SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " representative " 729 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
House takes first step to unlock Iran war funding — but fate in Senate uncertain, with measure tied to ‘SAVE America Act’
The House of Representatives on Wednesday took the first step toward funding President Donald Trump’s war with Iran, as well as approving tens of billions in additional Pentagon money and aid for US farmers.
Padilla Leads Tri-Caucus in Introducing Sweeping Health Equity Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), along with Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Representatives Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.-02), and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.-06) announced the reintroduction of the Health Equity and Accountability Act (HEAA) of 2026, bicameral legislation that would address health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities as well […]
Answer for Rising Costs of Club Sports? Involvement inEducation-Based Sports in Schools
Back in May, a bill entitled “Let Kids Play Act” was introduced by several members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The bill targets certain groups that, according to the sponsors of the bill, have priced kids and their families out of youth sports. Sponsors of the bill note that the cost […]
Trump trade chief downplays fallout from Canada tariffs: ‘This is business’
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer testified at a Senate hearing Wednesday before flying to Mexico City for more talks on the U.S.-Canada-Mexico agreement.
Appeals court revives radiologist’s lawsuit over his public support for youth trans-care ban
“Today’s decision affirms that speaking honestly to our elected representatives is not misconduct—it is a constitutional right," Wyoming radiologist Eric Cubin, MD, said.
Inside science's 'forbidden experiment': Why scientists kill 9 million sea lampreys every year in the Great Lakes of America
At the June meet-and-greet organised by the GLFC, half a dozen sea lampreys posed for the cameras at the Capitol. One of them even sucked on the palm of Representative Bill Huizenga, as per a CNN report.
Experts agree at landmark event that simulation should be built into health system
On 15 June 2026, over 80 representatives from simulation societies, ministries of health, hospitals, universities, international organizations, professional associations and industry partners met at the WHO Academy in Lyon for a joint event of WHO and the Society for Simulation in Europe (SESAM). Together they tackled a pressing question: how can simulation move from isolated initiatives to systematic integration within health systems? The consensus was clear: simulation is no longer a niche educational tool. Beyond training, it strengthens health systems by improving quality of care, patient safety, workforce preparedness, team performance and organizational resilience.Participants agreed the evidence for simulation’s value no longer needs to be demonstrated, but that implementation remains fragmented and too often dependent on individual local champions. Bridging that gap, they said, means both generating further evidence and raising awareness among decision-makers.Discussions pointed to a shared path forward. To achieve scale and lasting impact, simulation must be embedded in national policies, workforce development plans, education systems and financing mechanisms. No institution can do this alone; stronger collaboration between governments, health institutions, academia, professional societies, international organizations and industry partners will be essential.“At the WHO Academy, we see simulation not simply as a training methodology but as a strategic tool for capacity-building, workforce readiness and stronger health systems,” said Dr Bart Janssens, Unit Head, Health Learning and Capacity Building. “This event is not only about discussion; it is about moving from ideas to action.”As health systems worldwide face workforce shortages, growing complexity of care and rapidly evolving competency needs, participants concluded that the question is no longer “Why simulation?” but rather how to scale it, how to sustain it, and how to ensure it becomes an integral part of stronger health systems.Looking aheadThe event marked the beginning of a collaborative effort rather than the end of a conversation. Over the coming weeks, WHO and SESAM will consolidate the discussions, recommendations and priorities that emerged, with a joint WHO–SESAM report to be published soon.
VHC Health’s plans for S. Carlin Springs facility face questions from local residents
Future neighbors of a planned behavioral-health and rehabilitation compound on S. Carlin Springs Road are pressing for more details about management and oversight. Representatives of VHC Health and Lifepoint Behavioral Health met with local residents during a July 16 meeting convened by the Glencarlyn Civic Association to discuss the proposed 146-bed facility. Under the plan moving
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Why I Agreed to Lead the UAP Science Advisory Council for the U.S. Government
A month and a half ago, I was visited by a representative from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). He raised a…
California residents can now delete personal data from brokers through new online platform
Tom Kemp, a representative from Cal Privacy, explained the Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) on California Politics 360.
Ranking Member Markey, Senator Hirono Reject Trump’s SBA Policy Proposal that Harms Underserved Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs
Letter (PDF) (Washington, July 17) – Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) submitted a comment letter to the Small Business Administration (SBA) opposing a proposed rule change by Trump’s SBA to the 8(a) Business Development Program that would harm underserved small business owners and entrepreneurs. The 8(a) Business Development Program was created by Congress more than 50 years ago to level the playing field for small business owners and entrepreneurs who have faced discrimination in starting and operating their businesses. The SBA’s proposed change ignores the existence of historic discrimination that minority and underserved small businesses have faced and continue to face. In the letter, the lawmakers wrote, “SBA’s proposed rule ignores present-day barriers that entrepreneurs from minority and underserved communities face. Discrimination is not dead; minority entrepreneurs continue to face reduced access to contracting opportunities and capital, as well as racial threats and targeting, including unequal treatment, refusal by others to work with minority-owned firms, being called racial slurs, and bias in the workplace. These barriers lead to wide underutilization of, and less revenue for, minority-owned businesses compared to majority-owned businesses, as supported by decades of disparity studies. The proposed rule diminishes the history of systemic racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States by claiming that remedies for discrimination create discrimination in