displayed, Johnson claimed, “Our God saved President’s Trump’s life for this moment.”

But fewer Republicans approve of his handling of immigration compared with a year ago. Like many Americans, a growing number have misgivings about the strong-arm tactics used by government immigration enforcement agents in places such as Minnesota.

For many, the economy remains a serious worry. A recent poll, conducted before the Iran war, found that the vast majority of Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, are concerned about inflation, jobs and the cost of living. Health care, including the lost Obamacare subsidies, is also a source of consternation.

Few people believe the economy is “booming” – let alone that a “golden age” has arrived – as Trump and his allies often proclaim. The war with Iran, which has led to stock market declines and gas pump hikes, has only added to the unease.

MAGA ‘shattered’?

Amid the recent MAGA in-fighting about the Iran war, conservative podcaster Tim Pool proclaimed, “The MAGA coalition is shattered.”

Not exactly. Despite the many challenges Trump is facing, the vast majority of his MAGA base voters still support him – including almost 90% backing his war with Iran.

But Trump’s support has eased in several ways. First, even his hardcore supporters worry about the economy, and they want him to declare victory and exit the war. And second, Trump has lost support on the edges. Many people in the key groups with which he made crucial inroads in the last election – such as young men and nonwhite voters – have turned from him. The same is true for independents and other Trump voters who don’t identify as MAGA.

Trumpism isn’t dead, as the MAGA-merched crowds here at CPAC make clear. But Trump is struggling through a political winter that could signal the early stages of his MAGA movement’s decline.

Alex Hinton receives funding from Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Paul Ehrlich opened his 1968 book “The Population Bomb” with a scene recounting returning to his hotel through a crowded Delhi neighborhood on a stifling night in the mid-1960s. He described the physical sensation of overpopulation: people eating, washing, arguing, begging – “people, people, people, people.”

From that visceral opening, he declared that famine, conflict and nuclear war would sweep the globe in the 1970s because of overpopulation. Hundreds of millions of people would starve to death regardless of any crash programs launched to prevent it. Ehrlich argued for population control, chillingly describing population growth as a “cancer” that needed to be cut out.

Ehrlich’s predictions were conspicuously wrong – and experts said so at the time. But his logic resonated through the 1970s and ’80s across the political spectrum. Its shadow is evident in today’s anti-immigration campaigns and White House arguments for mass deportation.

We have followed its long afterlife, as a computational social scientist studying contemporary extremism and as a historian whose book “Building the Population Bomb” analyzed Ehrlich’s impact.

Getting it wrong

Demographers and economists in the decades after World War II rejected the idea that Ehrlich was promoting to millions of readers: that population growth is the primary cause of environmental degradation. Instead, the expert consensus showed how pollution and resource depletion are driven far more by extraction and overconsumption than by head count.

Princeton demographer Ansley Coale told the Population Association of America in 1968, the year “The Population Bomb” was published, that attributing national failures to population growth had become fashionable despite most of the country’s problems having little to do with it.

His colleague and former Population Association of America president Frank Notestein demonstrated at the association’s 1970 meeting that increases in pollution had far outpaced increases in population. Notestein called population control in “developed regions” a distraction from the more immediate need to regulate industry.

Ecologist Barry Commoner’s 1971 empirical study confirmed that postwar environmental damage had stemmed almost entirely from new production methods and rising per capita consumption, not from the growing number of people. When the economist Julian Simon challenged Ehrlich in 1980 to a wager on changes in commodity prices over the next decade, Ehrlich accepted – and lost.

In a 2009 retrospective, Ehrlich acknowledged some of “The Population Bomb’s” flaws but did not revisit its central claim. The mass famines he predicted had not materialized in the 1970s because he had not anticipated the Green Revolution, a dramatic expansion of agriculture output. He said the book’s catastrophic scenarios were illustrative exercises, not inevitable forecasts. He dismissed his critics as shills for polluters. Ehrlich’s retrospective concluded, “It was thus a successful tract, and we’re proud of it.”

