Lindsey

In a voice vote last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.” The legislation is presented as a technical reorganization of some government agencies, but it’s much more than that. 

H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office, and not in a good way. The bill removes the Library of Congress’ current supervisory role over the Copyright Office, transfers several powers directly to the Register of Copyrights, and makes the Register a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate. 

These changes would make an office that’s already hugely influential in copyright and tech policy much more political. EFF first explained why that’s a terrible idea when it came up nearly a decade ago. This bill, like the older one, weakens the few public-interest checks and balances that do exist.  We hope the Senate promptly rejects this bill. 

The Copyright Office Doesn’t Need More Politics—Or More Power

The Copyright Office’s main responsibilities are administrative and advisory. It registers copyrights, maintains records, grows the Library of Congress’s collections, and provides expertise to Congress on copyright law. But over the past two decades, the Office has also become increasingly influential in copyright policy debates that affect free expression, libraries, educators, competition—and everyday internet users. Unfortunately, it has not been a neutral advocate. The office’s recent report on the role of AI severely bungled the issue of fair use, prioritizing private licensing market “solutions” over user rights. 

Going further back, the Copyright Office supported one of the most infamous anti-internet proposals of all time—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a disastrous internet censorship proposal that sparked one of the largest online protests in history. The Office has repeatedly advanced positions that favored large entertainment-industry interests over the public interest.

The Office also plays a major role in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 1201 rulemaking process, which determines when the public may lawfully bypass digital locks for activities such as security research, repair, preservation, or accessibility. EFF has used this process repeatedly to mitigate some of the worst harms of the DMCA. H.R. 6028 would move rulemaking authority over 1201 from the Librarian of Congress to the Register of Copyrights, further consolidating power within the Copyright Office itself.

The bill also makes the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. Each administration will be pressured to pick nominees aligned with their own policy preferences, and the powerful copyright owning industries will invest even more heavily in lobbying to get their way, and influence the selection. This position should be focused on administrative ability and actual expertise, not lobbying and politics. 

The Copyright Office Should Stay Connected To The Library of Congress

H.R. 6028 would do more than change who appoints the Register of Copyrights. It would sever the Copyright Office from Library of Congress supervision and transfer many Librarian powers directly to the Register. 

The supervisory relationship exists for good reason, as the nation’s libraries have pointed out for years. The Library, while far from perfect, at least has the mission of preserving and providing access to knowledge. That should be an important public-interest counterweight in copyright debates. Congress has not explained how weakening the ties between the Library and the Copyright Office would serve the public better, or even seriously inquired about it. 

This Bill Was Rushed Through

Back in March, EFF joined Public Knowledge, the Center for Democracy and Technology, library organizations and tech groups, urging Congress not to fast-track this legislation. We told them changes to the Copyright Office will have major consequences for the “speech rights, educational opportunities, and creative freedoms of all Americans.” 

Yet Congress moved forward without any hearings on the bill, and without meaningful examination. H.R. 6028 creates a years-long separation of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, transfers significant legal authority, and restructures the appointment process for the nation’s top copyright official. Changes like that deserve hearings, debate, and public scrutiny. H.R. 6028 got none of that. 

The Senate Should Stop This Bill

Copyright law exists to serve the public and “promote the progress” of science and learning. The institutions that administer copyright law should do the same. 

H.R. 6028 would move the Copyright Office further away from that goal. Congress should be strengthening public-interest oversight of copyright policymaking, not looking for ways to concentrate more authority in a single presidentially appointed official. 

The Senate should reject H.R. 6028. The Copyright Office should serve the public—not presidential administrations, and not industry lobbyists. 

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Independent advisors for the Food and Drug Administration on Friday voted 9–0 in support of approving Moderna's seasonal mRNA flu vaccine, which a Trump appointee at the agency initially tried to block from even being reviewed.

In an all-day meeting, members of the FDA's advisory committee—known as VRBPAC for Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—pored over data and presentations on the vaccine, which is dubbed mRNA-1010 and branded as mFlusiva. The presentations included a review from FDA scientists, which was supportive of the vaccine.

Data from a Phase 3 trial including over 40,000 adults age 50 and older found the mRNA vaccine was around 27 percent more effective against seasonal flu than a standard flu shot. A smaller Phase 3 trial, involving data from nearly 3,000 people age 65 years and older, showed the shot produces stronger immune responses than a high-dose flu vaccine, which is recommended for this age group. The safety profile of the vaccine was also generally good.

Read full article

Comments

Every election cycle sees its share of controversial, scandal-plagued candidates running for office. But the 2026 midterm elections will feature two such candidates – one from each party – in two of the highest-profile U.S. Senate races.

In Texas, the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, recently secured the Republican Party’s nomination over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn and others have insisted that Paxton’s substantial legal and personal baggage – including corruption and bribery accusations that got him impeached by the GOP-led state House of Representatives – might lose Republicans a seat they’ve held for decades.

Democrats in Maine, meanwhile, have nominated Graham Platner, a political novice whose grassroots campaign and brash communication style propelled him to a decisive victory over the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, who remained on the ballot but suspended her campaign in April.

This, despite Platner facing a series of personal scandals ranging from alleged sexual misconduct to a tattoo that turned out to be an emblem of Hitler’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel, or SS. Platner has claimed he was unaware of the symbol’s origins and has since covered it up.

Both Paxton and Platner won resounding victories in their primaries over more establishment candidates who were comparatively free of scandal.

As a scholar who studies Congress and elections, and the co-host of a podcast about political scandals, I believe political science offers answers about how Paxton and Platner pulled off victories in their states’ primaries – and why they might win in November.

Historic distance and distaste between the parties

Both Paxton’s and Platner’s flaws were well known prior to primary voting.

Early polling indicates that most of Texas’ Republican voters are likely to back Paxton in November. Polling also shows that Platner will continue to consolidate his party’s support in Maine.

Both parties’ leadership in Congress and beyond have also rallied behind their respective candidates. And both parties have used the opposing candidate’s scandals against them in the campaign, despite propping up flawed candidates themselves.

These actions can coexist thanks to two forces that political science has much to say about, precepts that have been steadily increasing in relevance over the past few decades: party polarization – or the distance between the two parties – and negative partisanship, voters’ tendency to vote based on negative feelings toward the other party.

Democrats and Republicans are far away from each other on policy preferences, issue positions and culture. They are also distant in terms of where they live, whom they support, how they feel and even whom they love.

Political science tells us that this polarized distance has increased feelings of personal animus between members of the two parties. Political psychology says the more different Americans are from each other, the easier it is for them to not just disagree with the other side but to dislike the other side to the point of viewing them as a threat.

These are trends Americans frequently see reflected in public opinion studies, many of which use the “feeling thermometer” to ask respondents to rate their personal feelings toward a person or party on a scale of zero degrees, or coldest/most unfavorable, to 100 degrees, or warmest/most favorable.

In the late 1970s, the average voter in each party was more or less neutral toward the opposing party, with scores hovering just below 50 degrees. By 2024, the average voter sentiment toward the other party had plummeted to 19 degrees.

In 1978, only 9% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans had a very negative opinion of the opposing party. By 2024, vast majorities in both parties – 64% apiece – reported such negative opinions.

Political science also tells us that these negative feelings about the other party are not simply prevalent. They are the driving force behind many voters’ election choices.

In other words, Americans are increasingly making voting decisions based not on who should win elections but rather on who shouldn’t. The opposing party is not just the less preferred option – it’s a threat that must be stopped at all costs.

When feelings about the other side are this negatively polarized, then winning – even with a less-than-ideal candidate as your standard-bearer – becomes more crucial than ever.

In fact, researchers have found that scandals involving candidates in a voter’s own party trigger a “defensive partisanship” that increases their hostility toward the other side. That is, scandals in a voter’s own party can make them more – not less – loyal to their team.

The higher the stakes, the lower the standards

Polarization and negative partisanship are not the only factors at work. The tight competition for control over major political institutions such as Congress and the presidency have raised the stakes of elections higher than ever. And, in the process, it has lowered standards for whom Americans are willing to support.

In her 2016 book, “Insecure Majorities,” political scientist Frances Lee found that partisan control over the federal government is more in question now that it has been in over a century. Lee says that closely fought elections that determine control of government help explain changing governing strategies in Congress.

But Lee’s findings also help explain our choices in elections and how – even in closely fought, high-profile races such as the 2026 Senate contests in Texas and Maine – voters end up nominating such blemished candidates.

In theory, closely fought competition should drive a “race to the top” in terms of candidate selection. Because control over institutions rests constantly on a knife’s edge, Americans might expect both sides to put forward their best, brightest and most electorally compelling candidates to try to win.

But thanks to polarization and negative partisanship, it isn’t always so. Instead, hard-fought elections among a closely divided electorate mean that individual votes matter more; that power hangs by a thread; and as a result, that one’s personal and political enemies are inches away from controlling the government.

Thus, closely divided elections only raise the stakes of one’s vote, along with the cost of defecting from your party’s candidate, however flawed they might be.

The lesser of 2 evils?

Voters constantly report feeling the need to “hold their noses” and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The alternative – the other party taking power – is too grave to permit a truly principled stand. As a result, the race to the bottom continues, because the other side will always be worse.

These trends can help explain why, for example, Republicans circled the wagons around Donald Trump in 2016 despite his many scandals and serious misgivings within the party. They also illustrate why Democrats rallied around Joe Biden well into 2024, even as serious questions were raised about his physical age and mental fitness for office.

Whether Paxton’s or Platner’s partisan voters end up coalescing around them despite their scandals remains to be seen. Regardless, the reappearance of such imperfect candidates each cycle tells a bitter story about what voters will put up with to win.

Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The current proposal for the arch sets the height at 288 feet above sea level. The New York Times mapped air traffic in the Washington, D.C. area to show why that’s an issue.

Among maps that show flight paths from above, a view from ground level shows how close flights from April 2026 would have gotten if the arch existed. The view rotates 360 degrees and makes the distance from arch to air traffic more obvious.

Tags: arch, flights, New York Times

A decade after the global craze for Pokémon Go peaked, an AI company has been using billions of real-world images captured by millions of players to develop navigation technologies for delivery robots and possibly military drones. That represents an intriguing but potentially discomfiting legacy for an augmented reality mobile game that has incentivized gamers to capture short smartphone videos of physical neighborhoods and landmarks.

The AI company, Niantic Spatial, was spun out of Pokémon Go game developer Niantic in May 2025, after Niantic separately sold its licensed games such as Pokémon Go to the Saudi-backed video game publisher Scopely. But before that deal, Niantic publicly announced plans to use scans from millions of Pokémon Go players along with data captured by users of the company’s Scaniverse app to train and develop a “large geospatial model”—a 3D model of the physical world trained on the geolocated images provided by app users scanning real-world locations.

“Ground scans were one component to help train Niantic Spatial's real-world foundation models —AI systems that learn to recognize and interpret physical spaces,” a Niantic Spatial spokesperson told Ars. “The models are the product of that training, not a copy of or a means of accessing the underlying scans, which were of public points of interest such as statues and fountains.”

Read full article

Comments

One of the world’s most active ransomware groups exploited a critical vulnerability in Oracle’s PeopleSoft software suite and used it to target about 100 customers and extort at least one of them to pay up in exchange for not leaking stolen data, researchers said.

The group, tracked as ShinyHunters, had been exploiting the PeopleSoft vulnerability for more than two weeks before Oracle flagged it. CVE-2026-35273, as the vulnerability is tracked, carries a severity rating of 9.8 out of 10, making the former zero-day one of the year’s most critical vulnerabilities to be exploited.

Google’s Mandiant security team said it’s an SSRF (server-side request forgery), a vulnerability that allows attackers to send requests from a susceptible server to systems used by the targeted organization. Oracle said the SSRF is remotely exploitable, and the company has issued a stopgap mitigation but has yet to fully patch the flaw. Google has confirmed that victims are receiving extortion demands.

Read full article

Comments

The New York Times counted Elon Musk’s promises on X/Twitter and Tesla earnings calls since 2011. Over the years, there have been more declarations, but the number of achievements per year changed little in the past five years. Instead, the rate of non-achievements appears to be rising.

Tags: Elon Musk, goals, New York Times

Traffic has been rising extra quickly these past couple of years. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) it’s mostly from automated AI bots scraping all they can get. From Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare:

Welp, that happened faster than I predicted. Thought it would be end of 2027, then early 2027, but agentic traffic growing so fast that bots have now passed human traffic online for the first time in the Internet’s history.

It was only nine months ago when bots accounted for 30% of web traffic. Ninety percent next year?

Tags: bot, Cloudflare, Internet, scraping

Survey says busy commercial corridors can trigger drivers' bad behavior

The post Rockville Pike cracks top 10 of most ‘passive-aggressive roads’ in the U.S. appeared first on Bethesda Magazine.

The Supreme Court’s conservatives have spent years systematically dismantling the Voting Rights Act, but the last seven months have been something else — a rapid-fire series of emergency docket rulings, procedural maneuvers, and carefully worded opinions that, taken together, make it effectively impossible to challenge racial gerrymandering. Not difficult. Impossible. And Justice Alito, in particular, seems almost gleeful in how mask-off he is in enabling the suppression of Black votes.

Yesterday’s per curiam ruling in Allen v. Milligan is the exclamation point on that project. None of the conservatives were willing to put their name on it. They didn’t need to. The result was never really in doubt — not after what they’d already done in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama over the preceding months. This was just the moment it became undeniable that the rule is: if it disenfranchises Black voters, we’ll allow it, if it empowers Black voters, we’ll block it.

Here’s the trail.

1. In November last year a (Trump appointed!) judge threw out Texas’ gerrymandered brand new maps, by pointing out that they clearly violated the Voting Rights Act prohibition against race-based gerrymandering. As the judge pointed out, if Texas had done the gerrymandering for political reasons (to block Democrats from being elected), that would have been legal under a different recent (but still troublesome) Supreme Court ruling. But the incompetent Trump DOJ had pressured Texas explicitly over the racial makeup of its maps, which was seen as the clear racial reason for doing the gerrymandering.
2. In December last year, the Supreme Court put the racist gerrymandered maps back into play, with a ruling by Justice Samuel Alito saying that, even though the lower court found those new maps (which had only been created months earlier and used in no elections) to be clearly illegal for being created for racist reasons, “Texas needs certainty on which map will govern the 2026 midterm elections.” Given that (1) the primaries were still many months away and the ramification of rejecting these new maps was simply… going back to the same map that Texas had used during the last Congressional election, none of this made any sense.
3. In April, the Supreme Court came down with its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, in which the conservatives on the court said that to show gerrymandering was done for racial reasons (which the Voting Rights Act makes illegal), plaintiffs can’t just show evidence of the impact — they have to produce additional evidence of actual racist intent behind the redistricting. In this ruling, Justice Alito said that the ruling had no bearing and did not overturn previous rulings, either about the Voting Rights Act or in an earlier case the Supreme Court had heard, in which it found that Alabama’s new voting maps gerrymandered to deprive Black people of representation in Congress.
4. In May, Justice Alito (again, that guy) took the surprising step of rushing to certify the Callais ruling (something that is very, very rare) to assist the state of Louisiana in redrawing its maps for the election that was happening days away. Again, there is no way to square Alito’s step there with his statement about “certainty” in December unless the only “certainty” is “Black people’s votes shouldn’t count.”
5. Then, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court weighed in on an updated challenge to the Alabama maps — a follow-up to the earlier case where the Court itself had found Alabama violated the law. Despite lower courts finding that Alabama’s latest maps were still illegally race-based, the Supreme Court said that under Callais, those maps could go into effect anyway — eight days before the election. So: in Texas, Alito said you couldn’t remove racist maps four months before an election because people needed “certainty.” In Alabama, Alito says you can install more racist maps eight days before an election. The only certainty Alito seems interested in protecting is the certainty that Black voters get suppressed.
6. The election occurred 8 days later, but the State of Alabama, buoyed by the Supreme Court’s “racism is okay now!” attitude, simply discarded the votes in four districts, while keeping them in other districts, and said “we’re going to redo those primaries with our more racist maps later in the summer.”
7. Last week, a three judge panel (two of whom were appointed by Donald Trump) at the district court, taking instruction from all of those recent Supreme Court rulings, still found that Alabama’s new maps were clearly violating the Voting Rights Act, showing in another very detailed ruling that there was tremendous evidence that the maps were created specifically for racial reasons to suppress the impact of the Black vote. They were directly following the rulings in both Callais and Allen, where Sam Alito and friends said you have to be able to show actual racist intent to violate the VRA. The judges (yes, including a majority appointed by Trump) said “okay, yes, here we have overwhelming evidence of racist intent.”
8. Those three judges laid out pages upon pages showing that the most fair, the most constitutional, and the most reasonable conclusion — under the very Supreme Court rulings Alito had authored — was to throw out this map, exactly as the Supreme Court itself had done a few years earlier.

So that brings us to yesterday. Alabama had rushed to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, because of course they did. And the conservatives on the court did what they were expected to do: in a per curiam ruling that none of the conservatives were willing to put their name on, they shoved the (already deemed racist by multiple lower court rulings) Alabama map back into effect while the election was already underway.

The ruling claims this is necessary after Callais — that the lower court didn’t apply the new standard correctly. But that’s a misreading of what the lower court actually did (and also the Court’s own ruling in Callais!). The district court found overwhelming evidence of racist intent. That’s exactly what Callais demanded. The Supreme Court’s stated reason for overriding that? The lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Even more ridiculous, the ruling claims that the district court’s ruling would have upset that “certainty” so close to an election again:

We have repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not “alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”

I mean come the fuck on. These same six twerps literally “altered the election rules” in neighboring Louisiana a month ago and altered Alabama’s election rules just a few weeks ago. This new map is what “alters the election rules on the eve of an election.”

The sheer racist chutzpah it takes to scold a lower court for “changing the map at the last minute” while actually changing the maps with the very same ruling is something else.

There is, yet again, a dissent written by Justice Sotomayor (and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) laying out the ridiculousness of all of this, including calling out the conservatives past claims of trying to avoid “chaos and confusion” while guaranteeing that these recent elections are nothing but chaos and confusion:

Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote and with which all voters, elections officials, and candidates alike are familiar. Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians, that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months.

Sotomayor points out that the last time this case came before the court — when the majority agreed the Alabama maps were racist — Alito and Kavanaugh whined that changing the maps with months to spare would cause “chaos and confusion.”

She points out that what is happening now, because of the same rulings endorsed by Alito and Kavanaugh, we are now seeing actual chaos and confusion, including already made votes being thrown out:

After this Court’s order, Alabama announced that it intended to use the 2023 Redistricting Plan for the upcoming election and took the unusual step of splitting its congressional primary. In the three congressional districts unaffected by the change in congressional map, the May 19 primary election went ahead as scheduled. In the other four districts, voters still cast their ballots. Their votes for Congress, however, did not count. Instead, Alabama’s Legislature passed a law permitting the Governor to call a special primary election in the four congressional districts whose lines changed as a result of this Court’s order, and the Governor set that election for August 11.

Sotomayor repeats how multiple district court rulings and the Supreme Court (with the same makeup) had already found that the Alabama maps violated the law. And she points out that, unlike the Supreme Court the district court followed the earlier rulings in looking at the actual evidence:

The District Court’s account of the evidence here is more than plausible. The record is bereft of evidence suggesting that Alabama took seriously this Court’s finding of discriminatory vote dilution in Allen. Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives Nathaniel Ledbetter put it bluntly: “‘If you think about where we were, the Supreme Court ruling [in Allen] was five to four. So there’s just one judge that needed to see something different.’” Singleton, 782 F. Supp. 3d, at 1348. That admission, the District Court observed, suggests “that Speaker Ledbetter was not focused on trying to remedy likely vote dilution” when the Alabama Legislature passed the 2023 Redistricting Plan.

As she notes, under the current Alito-doctrine, there is simply no way to ever invalidate a gerrymandered map:

The record is crystal clear. Even if Alabama may have unintentionally drawn the first racially discriminatory map, when it later adopted redistricting criteria that made it mathematically impossible to remedy racial discrimination, the District Court drew the obvious (and certainly not implausible) inference that Alabama intended to discriminate. If the District Court clearly erred by doing so, then there is no realistic case in which the presumption of legislative good faith can ever be rebutted.

Then she goes back to the point she made in her dissent on the last ruling. Callais is entirely about the Voting Rights Act. But the maps in Alabama didn’t just violate the VRA, they also were found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. And while the Supreme Court can rewrite the VRA, it can’t ignore the Constitution. Yet it did. And it did so again in this ruling, pretending that Callais also covers the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is hard to see how the District Court’s finding of discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth Amendment could have departed from an opinion that purported to say nothing about how to find discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s apparently oblivious insistence to the contrary today cannot be squared with what Callais said on its face just over one month ago.

And then there’s the chaos argument, which is where Alito and Kavanaugh’s earlier hand-wringing gets turned directly against them.

As the District Court explained, the path of least change in Alabama is keeping the District Court’s remedial plan in place. According to Alabama Director of Elections Jeff Elrod, all voters in Alabama are currently assigned in countylevel voter rolls to congressional districts based on the remedial map that the District Court previously ordered and that the State used for the 2024 election cycle. 2 App. 135. To run an election using the remedial map, then, the State need not make any changes to its voter rolls or change the status quo.

To switch to the 2023 Redistricting Plan now, however, county elections officials will have to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters across the State to new congressional districts.

Once again, the only actual consistency from the conservatives on the court seems to be “you cannot upset maps if they are racist against Black people” but “you can absolutely shake up maps at the last second, throwing out votes, if the new maps will be racist against Black people.” The only clear “consistency” is that it is only okay to disenfranchise Black voters.

And there will be massive chaos:

Elrod testified below that county elections officials would have to reassign those 600,000 voters manually. “The system,” he explained, “is not automatic” and “requires manual input” from elections officials who must “physically manually interface with the system.” Id., at 146. Reassigning voters in precincts split across two districts is particularly complicated, he continued, as it “cannot be done with a simple click” and instead requires officials to check street-level data to determine how to assign individual voters. Id., at 156–157. Worse yet, Elrod warned that reassigning voters requires using complicated computer software that officials must be trained to use, as “most of the counties’ registrars are not tech savvy” and “registrars are the only ones who can make the changes . . . to a voter’s record.” Id., at 147– 148. This process also requires many prechecks and backend quality control steps, all of which add to its time-intensive nature.

[….]

Here, county officials do not have four months. When Alabama filed these applications on May 27, they had just seven days. Elrod explained that voter rolls were locked throughout the State following the State’s May 19 primary election, meaning that county officials could not reassign any voters to their new congressional districts under the 2023 Redistricting Plan for the August 11 special primary election. ECF Doc. 530–1, p. 17. The rolls were unlocked on May 27, but they are set to lock again today, June 2, ahead of Alabama’s primary runoff election on June 16. As a result, county officials in the three most heavily impacted counties in Alabama had at best just seven days to reassign 600,000 voters by hand. The two smaller counties, which are together responsible for reassigning 100,000 voters, each have just three elections officials who can make these changes. 2 App. 122. Mistakes will inevitably occur, as overworked elections officials sprint around the clock to make all the necessary changes. Even then, the officials may fall short. As far as Elrod is aware, no county in Alabama that was split under a redistricting plan has ever managed to complete voter reassignment in just seven days.

That seems bad. That seems like the kind of inconsistency, chaos, and confusion that the conservatives on the Supreme Court insisted could not be allowed (when it would mean getting rid of a racist map). Weird that here they are not only fine with it, they are encouraging of the chaos.

In fact, Sotomayor points out that Alabama officials have changed their position on how much chaos would be caused depending on which result helped them more:

Alabama has taken wildly inconsistent positions on how much time it needs to implement a new redistricting plan throughout these cases, which suggests it is attempting to game this Court’s emergency docket through shifting positions on the equities. As noted above, Alabama previously sang a very different tune. In January 2022, it asked the District Court to stay its initial preliminary injunction in these cases. See ECF Doc. 110. In its motion, the State complained that changing its congressional districts four months before Alabama’s primary election that year “thr[ew] the [2022] election into chaos” and left “almost no time for maps to be redrawn, hundreds of thousands of voters to be reassigned to new districts, and thousands of new signatures to be obtained by candidates and political organizations seeking ballot access.” Id., at 20. Alabama continued: “To pull the rug out from . . . candidates and their voters in the run-up to an election requires extraordinary justification,” for “‘elections are complex to administer, and the public interest is not served by a chaotic, last-minute reordering of districts.’” Id., at 21 (alterations omitted). The State made similar arguments to this Court when it successfully sought a stay following the District Court’s denial. See Merrill Application 38 (citing “the last-minute reassignment of hundreds of thousands of voters to new districts” as imposing significant “harms not only [on] the State,” but also on “voters and candidates”).

If all the above was true in 2022, then it is also true in 2026. Alabama, however, no longer seems to think so. What was previously impossible to achieve in four months is suddenly possible to achieve in less than one week, as concerns about the administrative burdens associated with “the last-minute reassignment of hundreds of thousands of voters to new districts,” ibid., have apparently melted away. A State that once decried pulling the rug out from under voters, elections officials, and candidates now seems determined to do just that. The Court should not reward such gamesmanship, especially when it accepted Alabama’s arguments in granting Alabama a stay in 2022.

Again, Alito and Kavanaugh explicitly called out the supposed “chaos and confusion” that would be caused by adjusting maps with four months notice in 2022. Yet here, they seem to see zero issue with it happening in mere days.

Once again, there is no way to square all of this that does not come down to the judges who voted for this simply supporting blatant disenfranchisement of Black voters.

Flock Safety doesn’t seem to care about anyone. Not its customers, not those captured by its cameras, not even the legislators trying to find a balance between safety and privacy.

Flock started out by pitching its cameras — with built-in license plate readers — to the kind of people with money to blow on unproven tech and the willingness to use it to keep unwanted people (read: not white) out of their neighborhoods. It soon expanded past the gated community market, courting cops who wanted to use the tech to track unwanted people (read: not white) who might be driving around in cars and existing.

As always, both parties (Flock/cops) claimed the tech was essential to capturing the “worst of the worst” — auto thieves, wanted felons, sex offenders, etc. And, as always, real-world use cases were more along the lines of oh, you know, tracking down women seeking abortion options or letting cops keep tabs on their ex-wives.

The problem with Flock isn’t necessarily unique to Flock. It’s a problem almost every third-party contractor creates. When thing go poorly (and they have gone very poorly for Flock recently), no one seems to know who’s responsible for removing the unwanted tech, much less who actually has the authority to shut a surveillance system down.