and of themselves.” The lawmakers continued, “The program has always been open to anyone who can prove they have experienced prejudice or cultural bias in education, employment, entrepreneurship, and other facets of our society. Nonetheless SBA has moved forward with the proposed rule. It lacks a reasoned basis, purporting that the federal government has discriminated against White Americans, but offering no substantive qualitative or quantitative data or research in support. If the examples provided in the proposed rule are the only basis for what constitutes discrimination to the agency, they are woefully insufficient. The final rule must provide strong evidence that there is discrimination against White individuals and show how the rule is narrowly tailored to address it. The record remains devoid of evidence of discrimination against White individuals on the basis of race.” Ranking Member Markey is fighting to protect federal programs that address historic discrimination against small business owners from minority and underserved communities, and for a small business agenda that ensures economic opportunity for all. In June, Ranking Member Markey released a statement condemning the SBA’s proposed changes to the 8(a) Business Development Program. Also in June, Ranking Markey released a new report highlighting Trump’s drastic reduction in federal contracting dollars awarded to American small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses. In February, Ranking Member Markey, alongside Senators Hirono and Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), introduced the Strengthening Place-based Access, Resources, and Knowledge (SPARK) Act to spur entrepreneurship and increase access to capital and resources for underserved entrepreneurs nationwide. Ranking Member Markey previously held a field hearing in Roxbury, Massachusetts, to discuss how government and the private sector can come together to make entrepreneurship more accessible for underserved communities. Earlier in February, Ranking Member Markey secured funding with the Appropriations Committee for Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Centers, SCORE Chapters, and Veterans Business Outreach Centers and provisions to rein in the Administration’s attempts to eliminate programs that support women, veterans, and underserved entrepreneurs. In January, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to oppose rule changes that would gut protections against discriminatory lending practices that harm small businesses. In December 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler expressing significant concerns with the SBA’s overly burdensome request and unclear guidance for extensive financial documentation over the holidays, as a part of their sweeping attempts to dismantle the 8(a) Business Development Program. In July and December 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent letters to the SBA Administrator demanding answers about the Trump administration’s efforts to limit economic opportunity for American entrepreneurs, including immigrants. In May 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent a letter to the SBA Administrator rejecting President Trump’s FY 2026 budget proposal and calling on SBA to immediately release funding for the entrepreneurial development programs, which include programs like the Women’s Business Centers and the Veteran’s Business Development Centers that support underserved small business owners. In April 2025, Ranking Member Markey introduced the New Start Act of 2025 to establish a five-year pilot program providing grants to support entrepreneurial development training for currently or formerly incarcerated individuals. In February 2025, Ranking Member Markey sent letters to the SBA Administrator and Government Accountability Office (GAO) condemning President Trump’s war on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) policies and asking how the SBA intends to implement Trump’s anti-DEIA executive orders. ###
‘I am closing the door’: Katie Porter to leave politics, become a book influencer
The former Democratic U.S. representative is pivoting to her rediscovered passion for reading and books.
Pa. Rep. Jordan Harris, Sen. Joe Picozzi talk Pa. state budget
Pennsylvania State Representative Jordan Harris and Senator Joe Picozzi discuss the 2026-2027 Pennsylvania state budget.
Political representatives found more polarized on climate change than their constituents
It is no surprise that there are political disagreements over climate protection measures. Parties differ in their assessments of which measures they consider effective, fair or economically acceptable. ...
LSU students build AI solutions to help Baton Rouge businesses work smarter
LSU students showcased practical artificial intelligence solutions for four Baton Rouge organizations during the Spring 2026 LSU AI Showcase, the culminating event for a selective capstone course that partners technically advanced students with industry sponsors to solve real-world business challenges. Throughout the semester, student teams worked closely with representatives from MMR Group, Baton Rouge Community […]
Rubio to convene meeting on ‘far-left political terrorism’ with representatives from 65 countries
Facing what Secretary of State Marco Rubio will describe as a “resurgence” of “far left political terrorism,” according to a State Department official, Rubio will convene diplomats from around the world in Washington on Thursday to discuss a response.
Business leaders call for stronger partnerships to accelerate sustainable development at 2026 SDG Business Forum
/PRNewswire/ -- Business leaders, policymakers, United Nations officials and representatives from civil society came together yesterday at the 2026 SDG...
ESA Announces 2026 Recipients of the Interactive Entertainment Impact Awards
/PRNewswire/ -- The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) today announced the 2026 recipients of the Interactive Entertainment Impact Awards: Representative...
Chairman Griffith Delivers Opening Statement at Subcommittee on Health Hearing on Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Biomedical Innovation
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
Chairman Griffith Delivers Opening Statement at Subcommittee on Health Markup of Three Bills Combatting Illicit Drug Threats
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
Health Subcommittee Markup
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
N.H. lawmaker clocked at 107 mph asserts ‘legislative privilege’
The state representative likened her situation to that of an EMT or police officer responding to an urgent call. What was her emergency? She hasn’t said.
Gossip: Chelsea consider move for Wharton
Chelsea are looking at a move for Crystal Palace and England midfielder Adam Wharton after Liverpool and Manchester United both cooled their interest in the 22-year-old. Caught Offside) Serie A side Roma want Chelsea winger Alejandro Garnacho. Gazzetta dello Sport - in Italian) With Garnacho's expected departure, Chelsea have opened talks with the representatives of Bologna's English winger Jonathan Rowe, 23.
They're Building Half A Bridge to Save Science...
Today’s post is about science: what you can do now to protect it from unprecedented threats, and how your action is the first half of a long-term program that Congress must take up next. Let me start with describing the embryonic state of science advocacy. There are many well-meaning organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research!America, and subject-specific organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physical Society. Their general approach is to emphasize the common good: the remarkable value that science and innovation have provided to all Americans. However, these organizations are offering an incomplete solution. Before I start, a preliminary: If you already know about the threat, go ahead and weigh in with OMB at this link. Ideas about what to say come from Research!America and the American Physical Society. You have until Monday, July 13 at 11:59pm Eastern. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. Finally, get in touch with whoever is likely to be your next member of Congress in 2027. The threat: An end to merit-based science… The onslaught of attacks on science is accelerating. It’s not just cuts to grants, which was the last battle. That battle is not done yet, but there is a new and worse threat. Now comes a proposed public rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The rule would take decision-making power over grants away from experts and put it into the hands of political appointees. Former NIH official Elizabeth Ginexi wrote an excellent summary of what OMB is trying to do, which is codify the executive branch’s ability to award or terminate grants, for arbitrary cause or no stated cause. Since World War II, a necessary step in scientific grant-making has been consideration of scientific merit. This approach has made America into a dominant scientific superpower, the envy of the world. Of course, political considerations do come into the mix. The proposed rule tilts the balance dramatically away from merit. …but why? Many people have difficulty comprehending why Russell Vought and OMB would want to damage science in this way. If you’re a working scientist, you are likely to be particularly uncomprehending. Who would hurt an activity so self-evidently good? The answer is: this is part of the program to replace the rule of law with a personalist regime. OMB Director Russell Vought, a Christian nationalist, would like to implement what legal scholars call a “unitary executive,” and what I would call a dictatorship. Or if you like, a personalist authoritarian regime. I am a working scientist. This rule will debilitate my research. It may chill the speech of scientists for speaking freely in the public sphere. It is a form of personalizing power and decision-making within the executive branch. In short, it sacrifices science in the service of tyranny. To Russell Vought, a decrease in the quality of science might be an acceptable cost. He might even consider it an added benefit to weaken a pillar of soft U.S. power based on knowledge and skepticism. The professional societies are building half a bridge The nonprofits are asking you to make public comment. Public comment is like building the first half of a bridge. Before implementation, OMB is compelled by law to have a period of public comment. Rules have to be consistent with the law and the Constitution. They express the federal government’s stance toward how those laws will be implemented. When a presidential administration works in good faith, these public comments are used to inform their eventual action, and sometimes mitigate it. The comment period reflects our First Amendment right to petition our government. The executive branch is then supposed to take those comments into account - completing the bridge between us, the people, and our government. Project 2025 seeks to take away the second half of the bridge. We have to replace it. The first half of the bridge Organizations like AAAS, Research!America, and SfN are partly right. You should certainly comment. Their core model is earnest: if enough of us make noise, then we will achieve change. This idealistic point of view is offered in good faith. That point of view is also currently bullshit. The fundamental reason is that the federal rulemaking process has two parts: There has to be a period of public comment. OMB makes the final rule…but is free to disregard public comment. Oops. That’s a loophole. However, not all is lost. Congress can complete the bridge Congress has enormous power. That power suggests a roadmap for how to proceed. This lawless administration is still going to issue that rule. Nonetheless, your comments still play an essential role. Here are two steps you can take. Step 1: Send your comment to your Representative and Senator. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many of them support science. Whatever you wrote as public comment in the Federal Register, also send it to your member of Congress. You can include information about jobs in your district or state by looking at Joshua Weitz’s ScienceMatters interactive map. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give your town, zip code, or state, then deliver your message. Step 2: Politicize the hell out of science. You heard me, politicize it as an issue. We hear a lot from the old scientific establishment about science being nonpartisan. This is obsolete, sentimental thinking. Under normal conditions, it was true. But we can no longer make that assumption. We can keep on pretending, but we’re putting science at risk. There is a way forward. Rules are subordinate to the law…and Congress makes laws. Therefore Congress can step in. In this fall’s election, it is likely that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. That puts at least one chamber of Congress in the hands of Democrats. They are far more inclined than the current Congress to investigate and legislate. This opens a path to undoing the damage. It also creates a permission structure for pro-science Republicans to find a way back from the brink. We have to encourage them. In the House, every district is up every two years. In your district, contact both of the major party candidates. If your state has a Senate race, contact those candidates too. Specifically mention the proposed OMB rule. Ask for two things: For this year’s appropriations process in August and September, ask that amendments be added to stop the implementation of the new rule. Those amendments should support peer-reviewed science and stop political interference. Looking ahead to next year, ask the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator to work to hold hearings in 2027 on the importance and benefits of peer-reviewed science for health and prosperity. What hearings and amendments will accomplish Congress can use its investigatory power to summon heads of agencies and the director of the OMB. That will allow fact-finding regarding the consequences of this rule. Congress can override the rule through the appropriations process. They can write into statute a requirement to follow peer review and best scientific practices. In this way, Congress can stop the attacks on science. Postscript: Moving forward Now I have a request for you, to help me. As many of you know, I ran for Congress in order to save democracy and science. Although I did not win, that battle continues by other means. I met and heard from thousands of supporters both here in New Jersey and nationally. I learned that pro-science, pro-democracy activists have the potential to become a much greater force. In the weeks and months ahead, I will be building ways to harness that energy. I will be announcing those plans soon. In the meantime, an important step is to wind down the Congressional campaign, which has a few remaining bills to pay. Please help me retire that last debt.
Rep. Ro Khanna says he was detained by the Israeli military and settlers in the West Bank
A representative for Khanna, a California Democrat who is an outspoken progressive, said the confrontation occurred Wednesday in the middle of a three-day tour of the West Bank.
MAGA Rep Cries ‘Cover-Up’ in McConnell Health Crisis
“This whole thing is a farce,” the Tennessee representative said.
An American Politician is Blocked by Israeli Settlers in the West Bank
Representative Ro Khanna was barred from leaving for 90 minutes. Where past U.S. leaders toured the region to show support for Israel, today’s Democratic presidential aspirants are going to bolster their credentials as critics.
German business, politicians call for 5-year delay in climate targets
Representatives from business, trade unions and politics are calling for Germany to postpone its target year for climate neutrality by five years, according to a story published online on Saturday fro...
German business, politicians call for 5-year delay in climate targets
Representatives from business, trade unions and politics are calling for Germany to postpone its target year for climate neutrality by five years, according to a story published online on Saturday fro...
EAST TEXAS POLITICS: Reps. Hefner & Harris weigh in on East Texas groundwater fight
Two East Texas state representatives join Blake Holland on this week’s edition of East Texas Politics on East Texas Now.
Rep. Kennedy calls on House to pass Nexus for Families Act
Kennedy is calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the legislation right now.