Origins of the ‘population bomb’ analogy

Ehrlich’s arguments resonated with the popular anxieties of the late 1960s. By tying population growth to the environment, the threat of nuclear war and the sexual revolution, Ehrlich generated left-wing support for population control, which had previously been primarily a concern of the political right.

With the publication of “The Population Bomb,” Ehrlich became a celebrity almost overnight. Though his claims about the consequences of population growth were consistently wrong, Ehrlich had an enormous public impact. A butterfly biologist, he was suddenly booking appearances on Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show.” He influenced dystopian Hollywood productions, such as “ZPG” (1972), “Soylent Green” (1973) and “Logan’s Run” (1976).

The intellectual genealogy behind “The Population Bomb” ran deeper than Ehrlich’s own career. The “bomb” analogy was borrowed from a 1954 pamphlet by Hugh Moore, a businessman whose population anxieties descended from Guy Irving Burch, the anti-immigrant eugenicist who founded the Population Reference Bureau in 1929.

Burch, worried about “alien or negro stock” replacing Europeans, introduced the phrase “population explosion” to American public discourse in the 1930s as part of a campaign for immigration restriction. Moore updated Burch’s framework for the Cold War, warning that population growth in Africa, Asia and Latin America would produce communist expansion and nuclear war.

Ehrlich’s use of ecological carrying capacity – the idea that any environment has a finite number of resources to support a population before collapsing – justified coercive population control initiatives as foreign and domestic environmental policies in the minds of many Americans.

India’s “Emergency” period from 1975-77 subjected an estimated 8 million people to sterilization under conditions ranging from financial inducement to outright coercion. China’s one-child policy was enforced through fines, forced sterilizations and compelled abortions for nearly three decades. Population control programs in some developing countries imposed contraception and sterilization on women without their consent.

California performed sterilizations on some inmates until the 2010s. Hysterectomies on detainees continued in at least one U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center until 2019.

Ehrlich tied environment to immigration

Within the United States, Ehrlich co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth, which quickly outlasted its original premise. By 1972, the total fertility rate in the United States was already below the replacement level, and ZPG pivoted to immigration restriction as its primary policy target.

David Brower, the first director of the Sierra Club, authored the famous line “the battle to feed all of humanity is over” in the foreword to “The Population Bomb.” He appointed John Tanton, Ehrlich’s ZPG co-founder, to chair the Sierra Club’s national population committee.

Tanton would go on to build a network of groups that would implement the logic Ehrlich had popularized. This logic linked Ehrlich’s ecological carrying capacity, lifeboat ethics – the idea that wealthy nations risked being swamped by immigration – and reactionary anxieties about demographic change.

Tanton’s anti-immigration network became one of the most influential organizations in late-20th-century American politics. In addition to ZPG, Tanton founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1979, the Center for Immigration Studies in 1985, The Social Contract Press in 1990 and NumbersUSA in 1996.

This network produced policy research and lobbied for drastic reductions in both legal and illegal immigration. It was also instrumental in repackaging nativism into genteel policy briefs for the 1994 Republican revolution, securing the bipartisan passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and backing anti-immigration efforts that passed in California and Arizona. Ehrlich served on FAIR’s board of advisers until 2002. He died on March 13, 2026.

Ehrlich, Tanton and Brower, as part of Californians for Population Stabilization, tried to push the Sierra Club to adopt immigration restrictions as an official position, but members of the influential environmentalist group resisted. Ballot measures and board elections for the Sierra Club from the late 1990s into the early 2000s exposed the deep ties to anti-immigration activists – and defeated them.

Overpopulation in politics today

Ehrlich’s population anxieties continue to have a long afterlife as political figures build on the idea that immigration constitutes a form of “replacement” of existing populations. Once-fringe grievances suggesting white people were being replaced by people of color have become part of President Donald Trump’s MAGA allies’ “mass deportation now” agenda.

Fifty years separate India’s sterilization camps from today’s ICE detention warehouses, but we believe the logic connecting them is direct: a population defined as excessive, a government apparatus authorized to reduce it, and a scientific vocabulary used by some of the president’s closest allies to justify the means as an ecological necessity. Ehrlich’s contributions to that vocabulary proved far more durable than his predictions.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation