SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " gulati " 813 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Texas hemp regulations: Lubbock shop owner says new rules threaten her business
Jennifer Garza, owner of CBD American Shaman in Lubbock and a member of the Texas Hemp Business Council, said the Department of State Health Services has been systematically eliminating her inventory.
As cost of youth sports grows, Congress eyes regulation of private equity
WASHINGTON – Federal lawmakers are weighing restrictions on private equity in youth sports as families face rising costs, mandatory travel expenses and added fees. Industry supporters argue private investment expands facilities and access.
Health Ministry announces restaurant sector reform, eases requirements
The reform dramatically reduces minimum space requirements, allowing existing restaurants to add more tables by repurposing operational space previously required under the regulations.
A closer look at Mamdani’s small-business agenda
The New York mayor wants every business owner to have a sherpa to navigate regulations.
James Talarico calls for tighter regulations on data center development
Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico on Wednesday called for a broad set of tighter regulations on data centers in Texas, seizing on what has become a potential political liability
6 Central Florida restaurants and 2 food trucks shut down after health inspections last week
The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shut down six Central Florida restaurants and two food trucks for health code violations during the week from July 12-18.
Anthropic to donate $20 million to US political group that supports AI regulation
AI giant Anthropic will donate $20 million to a lobbying organization that supports AI regulation, according to a company statement released on Wednesday, its latest move to influence U.S. policy on the technology.
Anthropic to Donate $20 Million to US Political Group That Supports AI Regulation
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - AI giant Anthropic will donate $20 million to a lobbying organization that supports AI regulation, according to a company statement released on Wednesday, its latest move to influence U.S. policy on the technology. The company is donating to Public First Action,
Nebraska Medical Marijuana Officials Approve Rules For Business Application And Licensing Fees
“Building a new regulatory agency is much like constructing a house.” By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission will move forward with requiring fees for registered cannabis establishments and applicants in the coming weeks. Commissioners released the first draft of updated regulations Monday. The proposal would create a $5,000 application fee, license […]
A Historic Data-Sharing Agreement Affirms Tribal Authority and Aims to Improve Public Health
Diseases do not recognize borders, but the laws, regulations, and systems governing critical public health data often do. Improving how data is shared across different jurisdictions—including state and Tribal governments—better prepares public health departments to understand and respond to disease outbreaks and other public health issues while advancing the unique issue of Tribal data sovereignty, the right of a Tribal nation to collect and manage its own data.
California seeks feedback on psychiatric hospital staffing regulations
The California Department of Public Health will hold a stakeholder meeting July 23 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. to gather feedback on emergency regulations establishing nurse-to-patient staffing standards for acute psychiatric hospitals. Here are three things to know: Read more about the questions for stakeholders here.
Spain wins 2026 FIFA World Cup; Hartford fans pack Trinity Health Stadium watch party
Spain won the 2026 FIFA World Cup, scoring one goal against Argentina in extra time to cap off a final that went scoreless through regulation.
Hawai‘i comes in first — at being worst state for business
The fix for a bad business climate isn’t more bureaucracy. It’s less. Reducing taxes and regulations help revitalize the economy. If only our lawmakers would embrace those policies more often.
Hawai‘i comes in first — at being worst state for business
The fix for a bad business climate isn’t more bureaucracy. It’s less. Reducing taxes and regulations help revitalize the economy. If only our lawmakers would embrace those policies more often.
California doesn’t need to put an ‘Out of Business’ sign on AI innovation
California should be leading the AI revolution, not regulating itself onto the sidelines.
Republican candidates for secretary of state share priorities for elections administration, business regulation
by Maya Shimizu Harris, WyoFile Republican candidates for Wyoming secretary of state shared their visions for the job and views on topics ranging from
Republican candidates for secretary of state share priorities for elections administration, business regulation
by Maya Shimizu Harris, WyoFile Republican candidates for Wyoming secretary of state shared their visions for the job and views on topics ranging from crossover voting to ballot drop boxes Thursday at a forum in Laramie. Wyoming’s secretary of state post has risen in prominence in recent years as worries about election integrity and shady corporations […]
Apple Loop: iPhone 18 Pro Release Date, Lego iMac G3, New EU AirPods Rule
This week’s Apple headlines: iPhone 18 Pro Max specs, iPhone 18 Pro release date, iPad Mini updates, new EU regulations for AirPods and Apple Watch, a Lego iMac G3, and more...
Trump regulator orders Kalshi to defy Michigan court – escalating battle over prediction markets
The Trump administration took an extraordinary step this week to escalate its nationwide efforts to prevent states from regulating prediction markets, where users can trade on real-world events like sports, politics and pop culture.
Republican candidates for secretary of state share priorities for elections administration, business regulation
Four republicans are vying for the post, which is responsible for overseeing elections and registering and authorizing businesses in the state.
Google is better at playing the EU regulations game
Google scored a grace period to bring Android in line with EU rules, while Apple must make Siri AI compliant before launch.
Republican candidates for secretary of state share priorities for elections administration, business regulation
Four republicans are vying for the post, which is responsible for overseeing elections and registering and authorizing businesses in the state
Science Is Under Attack. But Scientists Are Speaking Up
On May 29, 2026, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a revision to the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (“the OMB rule”) that would put much of science in the U.S. under the thumb of the Trump administration. How? By giving political appointees unprecedented p
Experts Debate How MAHA Is Reshaping Food Science and Regulation
Experts at IFT FIRST examined how the MAHA movement is influencing food regulation, ingredient reformulation, consumer expectations, and food science.
EU Drops Battery Removal Requirement for Apple Watch and AirPods
The European Commission yesterday adopted new exemptions to its Batteries Regulation that free the Apple Watch and AirPods from having to offer user-removable and replaceable batteries. The EU's Batteries Regulation generally requires consumer products sold in the region to let users swap out their own batteries, a push meant to keep devices in use longer and make it easier to recover materials for recycling.
Chicago Needs A ‘Small Business Bill Of Rights’ To Reduce Red Tape, Local Leaders Say
Ald. Desmon Yancy is set to introduce a resolution outlining policy goals for the city to lessen regulations, fees and bureaucratic delays for small businesses.
Health inspections lead to 5 Central Florida restaurant shutdowns
The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shut down five Central Florida restaurants for health code violations during the week from July 5-11.
Trump’s continuing war on science
I have written before about the Trump administration’s headlong rush to adopt regulations that stifle dissent and force conformity to its ideological bent.
Regulations Limit Possibilities for Small Business
Opinion piece highlights historic contributions of small business and how regulatory burdens limit small business’ growth potential.
Ohio cut red tape. Now its business sector is thriving.
Permitting reform and deregulation aren't sexy policy ideas, but they are effective in driving job creation and making people better off.
EU relaxes rules for smart glasses after US pressure
Commission exempts smart glasses like Meta’s from batteries regulation, clearing a major hurdle to European expansion.
The Quintessential Trump-era Politician
In 2020, I wrote an article about collaboration and collaborators. The title was History Will Judge the Complicit, and it started with the story of two famous East Germans, Markus Wolf and Wolfgang Leonhard, who both landed in East Berlin just after the end of the war. Although they came from very similar backgrounds, the former stuck with the regime, eventually becoming its spy boss; the latter, horrified by the brutal reality of Soviet-style communism, escaped. By way of juxtaposition, I also wrote about Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney. These two men also made very different decisions when confronted by Donald Trump’s assault on the ideals that they had both grown up believing: A glance at their biographies would not have led many to predict what happened next. On paper, Graham would have seemed, in 2016, like the man with deeper ties to the military, to the rule of law, and to an old-fashioned idea of American patriotism and American responsibility in the world. Romney, by contrast, with his shifts between the center and the right, with his multiple careers in business and politics, would have seemed less deeply attached to those same old-fashioned patriotic ideals. Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots, and management consultants as self-interested. We assume people from small towns in South Carolina are more likely to resist political pressure than people who have lived in many places. Intuitively, we think that loyalty to a particular place implies loyalty to a set of values. But in this case the clichés were wrong. It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office,” he said, is “perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” In the wake of Graham’s unexpected death on Saturday, I wrote about him again. He was, in many ways, the quintessential politician of Trump’s Washington, a man who shifted 180 degrees. Graham had been a fervent American patriot, proud reserve officer and military lawyer; he became one of the most important defenders of a president who believes soldiers are “suckers and losers” and shows no respect for law of any kind. As his politics changed, his language grew coarser and his behavior grew worse: He urged Israel to “level the place” in Gaza, and insulted the Danish prime minister in Munich, prompting a colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, to issue an apology. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which you can read in The Atlantic (gift link here) Like his close friend John McCain, Graham believed that America should stand at the center of a broad democratic alliance. The few times I met him were in that context, at the Munich Security Conference or at other European-American gatherings, which he once attended with great regularity. He also took seriously the practice of American democracy at home. In a 2014 conversation with The Atlantic, he described himself as a pragmatic politician who eschewed populist slogans. “I know Washington is broken, but what’s broken about it is everybody yelling and nobody trying to fix it,” he said. “I’m trying.” When Donald Trump first appeared in U.S. politics, Graham recognized him immediately for what he was: the spokesman for an alien ideology, one radically different from the idealistic patriotism that Graham had practiced and preached since childhood. Trump privately mocked the military that Graham loved as nothing but “suckers and losers.” He put falsehoods, cynicism, and personal greed at the center of his politics, while expressing disdain for transparency, accountability, and democracy itself. In 2015, Graham described Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should “go to hell.” Also as a “nutjob.” When Trump won, Graham understood, as did so many others, that he would have to make some important choices. For a while, he went silent. In the spring of 2016, I saw him at one of those conferences in Europe. He seemed too depressed to speak. But then, like many other Republicans—and, more important, like many other people who have lived under political occupation or experienced radical regime change—he made the decision to abandon his previous ideals, to bury the patriotism that was once so important to him, and to become, instead, a loud, opportunistic collaborator. As I wrote in 2020, it’s very hard to look in to anyone’s heart and to understand their motivations from the outside. But it does seem that Graham had a deep need to be relevant, to be in the game, to be a player, at any cost. And that, rather than any particular achievement, is what he will be remembered for. Continuing to monitor conflicts of interest, ostentatious emoluments, outright corruption and policy changes that will facilitate outright corruption. (Read my original article, Kleptocracy Inc and check out the SNF Agora Institute chart) June 27 Trump diverted funds from more than 900 projects nationwide—including safety upgrades at national parks—to finance beautification projects around Washington, including $700,000 used to fix a White House walkway. June 28 After a years-long Department of Justice investigation into Abbott Laboratories over its management of a baby formula facility where potentially deadly bacteria turned up enough evidence to criminally charge the firm, top department officials instead opted for a financial penalty—illustrating the department’s move away from strict corporate enforcement under the Trump administration. June 29 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stacked the Defense Policy Board—which is charged with providing independent national security recommendations to the Office of the Secretary of Defense—with Trump allies, including tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, who has invested in defense contractors like OpenAI and SpaceX, after purging the panel last year. Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in Axon—which makes about 90% of US tasers—two weeks before ICE solicited bids for a $220 million taser contract. The White House unveiled limited-edition US passports for America’s 250th birthday, featuring a portrait of Trump overlaid on the Declaration of Independence. June 30 Trump made around $1.2 billion from his various crypto companies last year, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial and $600 million from sales of his meme coin. Trump is considering issuing 250 pardons to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. These are expected to be largely doled out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s informal network of intermediaries. White-collar defense attorneys say they can typically win pardons for clients for $2 million. Last year, Trump administration officials awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Clark Construction for the White House ballroom—negotiations in which the president was directly involved. July 1 The Amazon MGM Studios documentary about Melania Trump earned the First Lady more than $10 million. Trump made hundreds of individual stock purchases worth as much as $12.8 million the day before his announcement pausing “Liberation Day” tariffs for 90 days sent the S&P 500 soaring nearly 10%—one of the largest single-day gains ever. Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Doral saw record surges in revenue during Trump’s first year in office, earning $77.5 million and $121.9 million respectively, compared to average annual revenues of $25 million and $75 million during Trump’s first term. Entities across the Persian Gulf paid more than $300 million to Trump’s businesses last year, including $263 million from the sale of half his stake in World Liberty Financial to a firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a top UAE royal and brother of the country’s president. Kash Patel failed to properly disclose his stock purchase of a Department of Justice contractor, MicroStrategy, worth up to $250,000 last year, despite laws requiring disclosure within 45 days of the trade. July 2 Trump has been directing administration officials to steer more government contracts—so far worth more than $2.4 billion—to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin aerospace firm, after Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, donated to the White House ballroom project, and reached a $40 million deal to license a Melania Trump documentary. Alongside the billions he made from cryptocurrency last year, Trump earned millions of dollars from real estate licensing fees, including $21 million from organizations in the UAE and $9.2 million in Saudi Arabia, along with smaller sums from merchandise sales, including $4.7 million from Trump Watches and $35,920 from 45 Guitar, a guitar brand endorsed by the president. House Democrats accused consultants tied to the Trump administration of financial fraud, alleging they gave prospective donors to America250—the bipartisan committee created by Congress to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial—the banking and routing numbers for Freedom 250, the White House’s fund for events like the UFC cage fight. Democrats also allege that Freedom 250’s CEO traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos to solicit donations from foreign government officials and business leaders. The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of gun regulations would lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to individuals, a significant win for GrabAGun—the direct-to-consumer firearm retailer on whose board Donald Trump Jr. sits and in which he holds a 1.1% ownership stake. GrabAGun currently must rely on a middleman to transfer firearms to customers. Trump’s financial disclosure revealed that he made more than 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office, growing his investment account to at least $858 million across stakes in around 1,600 companies, compared to the 13 total trades Joe Biden made during his entire presidency. July 4 Nearly 1 million people who bought the president’s meme coin—Trump Coin—collectively lost $3.8 billion on the token, while he walked away with $636 million. July 6 Shares of Dell closed up 4.4% after Trump recommended people buy the firm’s computers during a speech announcing the launch of Trump investment accounts for children, boosting the more than $1 million worth of shares the president owns in the company. July 9 Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh named crypto investor and Trump ally Marc Andreessen to a task force aimed at modernizing the Federal Reserve, including rethinking its approach to inflation—a key factor keeping interest rates elevated. Palm Beach International Airport has officially changed its name to Trump International Airport—a move that will require Florida to pay royalties to the president’s family for licensing his name. I was there a few months ago, during a trip to Barcelona. The sculptures were a revelation, I’d never seen so many together before. Each one has its own personality. Enjoy the good weather, if you are lucky enough to have it. History Will Judge the Complicit The Quintessential Politician Autocracy Inc 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
When regulation is good for business
By now, I think I have established both my view that I am a fan of ESG investing and the benefits of regulating what is and isn’t a sustainable investment, and my view that in Europe, ESG regulation has gone too far and become too costly. It almost feels like the old Aristotelian maxim of doing things in moderation that leads to the best outcomes is valid in regulatory efforts as well. To give you an example, let’s look at a study by the National Bank of Belgium on the impact of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) on fund flows of conventional and ESG funds. The SFDR was announced on 27 November 2019 and came into effect on 10 March 2021. It was implemented in several stages and split funds marketed in the EU into three broad categories: (i) Art. 6 funds that are basically conventional funds without any specific ESG integration, (ii) Art. 8 funds that ‘promote environmental or social characteristics’, which must provide additional reporting how they do that, and (iii) Art. 9 funds that are impact funds. The gaps between the announcement and the phased implementation give us an idea of how fund flows were affected by the regulation. It is clearly visible in the figure below that once the new regulation was announced and when it was initially implemented, fund flows in Art. 8 and Art. 9 funds increased significantly. Conventional Art. 6 funds also saw more inflows, but the increase was not statistically significant. I should add that the data below is pure fund flow, cleaned of performance effects and of any reclassified funds that moved from one classification to another. Note also that once the initial rush in ESG funds was over, additional, stricter regulatory requirements didn’t create that many new flows. This implies that with additional regulation, the funds incurred higher costs to comply but didn’t benefit in terms of new inflows and higher assets under management. Fund flows as the SFDR regulation was implemented in the EU Source: Emiris et al. (2026) When examining the drivers of these flows, the authors of the study found that institutional investors were more likely to switch to ESG funds and particularly so in countries where concerns about sustainability are culturally more accepted. In a society where buy-in into environmental and social risks is higher, private investors were shifting more of their assets into ESG funds as the regulation made it clear which funds are really green and which ones are not. And institutional investors in these countries did so as well, given the societal pressures and reputational risks of sticking with conventional funds. Meanwhile, fund managers reacted to the changing regulatory environment as well. Many funds that were mildly green before the regulation was announced became greener and more sustainable as the regulation was introduced to attract new assets and new investors. Cleverly, and unsurprisingly, these ESG funds also charge on average higher fees, which means that not only did fund managers gather fresh assets, but their profitability increased as well.
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.
The First Test of Bar Harbor's New Entertainment Rules.
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by the Bar Harbor Historical Society. BAR HARBOR—The Finback Alehouse was the first real test of the town’s new special amusement permit process, July 7 while eight other permits sailed through the process last week. The permit allows music in places where liquor is served. The town’s ordinance which was recently tweaked for a new process allows for the regulation of noise and hours of activity. The only discussion at the July Town Council meeting was about the Finback Alehouse on Cottage Street, in the heart of Bar Harbor’s downtown district. The Finback’s distinctive design—a front wall that is like a garage door that can be opened and closed—was a key to that discussion. The restaurant, which often hosts live bands, singers, and karaoke, at night, has had one substantiated noise complaint this season, which is documented on its application. According to Bar Harbor Police Chief David Kerns, most complaints about noise happen after 10 p.m., and if the Finback had two more violations within a year, they’d have to stop having music. One town councilor said that he’d have no problem reissuing the permit if the door was down. The permit passed through the process with no conditions. Vice Chair Earl Brechlin moved the motion with two time changes for two holiday weekend dates. It passed unanimously. The council asked the Finback why they’d chosen an indoor license with a wall that can be opened to the street. Dale Stockburger, representing the Finback, said he’d applied for an indoor permit rather than an outdoor structure or partial structure (which is usually applied to tents or pavilions). The restaurant has traditionally had an indoor license. Stockburger said that whether the door is open or closed is immaterial because he now stands outside with a decibel reader to make sure that the music isn’t too loud. OTHER SPECIAL AMUSEMENT PERMITS New Councilor Deborah Vickers worried that she had potential conflicts of interests on two other renewals due to the location of her employee housing. Vickers co-owns the Black Friar Inn. They have employee housing directly behind the Finback, which is also 300 yards from the Bar Harbor Inn, she explained. The Bar Harbor Inn also had a permit up for renewal. The councilors unanimously voted she did not have a conflict of interest. The councilors approved permits at The Bluenose Inn, 90 Eden St, Class A; Acadia Hotel Downtown, 20 Mount Desert St, Class A and C; the Bar Harbor Inn, 8 Newport Dr, Class A, B, C and D; C-Ray Lobster, 882 State Hwy 3, Class D; Holiday Inn Bar Harbor Regency, 123 Eden Street, Class B; Finback Alehouse, 30 Cottage St, Class B; Project Social, 278 Main St, Class C and D; Bar Harbor Beer Works, 119 Main St, Class B and D; and Mainely Meat BBQ Dreamwood Hill, 369 State Hwy 3, Class D. That process is laid out in the Special Amusement Ordinance of the Bar Harbor Town Code which is Chapter 14 of the town code. Special amusement permits have class codes. These are the meanings: Number - how many musicians are allowed by the permit. Class A - Indoor non-amplified entertainment. Class B - Indoor amplified entertainment or dancing. Class C - Outdoor non-amplified entertainment. Class D - Outdoor amplified entertainment. RESIDENCE LICENSES RENEWED AND A TAXI LICENSE The councilors also renewed the licenses for three specific sorts of residences that require that yearly renewal per the town code. The employee living quarters at Atlantic Oceanside Hotel, 119 Eden St and another at 278 Main Street were renewed. The shared accommodations license renewal at 39 Kebo Street also occurred. These are annual renewals. Bernard Taxi Services’ license was also renewed. This license had been added to the agenda at the meeting. Bar Harbor Update on Leaf and Grass Clipping Disposal BAR HARBOR — Bar Harbor residents will still have a place to throw away their leaf and grass clippings this summer. The town’s agreement with EMR in Southwest Harbor for disposing of those items will continue through November 30. The agreement, according to a town press release, will continue “while the Town continues evaluating long term composting solutions and the required state permitting process.” As of July 1, residents bringing their grass and leaves across the island to the facility in Southwest Harbor will have to fill out a property registration card. Each property can throw out up to 85 pounds of the grass and leaves. “Any disposal exceeding the 85 pound allowance during this period will be the responsibility of the property owner at the applicable disposal rate,” the press release explains. LINKS TO LEARN MORE Watch the meeting Meeting agenda QUICK NOTE: We’d released the Bar Harbor Leaf information as a brief, but wanted to make sure that people saw it, so we’ve included it here, too. HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment
Columbia scientists discover surprising link between serotonin and heart valve disease
Scientists have uncovered evidence that serotonin, the chemical best known for regulating mood, may also speed the progression of a common heart valve disease in some people. The research suggests that patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation who take SSRI antidepressants and carry a specific genetic variant may develop severe valve damage sooner, potentially requiring surgery at a younger age.
EAST TEXAS POLITICS: Reps. Hefner & Harris weigh in on East Texas groundwater fight
State Rep. Cole Hefner, R-Mount Pleasant, discusses efforts to create a new regional groundwater conservation district. Holland asks Hefner about the process, how the district would be funded and his response to those who worry about adding another layer of bureaucracy and regulation. Hefner also reacts to Gov. Greg Abbott calling for a ban on data centers in rural neighborhoods and whether he thinks a special session should be called to create new legislation related to data centers.
EDITORIAL: Another call on Colorado to take care of business
In an unusual move, Colorado’s 8th Congressional District U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans chided his state’s governor and legislature for enacting a wave of regulations that has caused “ever‑growing hardships” for Colorado’s small businesses. As reported in The Gazette, Evans sent a letter to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis his week noting how small-business owners and local […]
Phil Scott issues executive order that would allow age-based health insurance premiums
The order directs the Department of Financial Regulation to explore alternative insurance options for small businesses, beyond the Affordable Care Act.
Warm here, cold there reception greets go-live of ‘Make Hospital Food Healthier’
HHS reiterates: Consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations and CMS guidance, hospitals “should provide inpatient meals that align with the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”
SpaceX stock outlook: Interview with rare analyst without 'buy' rating
Most of the reservations around SpaceX relate to the company's lofty valuation, as well as the prospect of future regulation.
Trump administration pursues more durable changes to science policy after setbacks in court
The White House has proposed sweeping changes to the bedrock regulation undergirding all federal contracts, empowering the executive branch to direct research, terminate grants, and external scientific reviews.
An Urgent Threat to the Foundation of Federal Science Funding
New proposed regulations on the use of federal funding could cripple American science by replacing merit-based peer review of research projects with the whims of political appointees and ending support for the publication of research results. An entomologist and former federal government leader urges anyone who supports science to contact policymakers to oppose the proposed rules.
Nintendo officially announces revisions for Switch 2 and more in Europe in light of new battery regulations
Today, Nintendo officially announced plans for revisions of several of its products, led by Switch 2. Changes will begin to take place starting in the summer. Products will be updated only to support user-replaceable batteries. Outside of that, everything will be staying the same. Note that if you already have one of these products, there’s nothing that you need to...
Trump Administration Rolls Back Dozens of Gun Regulations
Critics say the administration is weakening public safety. Proponents say regulations would be where they were before President Joseph R. Biden took office.
Brazil prepares to announces new sports betting regulations
When World Cup season descends upon soccer-mad Brazil, green and yellow banners decorate restaurants, bars and apartment buildings, streets are painted with flags and soccer balls, and discussions of the beloved Seleção’s games are ubiquitous.
SBA, USDA Sign MOU to Combat Lawfare Against Farmers, Ranchers, and Small Businesses
New Partnership Gives Producers a Direct Line to Report Costly Regulations and Advance Lasting ReformWASHINGTON, July 02, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to combat lawfare targeting farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and small businesses. The agreement gives America’s producers a direct line to report the regulations and rules driving up costs and impacting pro
Clean bills of health: Which Central Florida restaurants had perfect inspections in June?
After 1,104 restaurant inspections across Central Florida in June, only 162 had no issues for the entire month, according to data from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
Oregon store pauses Yu-Gi-Oh! card game competitions after complaints about players’ hygiene
The issue of hygiene in competitive gaming has prompted major publishers, including Yu-Gi-Oh! publisher Konami, to enact formal regulations in the past
Aston Martin boss Newey reveals health issues led to 'difficult period'
Adrian Newey has revealed he was battling health issues during his first year at Aston Martin, leading to a "difficult period" as the team also struggled to adapt to Formula 1's 2026 regulations.
Baton Rouge General’s Health Tip of the Week: Man, it’s hot in here!
Sponsored by Baton Rouge General Night sweats affect nearly 45% of adults at some point, and while it might not be talked about as much as it is with women and menopause, men do experience those middle-of-the-night wakeups drenched in sweat. Low testosterone disrupting the body’s temperature regulation system is a big culprit, but there […]
The Lasting Consequences of Bad Climate Science
The retirement of flawed baseline emissions scenarios will initiate changes across energy policy, regulation, and law.
RFK Jr. wants to make it easier to get peptides. FDA scientists disagree.
The health secretary has advocated for deregulating certain peptides, but FDA scientists point to a lack of data about their safety and effectiveness. Some have not been studied in humans.
The End of Independent Federal Agencies Will Change Your Business
For executives, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter v. Trump will likely lead to less certainty and consistency for the regulated aspects of their businesses, with federal rules and their enforcement increasingly determined by political expediency rather than expert analysis. Specifically, there are five ways in which all U.S. businesses will be affected: regulation will become more informal and less transparent; consistency across administrations will disappear; oversight by Congress and the federal courts will be diminished; expert advice will be devalued; and politically-connected lobbyists will drive decision-making. In this environment, business leaders will need to plan accordingly, honing their ability to shift strategy, perhaps dramatically, after every election—and perhaps even during administrations.
From mail voting to firings, SCOTUS verdict on Trump agenda is mixed
The Supreme Court dealt the Trump agenda major blows on economic regulation and mail-in voting, but also expanded Trump's power over federal agencies.
Colorado’s regulations should address policy challenges only as truly needed
As Colorado approaches its 150th birthday, we should remember its first 100 years were characterized by repeated boom-and-bust economic cycles. Dependence on mineral extraction and agricultural commodity prices was subject to the volatility of these markets. In 1972, as I arrived in Denver with Ma Bell, 40,000 metro households were waiting for dial tone since […]
Efzimfotase alfa demonstrated improvements in bone health in treatment-naïve pediatric patients with hypophosphatasia achieving median difference of 1.67 vs placebo in RGI-C Score at week 25 in MULBERRY Phase III trial
Positive results from the MULBERRY Phase III trial showed that efzimfotase alfa (ALXN1850), an investigational enzyme replacement therapy, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in bone health in children (2 to
Crusaders placed under transfer embargo by IFA
Crusaders have been placed under a transfer embargo by the Irish Football Association [IFA] after a breach of the Northern Ireland Football League [NIFL] rules and regulations.
Man with same name as U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible for Alaska's primary ballot, judge rules
The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations.
West Knoxville business closing as Tennessee tightens hemp regulations
The Hemp House in West Knoxville will close by July 2 as Tennessee’s new hemp regulations take effect.
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.
Summertime screen time health and safety reminders
There’s no magic number when it comes to screen time. It’s about safety, regulation, and long-term impacts.
Who gets to decide Colorado’s economic future?
By Sarah Blackhurst Colorado’s prosperity depends on industries that grow our food, build our future and power our homes. But today, these sectors face an invisible threat from 5,000 miles away: the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). This foreign regulation requires companies to mitigate environmental and human-rights effects throughout their entire global […]
Online violence against women in politics: what shapes political party responses to technology-facilitated gender-based violence?
Political parties have a primary role to play in tackling online violence against women and gender diverse politicians. While the prevalence and impact of TFGBV, such as coordinated disinformation campaigns, deepfake image-based sexual abuse or trolling are well documented, many parties are still building their knowledge on how to respond effectively and have not put in place internal practices and policies that respond to the rapidly evolving, poorly regulated digital ecosystem. About the ReportIn order to promote and protect fair and democratic participation in politics, this ALIGN Report explores what political parties are doing in response to TFGBV and what factors shape their action. The findings, based on existing literature and interviews with gender and politics professionals, indicate there are three sets of factors which donors, civil society and practitioners should consider when designing action to support political parties to respond to TFGBV internally. These are: (1) gender norms; (2) socio-political environment; and (3) internal party factors.Key messagesUnequal gender norms are ubiquitous across politics, shaping expectations of leaders to be strong and assertive, and practices of political parties to uphold masculinist values and sustain cultures of silence. These often lead to weak response to TFGBV against women politicians.The socio-political context can incentivise or disincentivise action, depending on the salience of gender issues, which are increasingly weaponised. Electoral competitiveness, domestic laws (i.e. quota requirements), and even the political system or global normative frameworks influence political will to act.Internal party factors that shape responses will vary across countries and contexts, but include: structures to enforce codes of conduct, policies and reporting mechanisms on (TF)GBV, political ideology, extent of centralisation of leadership, and crucially the meaningful participation of women in decision-making positions, not least through internal women’s wings.Party responses can be seen as a spectrum, with actions falling between active discouragement to address TFGBV to commitment to transform unequal norms and practices within the party.About the ToolkitTogether with the report, this ALIGN toolkit offers gender professionals and others working on democratic strengthening a set of guiding questions and reflection prompts to identify which responses could be most effective and suitable in different contexts. These actions can complement other solutions to TFGBV, such as regulations promoting safety by design. The assessment spans a broad range of factors including: (1) different manifestations of gender norms, (2) the socio-political environment and (3) internal party structures.Key messagesPolitical parties are duty-bound to take action internally to respond to the significant threats posed to women members and candidates, including from their own party colleagues, affiliates and political peers.Existing party approaches to TFGBV can be assessed along a spectrum which ranges from active discouragement and passive acceptance to minimal response and transformative change.To generate effective and context-appropriate solutions to TFGBV, it is important to consider how gender norms shape leadership expectations and internal party practices, while also analysing the impact of the socio-political environment. While actions to support women to stay safe online are very common, codes of conduct and measures to strengthen women’s voice and power in the parties are proposed as most transformative solutions.
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
AI’s money machine faces first real test in Manhattan primary
Industry spends millions to target candidate who supports greater regulation of the technology
Board Approves Changes to Winter Sports Season Regulations
STEVENS POINT, Wis. – The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association Board of Control approved limited use of the shot clock in basketball in 2026-27 and acted on other recommendations...
Mamdani and AI industry flex political power in New York, plus more to watch in Tuesday's primaries
Two factions in the AI industry are clashing in a Democratic primary for a U.S. House seat. New York Assemblyman Alex Bores, a pro-regulation candidate, faces opposition from a group funded by OpenAI investors. The group spent over $7 million on ads against him. In response, groups partly backed ...
Whistleblower investigating Ecuadorian president’s family business was murdered, activists say
Monika Silva Koniuszek died from a blow to the head and strangulation, postmortem found, despite government claim of suicide
Extreme sport deaths expose a patchwork of safety regulations
Fifteen people died in one weekend, prompting calls for better regulation in a booming area of tourism.
AI regulation is a mess, and Anthropic is caught in the crosshairs
The latest spat between Anthropic and the government raises a broad concern among AI and safety researchers: There is no consistent framework for regulating AI.
The Science Behind Why Certain People Instantly Make You Feel Calmer
Being with others can sometimes make you feel calmer. Therapists explain the science behind co-regulation and how to cultivate it in your relationships.
Fears doctors criticising Israel may be silenced as health watchdog adopts contested antisemitism definition
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to use International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition for ‘regulatory work’
CMS Ignores the Law (Again) – This Time Taking Health Insurance Away from Individuals with Substance Use Disorders, Mental Health Conditions, and Serious Health Conditions
Just a few weeks ago, we explained how the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) proposed regulation on state directed payments goes far beyond the statutory authority in H.R. 1 to incredibly harmful effect. Now it has happened again. This time CMS has issued an interim final rule on work reporting requirements (the “IFR”) that […]
Why Regulation Rarely Destroys Durable Companies — It Exposes the Fragile Ones
Regulation doesn’t destroy strong companies — it exposes weak ones. Here's how businesses built on trust, compliance, and operational discipline are better positioned to survive as industries mature and scrutiny increases.