Anchorage behavioral health center funding approved despite Fairview representatives’ opposition
The $750,000 federal funding award follows two months of public discourse.
Fort McCoy hosts 20th Government Opportunities Business Conference
Business leaders, government representatives, contractors, and economic development professionals gathered at Fort McCoy on July 7 for the 20th Government Opportunities Business Conference (GOBC), highlighting the installation's role as both a premier military training center and a major economic engine for Wisconsin.
Kentucky governor requests ‘transparent’ update on McConnell’s health amid speculation
Representatives for the 84-year-old senator haven't disclosed what sent him to the hospital June 14, nor when he might return.
Hungary moves to overhaul university models banned from Horizon Europe
Hungary’s new government is aiming to overhaul the governance model of the institutions and universities that lost access to Horizon Europe and Erasmus+ funds “in a short timeframe,” according to Péter Horváth, the new state secretary for science policy and innovation. “As of today, the two non-university foundation-controlled institutions under my remit have been transformed,” he told Science|Business. “We hope the universities will follow and that this will be enough to satisfy the EU’s demands.”Under the previous government, led by Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party, many academic and scientific institutions were restructured and made into special public trust foundations, with members strongly linked to the government given lifelong mandates and significant decision-making powers with little oversight. The European Commission deemed that this undermined academic freedom and transparency in the country, leading to a ban on 34 institutions in 2022, including 21 universities, which saw academics in Hungary lose access to Horizon Europe grants. The new Hungarian government, elected in May and led by Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party, has promised to dismantle this governance model and restore the institutions to EU programmes. As a result, the European Commission has promised to return access to the Erasmus+ education mobility programme, but so far no concrete agreement has been made on the Horizon Europe programme for research and innovation. Hungary has already made legislative changes in June to allow the institutions to be reformed and set a timeline for the implementation.The non-university foundations, which are mainly cultural centres such as the Foundation for Hungarian Culture or the Makovecz Campus Foundation, will all be dissolved by August 31 this year, a date tied to EU-set milestones that Hungary must meet to unlock frozen funds, with control transferred to relevant ministries. Meanwhile, the universities will have until 31 August 2027. For each university foundation, the government will set the dissolution date and the body to take over operations. There is no final decision on a permanent new model for the universities, according to Hungarian MEP Eszter Lakos, who is shadow rapporteur for the Horizon Europe specific programme, a separate piece of legislation detailing implementation rules for the EU’s next research programme, due to start in 2028. “The aim of the transition year is to settle this with [the universities], not to impose a model, and not to put them under state control,” she told Science|Business. “The goal is to give academic independence back to universities.”There are three models that are most likely to be implemented. One would be a return to a traditional, state-run model. Another could be a newer, more self-standing public institution. A third option would be a reformed version of the foundation models that meet EU standards. According to Lakos, the dismantling of the system put in place by the Orbán government is well underway and if all goes according to plan, Hungary could regain access to EU research money by the start of the next academic year in 2027. “I believe that the Hungarian government is doing the necessary changes so the universities could return as beneficiaries to Horizon from the next school year,” she said. In the meantime, “the universities, institutes and cultural assets carry on under proper public stewardship rather than a handful of unaccountable trustees,” said Lakos. The laws passed in June impose new safeguards: board terms are capped at four years and renewable only once, appointments are made through open competitions and sitting politicians cannot join joining these boards.It remains unclear whether a domestic science funding programme set up as a back-up scheme by the former government following the EU funding ban, called HU-rizon, could be continued. “This programme should never have had to have been established in the first place, but it has proven to be quite popular,” he said. “I am considering continuing this programme with a refined focus on helping international collaborations.”Re-organising the research network One of the first priorities for Horváth and his cabinet is to resolve questions over the future of the Hungarian Research Network, Hun-Ren. The network of academic institutes was taken away from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2019 and turned into a quasi-private organisation, with similarities in its governance to the public trust foundations.Horváth and his team have consulted over 5,000 representatives from the network and the conclusion is broad unhappiness with the directors of all the institutes involved. “We have presented the results to the president and the chief executive of the network and this is currently being discussed,” Horváth said. The plan is to re-integrate the network back into the Academy of Sciences but in an improved way, “learning from mistakes of the past,” he added. The government also wants to reintegrate four humanities and social science research centres into the network that the previous government had transferred to Eötvös Loránd University. The transfer brought sharp criticism from the academic community, with a group of Hungarian research heads, including European Research Council grant recipients, sending an open letter to Orbán warning that the transfer would “cause historically significant harm to the entirety of Hungarian scientific life.” The transfer was “one of the biggest shames in Hungarian research in the past 20 years,” Horváth said. “We want to immediately re-integrate them back into the research network and to regain the trust of these institutions, because the way they were treated was really unfair.”Another pressing issue is the Élvonal Excellence Research and Talent Development Foundation, led by Nobel laureate Ferenc Krausz. The foundation signed a financing agreement with the former government earlier this year for a budget of over €730 million over the next five years. The goal is to create a world-class centre to attract top talent from abroad and to develop local researchers. But there was little transparency about this foundation, and news of its huge budget, which is nearly as much as Hungary’s entire research budget, caused a stir in the media following the recent elections. Another issue is that, as with the foundation boards of the institutes banned from Horizon Europe, there was little-to-no oversight of decisions led by Krausz. “It was an excellent idea but an unacceptable execution,” Horváth said of the foundation. “The fact that this is out of the Hungarian funding scheme, mostly concentrating on one person who decides on the budget is unacceptable for us.”The government plans to merge the centre with the National Research, Development and Innovation Office, the country’s R&D funding agency, with a reduced budget. Horváth is hopeful that Krausz will still be involved. The new government’s R&D goalsA phrase that crops up regularly during the discussion with Horváth is “democratic process.” The new state secretary is determined to involve Hungary’s research community in shaping future policies. This marks a departure from the previous government’s approach, and several people in Hungary’s research community have commented on the openness of the new government. In terms of concrete goals, Horváth and his team already have plans. He wants to create a new science fund in Hungary, based on the best practices of other European countries. The fund would not be tied to annual government budgets and would provide long-term, stable financing. “If we were to succeed in creating this fund, then I think it would be one of the biggest achievements for me in this period of government,” Horváth said. On the innovation side, he is looking into how best to bring in the private sector. “We want to make sure that we are working with the private sector to support innovation,” Horváth said. One of his big aims is to introduce entrepreneurship teaching into high schools. Hungary already has a reputable national academy offering research and innovation training in the field of natural sciences, and Horváth wants to expand this to all disciplines and across the whole country. “One of the main ways to elevate our innovative businesses is to teach our children to be innovative,” he said. “This will probably need ten years to pay off, but this is what we should do. Our aim is to make Hungary strong in our region, and this is what is needed.” Related articlesHungary’s Horizon Europe performance in numbersCommission unlocks Erasmus+ cash for Hungary, Horizon could be next‘Academic Huxit.’ Hungarian researchers speak out on impact of EU ban A more difficult task will be funding. The new government is aiming to increase research spending to 2% of the GDP by 2030, and then increase it to 3% in line with EU objectives. Currently, spending sits around 1.3%. But according to Horváth, the current budget, inherited from the previous government, is “heavily in the negative,” so any plans to increase research spending will have to start next year. Achieving 2% by 2030 already needs a big push, almost doubling the research budget. “This is something we’d definitely like to reach, and something I can see us achieving,” he said. “From the 2030s, I’d like to see an innovative generation growing up that can help us reach the 3% target.” Positivity in the new governmentDespite the many challenges facing Horváth and his team, the mood is positive. “It feels a bit like a start-up right now. Everyone is working 24/7, day and night, trying to do as much as they can. There is a lot of energy,” he said. It is a big change for the state secretary who, like many in his cabinet, is coming from a background in research or business, and not in politics. “Six weeks ago, I was sitting with my microscope and my research PhDs, so it’s been a big change for me,” said the computer scientist, who was previously the director of the Institute of Biochemistry at the Hun-Ren Biological Research Centre in Hungary and worked at the Institute for AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich. But he is relishing the task to transform the country’s R&D landscape. “We feel enormous support from the Hungarian people, but also from Europe,” he said. “We’ve received a lot of letters of support from around Europe. There is big trust there, and huge responsibility on our side. We want to get everything back on track, and there’s a lot to do.”
House candidates make their pitch for how they’d support Central KY business community
Dr. Ralph Alvarado and Zach Dembo won their respective primaries to succeed Republican Rep. Andy Barr in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Platner Faces Growing Democratic Calls to Drop Out
Even supporters like Representative Ro Khanna of California called on the Democratic nominee to exit the Maine Senate race after a report that he had sexually assaulted a woman.
Colorado primary election voters shake things up
Every election has its surprises, but last Tuesday’s Colorado primary election results gave us several unexpected outcomes. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennett lost his bid to switch from the U.S. Senate and become Colorado’s next governor. Meanwhile, progressive Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, from Denver, who had served 30 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, […]
This week in politics: How Schuylkill County legislators voted
Both the PA House of Representatives and Senate were in session early this week — the House passed 19 bills and the Senate passed five. The U.S. House and Senate were also in session — the House passed 10 bills and the Senate passed zero. L…
Representative Joyce Beatty Still Celebrating Victory in Kennedy Center Legal Battle
Representative Joyce Beatty, Democrat of Ohio, said her lawsuit challenging the president’s changes to the performing arts center was a fight for justice.
Negotiations between Cherriots, business leaders paused after months of meetings
Talks between the Salem Area Mass Transit District and representatives from a coalition of six business and real estate groups, and citizens were halted last week, Cherriots said in a press release. The two groups formed a task force to find a compromise after a proposed payroll tax sparked frustration last year. To comment on this story, use the form at the end of the report.
Rep. Young Kim Introduces Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Act to Strengthen U.S. Leadership, Support American Jobs, and Help Families Globally
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representative Young Kim (CA-40) introduced the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Act to deploy proven, American-made interventions that reduce maternal and child mortality around the globe while supporting U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Each year, nearly 260,000 women die from preventable pregnancy-related complications. Evidence-based solutions like Multiple Micronutrient Supplement (MMS) prenatal vitamins,
Ocasio-Cortez Endorses Abdul El-Sayed in Crucial Michigan Senate Race
The endorsement is the first in a contested Senate primary by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this year, in a state that Democrats believe they must hold this fall to win a Senate majority.
Springfield trash company accused of unfair business practices
Customers tell KY3 they weren't given complete information about the service terms by GFL Environmental representatives.
NC lawmakers send bills targeting gangs, mental health evaluations to Stein
The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed two bills targeting criminal suspects: one would change where they are evaluated for mental illness while the other would give prosecutors stronger tools to crack down on gang activity.
Business group shares parking plan concerns
Upcoming parking changes were the focus of a meeting between local business owners and representatives and city officials on Tuesday at the Marigold Bistro. Attendees asked questions and raised concerns about the plan, which takes effect today, July 1.
Kelly statement on SCOTUS ruling protecting girls' and women's sports
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to prevent biological men from playing in girls' and women's sports, U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) released the following statement:
Tom Kean Finally Reveals Cause of Absence from D.C.
The New Jersey representative, who has been absent from D.C. since March, revealed in a floor speech that he was hospitalized for depression.
Tom Kean Says Depression Led to Long Absence From Congress
After months of mystery, the New Jersey representative broke his silence about the undisclosed health issue that prompted his 117-day absence.