This has created a problem that has no immediate solution. When Dayton, Ohio shut down its Flock cameras, it had no idea whether contract termination meant the cameras were actually shut off. Worse, law enforcement officials didn’t seem to know either. A fix was needed, and Dayton found a cost-effective way of keeping Flock from operating the unwanted cameras until when (or if!) it decided to roll into town to remove them.

Jason Koebler has the details for 404 Media:

The city of Dayton, Ohio has covered its Flock automated license plate reader cameras with black trash bags in part because police there are unsure whether the cameras are still active and the city also doesn’t seem to know whether it is allowed to take the cameras down. The move comes after months of resident outrage, a scandal in which the city was sharing Flock camera data for immigration enforcement apparently on accident, and a $30,000 audit into how the cameras are being used.

You can see the problem. While the city may have terminated the contract and the PD stating it won’t use the cameras, there’s no real “OFF” switch on the end user side. Because the cameras aren’t truly owned by the city, it has to wait around for Flock to come get its boys. And even though the Dayton PD’s access portal may be dead because it’s parted ways with Flock, that doesn’t mean hundreds of law enforcement agencies around the US don’t have access to the cameras the city has determined can’t be used.

This isn’t speculation. This is something that has already been observed by other municipalities.

Cities are not sure what their contracts state how to extricate themselves from those contracts, or whether the cameras are recording (and where that data is going). This uncertainty highlights the problems associated with using private, third-party surveillance infrastructure. Last week, for example, the mayor of Menominee, Wisconsin said that Flock cameras in the city “have been activated without city council approval.”  

That’s some shady shit right there. But it’s not even the shadiest thing Flock has done in terms of (1) supposedly deactivated cameras and (2) garbage bag-covered cameras. Late last year, the city of Evanston, Illinois covered Flock cameras in garbage bags until Flock came to remove them. Then this happened:

The city previously ordered Flock to shut down 19 cameras (18 stationary and one flex camera that can be attached to a squad car) provided by the company and put its contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on Aug. 26. The company took down 15 of the 18 stationary cameras by Sept. 8, only to reinstall all of them by Tuesday. This was apparently without authorization from city officials, who sent Flock a cease-and-desist order to take them back down.

What the actual fuck? And yeah, one might be inclined to chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding, but only if one isn’t familiar with Flock’s general disregard for municipal laws:

Company communications with state transportation agencies obtained via public records requests, and interviews with more than half a dozen former employees, suggest that in its rush to install surveillance cameras in the absence of clear regulatory frameworks, Flock repeatedly broke the law in at least five states.

One state in particular seemed to be hit particularly hard by Flock’s lawless expansion efforts:

In South Carolina, State Transportation Secretary Christy Hall told Forbes that since spring 2022, her staff has found more than 200 unpermitted Flock cameras during routine monitoring of public roads.

Hence the garbage bags. It appears Flock is willing to activate cameras it’s been instructed to deactivate. And that’s when it’s not installing cameras illegally or thumbing its nose at removal orders by reinstalling cameras it has just removed.

Private companies who pull this sort of shit would be shut down, if not banned, by cities if it involved anything other than cop tech. Somehow, Flock manages to ride this out by claiming to be a cop’s best friend, even as its pretending local laws and regulations don’t apply to it.

I would encourage cities looking to rid themselves of Flock cameras to go one step further: just pry them off the poles and toss them in the nearest dumpster. If Flock wants to retrieve its equipment, it can be directed to the nearest landfill. Or, if cities don’t feel comfortable doing this themselves, they can always host a few foreign exchange students to help ensure Flock cameras remain inoperable until removal.

You did the right thing this morning.

Instead of the one-click default to your laptop’s last opened tab, you opened Etsy and bought a ceramic mug from a maker you’d been following on Instagram. Yesterday, your sister’s birthday gift came from a Shopify store run by a kitchenware designer in Sacramento, California. You felt something when you clicked “buy,” a small, warm, fuzzy feeling. Not Amazon. Not a giant. Someone real.

The package will arrive on time, in unmarked brown cardboard, in two days.

It will arrive that way because Amazon delivered it.

On May 4, 2026, Amazon announced the launch of Amazon Supply Chain Services. It opens Amazon’s warehouses, trucks and delivery network – built over decades to ship products from its own website – to outside companies of any size. Procter & Gamble, 3M, Lands’ End and American Eagle are among the first customers. The headlines framed it as a logistics story – Amazon is coming for UPS and FedEx – and most coverage stopped there.

But the bigger shift is one that consumers can’t see, and it has to do with how they support small businesses. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that 86% of Americans say small businesses have a positive effect on the country. For the millions of shoppers who have been redirecting their dollars away from corporate giants and toward small and local businesses, the May 4 announcement isn’t a logistics story at all. It’s about whether that effort still means what they think it means.