The 7 biggest deregulation actions Trump has taken
His administration has ordered each new regulatory change to be accompanied by 10 deregulatory changes
Regulation Set M‑B Kicks off a New Ranked Battles Season and Battle Pass in Pokémon Champions
See what’s in store now that a new regulation set, Ranked Battles season, and Battle Pass have begun.
Skill game ruling leaves Pennsylvania businesses facing possible taxes, new regulations
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that classifies skill games as gambling devices is raising concerns among small businesses that rely on the machines for extra revenue.
Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Small Business Roundtable
The Office of Advocacy is hosting a virtual roundtable focusing on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed rule, “Revision of Regulations for Grazing Administration, Exclusive of Alaska.”Date: June 30, 2026Time: 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM ETMeeting Pla
1 Central Florida food truck shut down last week after health inspections
The Department of Business and Professional Regulation shut down a food truck in Volusia County for health code violations during the week from June 7-13.
Designing the Health Systems AI Promised
Every technology transition in healthcare has produced the same pattern: capability arrives before governance, deployment outpaces integration, and the accountability gap closes, eventually, through incident, litigation, or regulation. AI is running the same pattern, faster and at greater scale, in systems that were already fragile before it arrived.The more uncomfortable question shifts the lens away from what AI is doing to health systems, toward what health systems were never built to be. The institutions now absorbing...
Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt pushes federal fix for college sports amid NIL chaos
Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt is among lawmakers pushing federal legislation aimed at creating uniform rules for college athletics as lawsuits make it harder for the NCAA to enforce basic regulations.
Cone Health planning to expand; proposing $320 million Forsyth County hospital
Cone Health filed a certificate of need with the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation on Monday.
Express Scripts sues Tennessee over PBM law that would close specialty pharmacy
The company called the state’s regulation of pharmacy benefit managers “shortsighted,” as it would force the closure of Accredo, a specialty drug dispensary that supplies drugs it says aren’t available anywhere else in the state.
Beneath our feet lies a fungal superhighway stretching 68 quadrillion miles
Beneath our feet lies a vast hidden fungal superhighway that helps sustain much of life on Earth—and scientists have now mapped it for the first time. Researchers estimate that these underground networks stretch an astonishing 110 quadrillion kilometers, move about 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide into soils each year, and play a major role in supporting plants and regulating the climate.
The Role of Regulation in Improving Health Care Quality
Lee Fleisher examines current trends and challenges in the regulation of health care quality.
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Safe blood supply improves as voluntary donations exceed 85%, but many people still lack access
New data from the World Health Organization (WHO) show sustained progress towards safer blood supplies globally but also highlight persistent inequalities in access to safe blood and weaknesses in governance, financing and regulation of blood systems.
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Opinion | Dennison: I’ll fight for responsible spending, reducing unnecessary regulations and help small business and more if elected
Like many Coloradans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated watching Washington become more focused on partisan gamesmanship than solving real problems. Families, workers, retirees and small business owners across Colorado are facing challenges that politicians love to...
Middle TN hemp business to close and relocate out-of-state due to new state regulations taking effect in summer 2026
“Sadly, these laws feel like they were designed to stamp out small, family-owned businesses like ours,” the business said.
Former CFTC Chair Gary Gensler on regulating sports betting: Let the states do it
Gary Gensler, former CFTC chairman under President Obama and former SEC chairman under President Biden, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss why he's filing an amicus brief arguing Congress did not intent to make the CFTC the nationwide regulator of sports betting when it passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, regulating sports betting, his thoughts on prediction markets, insider trading concerns, and more.
Transfer market approach and Elland Road redevelopment
Raj asked: Where do you think Leeds will strengthen this summer, and who do you think will be sold to assist financial regulations? Adam: I think there will be an attempt to retain the key talent, which has started with captain Ethan Ampadu's new four-year deal. Also, from the recent discussion with chairman Paraag Marathe, there seems a real positivity that manager Daniel Farke will be staying beyond the existing year of his contract.
OpenAI and Anthropic keep warning about a future they're building
Both Anthropic and OpenAI have released papers warning that frontier models are being deployed before government regulation can catch up.
Texas governor proposes new data center regulations
Gov. Greg Abbott proposed new regulations for Texas data centers, citing concerns about energy consumption and costs for local residents.
Trump administration proposes new rules on prediction markets that would still allow most sports activity
The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed a set of new federal regulations for prediction markets that appear to largely leave the booming industry intact.
Scientists, higher ed alarmed by federal 'power grab' over research funding
The Trump administration has proposed regulations to control billions of dollars in federal research funding, which it says will reduce "fraud and abuse." Scientists in Massachusetts and beyond say they could set back research in the U.S. by decades.
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
How 'undone science' shaped Chile's glacier protection battle
What is "undone science," and how does it affect environmental policy and regulation around the world? In a recent study published in Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, Javiera Barandiarán, ...