All eyes on Tom Kean, Capitol Hill’s most mysterious non-voter
The Republican representative will return today, with assurances that he'll explain his absence. Here's what he missed while he was away
Colorado Supreme Court: Redistricting plans for 2028 election cannot proceed under state constitution
The Colorado Supreme Court blocked all attempts at redrawing congressional district boundaries for the 2028 election from reaching the ballot on Monday, concluding each of the proposed ballot measures violated the constitutional single-subject requirement. The court considered five distinct, but related, ballot measures. Three proposals would have redrawn U.S. House of Representatives districts to give […]
Harry Kane likely to sign new Bayern Munich contract despite Barcelona enquiry
Barcelona made an enquiry to Kane's representatives and have been informed that the 32-year-old is happy in Munich.
Central Florida Congressional races attract out-of-district candidates
After long-time U.S. Representative Daniel Webster announced his retirement in April, potential successors quickly filed to run for the open Central Florida seat. But of the eight major-party candidates who
Rep. Jahana Hayes released from hospital after health scare
Representative Jahana Hayes has been released from the hospital after a health scare last week. In a video posted to Facebook on Sunday, she said she was leaving St. Mary’s Hospital where she was admitted for the last two days. “On Friday, I felt like I was dizzy while shopping, I was out getting phones at the mall and felt…
Ravens have 5 players on CBS Sports' Top 100, but one omission stands out
Lamar Jackson headlines Baltimore's representatives on CBS Sports; top 100 ranking, but Zay Flowers' absence is sure to spark debate.
National Science Foundation finds no violations in Texas A&M research security contract
U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House of Representatives' select committee on China, had urged the NSF to pause funding for a project known as SECURE.
Chairman Guthrie, Health Vice Chair Harshbarger, Congresswoman Miller-Meeks Lead Site Visit to Iowa Hospitals to Highlight Benefits of the Rural Health Transformation Program
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
Sweden and WHO launch new long-term initiative to transform Ukraine’s health system
WHO and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) have launched a new multi-year cooperation project to support the long-term recovery and transformation of Ukraine’s health system. The new project, “Ukraine’s Health System Transformation Initiative: Strengthening Health Governance, Health Financing and Service Delivery for Long-Term Recovery”, was launched at the Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026 in Gdansk, Poland on 26 June, and will run from June 2026 to 2029. Sweden will contribute approximately US$ 26 million (240 million Swedish krona) to support this project. This contribution forms part of Sweden’s broader support to Ukraine through the Team Europe approach, which brings together the European Union, its Member States, and key partners such as the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood and Enabel, and WHO as lead health agency, to support Ukraine’s recovery, reform agenda and European integration.“Ukraine’s health recovery cannot be measured only by what is rebuilt, but by whether people can count on the health system when they need it most. The scale of the task is immense, with health reconstruction and modernization needs estimated at US$ 19.4 billion over the next decade. Sweden’s US$ 26 million contribution to Ukraine’s Health System Transformation Initiative is a timely investment in the institutions, financing and services that will support Ukraine’s long-term recovery and European integration. WHO remains a trusted partner of the Government of Ukraine in advancing this process. I am deeply grateful to Sweden for its consistent support and partnership,” said Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe. More than 4 years of war have placed unprecedented pressure on Ukraine’s health system, creating 3 interconnected challenges. The first is responding to the immediate consequences of the war and the urgent health needs of the population. The second is recovering and modernizing health services today. The third is continuing reforms and aligning the health system with European standards in the context of Ukraine’s future accession to the European Union. The war has led to large-scale population displacement, an increasing need for trauma care and rehabilitation, and shortages of health workers. High out-of-pocket payments in Ukraine make access to health services more difficult. Around 46% of total health expenditure is paid directly by individuals, placing a significant financial burden on many households and underscoring the need for reforms in health financing. Older people, persons with disabilities, women, children and veterans continue to face the greatest difficulties in accessing health services. “Ukraine is demonstrating that health system transformation can continue even during war. Ukraine is also continuing to align its health system with European norms and standards. WHO is committed to supporting Ukraine on this journey. We provide technical support, help coordinate partners’ efforts and support the institutional changes needed to strengthen the system. We are grateful to Sweden for its support. Through this partnership, we can help Ukraine build a more resilient, accessible and people-centred health system,” said Dr Jarno Habicht, WHO Representative in Ukraine. About the Health System Transformation InitiativeThe new initiative will support Ukraine through 3 interconnected areas: strengthening governance and coordination of health sector reforms through more inclusive coordination platforms and structured policy dialogue; transforming service delivery by reinforcing a primary health care-centred model that integrates family medicine, nursing and midwifery; and improving financial sustainability by supporting reforms that ensure the long-term viability of the national health system and reduce out-of-pocket payments for households. Overall, these reforms are expected to make the health system more coherent and easier to navigate, improve the quality and continuity of care, and ensure more equitable access to services, particularly for those who need them most. They will also support Ukraine’s progress towards a more modern health system aligned with European standards. “We are convinced that long-term recovery is not possible without strong, high-quality, person-centred health services that are accessible to everyone. Our partnership with WHO is designed to support deep and lasting systemic changes. Investments in human capital especially autonomous midwives, whose role for maternal, newborn and adolescent sexual and reproductive health cannot be understated, stronger governance, digital transformation and the financial sustainability of the health system are investments in Ukraine’s future. We are proud to support this process,” said Malin Perhult, the Head of the Ukraine Unit at Sida. Focus throughout implementation will be given to the most vulnerable population groups, including older people, women and children, and persons with disabilities, who have been affected by the war and face greater health-care needs. The initiative will be implemented in close cooperation with the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, the National Health Service of Ukraine, the Public Health Centre of Ukraine, regional authorities and international partners. This project will help Ukraine move towards a system where everyone can access the health care they need. It will strengthen primary care, make the health finance system more stable and predictable, and reduce the out-of-pocket costs that Ukrainians face when using health services. As a result, the Ukrainian health system will become more aligned with European standards and more sustainable in the long run.
Senate Indian Affairs Committee Advances Mark Cruz’s Nomination to Lead Indian Health Service
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, led a nomination hearing to consider Mr. Mark Cruz, of Oregon, to be Director of the Indian Health Service within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and expressed her intent to support his nomination. Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a citizen […]
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Health Subcommittee Markup of 15 Bills Addressing Illicit Drugs and Health Care Price Transparency
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
Susan Collins is testing whether old school politics still work
In the modern era, political activists want their representatives to fall strictly in line. To the base, the independent centrist is no longer a hero; they are a villain to be purged. But Susan Collins has a pitch that she is an independent voice.
In wake of homicide on Tyler Street, nearby business owners reaffirm faith in community
In the aftermath of last week’s homicide on Tyler Street, local business owners in the area told The Eagle that the incident is not representative of the neighborhood’s character.
'ANTM' cycle 25 might cast 'an AI contestant,' Tyra Banks rep says (exclusive)
'America's Next Top Model' cycle 25 might include 'an AI contestant,' a representative for Tyra Banks exclusively tells EW after Banks' ice cream brand removed AI-generated models from an ad.
Business owners, town and chamber discuss 'surviving the summer'
The first Let's Talk Business roundtable included a wide range of business representatives, from luxury resorts to a picnic-friendly mom and pop shop.
Trump-endorsed populist poised to become Colombia’s next president
The winner is a self-proclaimed representative of “the never-before-seen.”
Iran's challenges at World Cup swirl outside draw with Belgium
Iran took another step toward advancing in the World Cup on Sunday, but once again the off-the-field play dominated the conversation. In a statement, the soccer federation vociferously pushed back. “The claim that an official representative of the Iranian Football Federation attempted to board a flight to enter the United States yesterday and was prevented from doing so is an outright and undeniable lie,” the statement said.
This week in politics: How Schuylkill County’s legislators voted
The PA House of Representatives was in session this past week and passed 16 bills. Let’s take a look at how Schuylkill County’s legislators voted on notable pieces of legislation. PA General Assembly HB 2084, PA Promise – Improving Co…
Video: A Small Election Could Change British Politics
Voters in the northern English district of Makerfield cast ballots on Thursday to choose their representative in Parliament, the outcome of which could lead to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s ouster.
Shunsuke Muramatsu of Sony Music Japan: Global Power Players Interview
Shunsuke Muramatsu, chairman and representative director of Sony Music Entertainment (Japan), was selected for the first time on the list.
Trump-backed candidate wins primary to face Jon Ossoff in Georgia midterms
Republican primary runoff voters chose US representative Mike Collins to face Ossoff in November
WHO Step-by-Step programme recognized as a promising innovation for mental health in humanitarian settings
WHO, in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and Lebanon’s National Mental Health Programme, showcased Step-by-Step at the World Bank Group’s biennial Fragility Forum in Washington, DC. The forum convened more than 1500 representatives from governments, international organizations and civil society to advance the development agenda in the world’s most fragile and crisis-affected communities. WHO was invited to demonstrate Step-by-Step – a digital self-help intervention for depression, alongside innovations presented by Stanford University and Google. The World Bank Group selected Step-by-Step from among more than 50 innovations that they reviewed in the lead up to the Forum.About Step-by-StepStep-by-Step is a free digital tool developed by WHO in collaboration with Lebanon’s National Mental Health Programme and other partners, that helps people manage depression and anxiety on their own, with light guidance from a trained supporter. It uses a picture-based story to walk users through evidence-based techniques for managing common mental health conditions. Users complete five modules, with weekly contacts – of around 15 minutes each – from a trained non-specialist helper, such as a community health worker.Evidence-basedClinical trials in Lebanon involving nearly 1250 participants – including 680 Lebanese participants and 569 Syrian participants – showed that Step-by-Step significantly reduced depression, anxiety and stress, and improved daily functioning. By the end of the programme, a reduction in depressive symptoms of more than 50% was reported by almost half (46%) of Lebanese participants and more than one third (37%) of Syrian participants compared to approximately 14% of those who did not use the programme. Cost-effectiveness analyses further suggest that Step-by-Step may offer a cost-saving response to depression in humanitarian emergencies in low- and middle-income countries.Used globallyStep-by-Step is already in use nationwide in Lebanon and Thailand, as part of each country’s mental health system. In India, the NGO – Kaya Guides – has adapted Step-by-Step for delivery through a widely used messaging app. Together, these programmes have provided thousands of people with evidence-based support for depression. The content is freely available from the WHO website for any organization or country to adapt for their own context.A new implementation guideThe Fragility Forum coincided with the recent launch of WHO’s new practical guide: Psychological self-help interventions: delivering self-help for individuals, featuring Step-by-Step and Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (WHO, 2026). The guide is designed to help governments, health workers, organizations and planners bring evidence-based mental health support to more people, particularly in low-resource and crisis-affected settings.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
FSU will be well represented at 2026 MLB Draft Combine
Florida State will have several representatives at the 2026 MLB Draft Combine, with seven Seminoles earning invitations.
Revised charter aims to give more sports a place on Fairfax County Athletic Council
Changes to membership on the Fairfax County Athletic Council could give a seat at the table to representatives from a wider array of sports. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on June 9 approved the body's first significant charter change since 2004, slightly adjusting slots on the 23-member council. Approved by supervisors unanimously and without
AHL hosting Team Business Meetings in Grand Rapids
The American Hockey League is holding the 2026 AHL Team Business Meetings presented by Victory Live this week, with more than 250 representatives from the league and its member clubs gathering at the DeVos Place Convention Center in Grand Rapids, Mich.
AP Decision Notes: What to expect in Oklahoma’s state primary
Oklahoma voters will select nominees for federal and state offices including U.S. senator and representative, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and both houses of the state Legislature in a state primary on Tuesday
Mind, Body, Soul: Self-Care Is Health care Community Health Day
Ethan Temple Seventh-day Adventist Church invites residents throughout the Miami Valley and surrounding communities to attend its “Mind, Body, Soul: Self-Care Is Healthcare: Community Health Day” on Saturday, July 25, 2026, at Ethan Temple SDA Church, 4000 Shiloh Springs Road, Clayton, Ohio 45315.The free community event is designed to promote holistic wellness by addressing physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health while connecting individuals and families with valuable healthcare and community resources.The day opens with Morning Worship at 11:00 a.m., featuring guest speaker Alberta Scruggs, a licensed registered dietitian and nutritionist, who will share practical guidance on nutrition, self-care, and healthy living. Following the service, attendees will enjoy refreshments and a light lunch before taking part in the afternoon's health screenings, community resource fair, and wellness-focused activities.From 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., attendees will have access to free health screenings provided through a partnership with Premier Health, along with information and resources from local health and human service organizations.A Community Health Fair from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. will feature representatives from several organizations such as Black Women’s Health Initiative, CareSource, and many more.Recognizing the growing importance of emotional wellness, the event will also feature a Mental Health Panel Discussion from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. led by respected professionals in behavioral health and counseling. The panel will provide an opportunity for open conversation, education, and community engagement around mental health awareness, treatment, and support.In addition to health services and educational opportunities, attendees will receive complimentary lunch bags while supplies last, and school supplies will be distributed to students and families while supplies last.The Community Health Day is open to the public and free of charge. No registration is required.
Politics: Dubuquers share priorities with federal delegation on annual trip to Washington
Dubuque community leaders made their annual “D.C. Fly-in” pilgrimage to Washington last week, where they met with congressional representatives from Iowa and several federal agencies.
This week in politics: How Schuylkill County’s legislators voted
Both the PA House of Representatives and Senate were in session this week — the House passed 22 bills and the Senate passed 23. The U.S. House and Senate were also in session — the House passed 24 bills and the Senate passed 12. Let’s take …
Local History: Kefauver calls out corruption in Tennessee politics
Chattanooga's Estes Kefauver was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1939, after campaigning as a progressive supporting President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
BBB warns Alaskans about businesses pressuring customers to change online reviews
Better Business Bureau representatives are urging consumers to document and report instances in which a business pressures a customer to remove or soften an online review, warning the practice can undermine information people rely on when deciding where to spend their money.
Trump, allies plan to try to scrub impeachments, reports say
The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump in 2019 and 2021
Maine counts ranked choice ballots to determine nominees for governor and a US House race
Maine has begun counting ranked choice ballots on Friday to determine nominees for its open governor’s office and a pivotal U.S. House of Representatives race
Rare or Unverified Outcomes Shape Vaccine Safety and Gender Care Debates
Two recent federal actions, including a memo about alleged COVID-19 vaccine deaths and settlements creating a “detransition clinic,” show how official actions can present uncertain or uncommon outcomes as representative and lend credibility to narratives that go beyond what evidence supports.
Seven GOP US House candidates talk federal spending, energy rules, inflation at Casper’s Politics in the Park
CASPER, Wyo. — Seven Republican candidates vying for Wyoming’s lone U.S. House of Representatives seat faced a blustery Casper wind on Wednesday to debate
Chairman Griffith Delivers Opening Statement at Subcommittee on Health Hearing to Examine Policies to Increase Health Care Transparency for Patients and Employers
The Committee on Energy and Commerce is the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee.
SAVE THE DATE: COSPAR 2026 – The World’s largest Space Science Assembly heads to Florence (1-9 August 2026)
Registration is now officially open for media representatives, bloggers, and freelance communicators to attend the 46th COSPAR Scientific Assembly in August 2026. The event will gather over 3,000 global experts to unveil and discuss the latest groundbreaking discoveries shaping the future of space research
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Democrats Face Another Long Wait for Results in Maine Swing District
No candidate cleared 50 percent in the Democratic primary race to replace Representative Jared Golden, sending the race into ranked-choice voting.
Navy Admiral Fired by Hegseth Advances to Runoff to Replace Mace
Nancy Lacore would face a tough fall election in a district drawn in 2021 to be more Republican. She is seeking to replace Representative Nancy Mace, who ran unsuccessfully for governor instead of running for re-election.
Saving Great Salt Lake key issue in Utah’s House District 21 primary race
Democrats Aaron Wiley and Stephen Otterstrom are vying to replace Rep. Sandra Hollins in the Utah House of Representatives.
Mejia Appointed to U.S. House of Representative Committee on Small Business
Today, upon the recommendation of the U.S. House Democratic Sterling and Policy Committee, Congresswoman Analilia Mejia (NJ-11) was appointed to the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Small Business. This is her second committee assignment in addition to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “Throughout her entire[...]
European Region’s smallest countries lead with commitment to stronger, more sustainable health workforce
Health ministers and senior representatives from the WHO European Region’s small countries have committed to urgent action to strengthen and sustain the health and care workforce, adopting the Riga Outcome Statement at the 12th High-level Meeting of the WHO Small Countries Initiative (SCI) in Riga, Latvia, on 4–5 June 2026.
54 Utah Legislators Rack Up 100% Small Business Voting Records
NFIB Utah small business voting record for the 2025-2026 session of the Legislature
Republican and Democratic congressmen urge Floridians to start preparing for hurricanes
Representatives Byron Donalds and Jared Moskowitz join forces to get Floridians prepared for the forces of nature.
Trump Looms Over Pivotal Republican Senate Runoff in Georgia
The president has not yet endorsed Representative Mike Collins or Derek Dooley, a former football coach, in the race to challenge the Democratic senator, Jon Ossoff.
Borussia Dortmund president expects Erling Haaland to join Real Madrid
As part of his Real Madrid presidency push, Enrique Riquelme claimed that he will bring Jurgen Klopp and Erling Haaland to the Bernabeu. However, the representatives of both have already dismissed the...