We’re scholars of consumer behavior and marketing who study how people square their purchasing decisions with ethical considerations, and we see a growing dilemma for consumers: If you pick the small brand instead of the giant, part of your payment actually goes somewhere you don’t expect. You may think you’ve made a conscious choice, but you’ve just walked through a different door into the same store.

And it’s getting harder and harder to escape.

Invisible but growing

Dragon Glassware is a small kitchenware company that began in a garage in Sacramento in 2017. You may have bought one of their wine glasses on their Shopify website, drawn in by the founder’s story and the small-business feel. Yet the order was picked, packed and shipped from an Amazon warehouse.

Another example is Poppi, which started at a Texas farmers market and went viral on TikTok as a cooler, healthier alternative to the giant soda companies. For years, the cans you ordered from Poppi’s own website – the ones that felt like a vote against Big Soda – were shipped to you by Amazon. Poppi was sold to PepsiCo for nearly US$2 billion in 2025, which is its own David-becomes-Goliath story.

These aren’t rare cases. Amazon’s Multi-Channel Fulfillment program, the service that ships these orders, now serves more than 200,000 U.S. merchants, and the network grew by roughly 70% in 2024 alone, according to Amazon. The same Amazon service also handles fulfillment for sellers on Shopify, Etsy, eBay and TikTok Shop. But you wouldn’t know this — the packaging is left unmarked by design.

What changed on May 4 is that Amazon opened this service up for all businesses – not just the small brands that have been there all along, but every kind of company at every size, from American Eagle retail orders to Procter & Gamble raw-material shipments between factories.

Peter Larsen, the executive quoted in the May 4 press release, said Amazon is doing for shipping what Amazon Web Services did for the internet. But there’s more to that comparison. Most people don’t know which websites run on AWS, and they don’t care. That’s the kind of invisibility Amazon is now building underneath physical things, too.

It’s also extremely lucrative. Amazon collects a fulfillment fee on every order it ships for an outside brand – roughly $15 for a three-pound package shipped in two days, according to Amazon’s own published rates. It also collects monthly storage fees on that brand’s inventory. And it gathers real-time visibility into what every competitor sells, to whom, in what quantities, at what moments of the year.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy publicly described Supply Chain Services as a “major growth opportunity.” When Amazon says growth opportunity, it means the same thing it said about AWS – a business that could one day rival its retail arm.

Why the small brands are using Amazon

It’s tempting to think the small brands are selling out. They’re not. They’re doing the math.

A small kitchenware founder shipping out of her own garage can only get a wine glass to a customer in three to five days. Amazon’s network can get there in two. After 15 years of Amazon Prime, two-day delivery isn’t a luxury – it’s what shoppers expect. Small brands that can’t match it lose sales. Independent fulfillment companies exist, but Amazon’s service is typically cheaper and integrates directly with the platforms small brands already sell on, such as Shopify, Etsy, TikTok Shop and eBay.

The bigger implication is upstream, however. Amazon now controls roughly four out of every 10 dollars Americans spend online – more than four times the share of its nearest competitor. A small brand that wants to be discovered by new customers has little choice but to be on Amazon. Once there, the path of least resistance is to use Amazon’s warehouses for everything – including the orders that come in from Shopify and Etsy.

So for consumers, the choice technically exists. But the economics make it a decoy. And the more small brands are routed through Amazon’s network, the more Amazon can raise fees, change terms and shape the conditions for small commerce. In fact, Multi-Channel Fulfillment prices have already risen for three years running.

If even Procter & Gamble has decided to route part of its logistics through Amazon, what can a kitchenware founder in Sacramento realistically do?

For years, you’ve been telling yourself something every time you supported a small business – that your dollars meant something, that you weren’t pouring every dollar into the same handful of giants. But what does shopping your values even mean when the system underneath is invisible?

The impulse to shop your values isn’t naive. But it’s becoming harder to act on. For small businesses caught in the middle, deeper dependence on Amazon’s logistics means rising fees, with no leverage to push back. For those consumers who want choices, it means something uncomfortable: They can keep trying harder to avoid the giants, but the giants keep getting bigger anyway.

The mug will arrive Tuesday. It will be beautiful, made by hand, wrapped in brown paper tied with twine. The truck pulling up outside won’t have a logo on it. None of that is an accident. All of it is by design.

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

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to strengthen the labor market. His immigration platform – including a pledge to conduct the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history – was central to that promise.

“For too long, Washington ignored how mass illegal immigration artificially suppressed wages, hurting working-class Americans – especially young men,” wrote Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on X in July 2025. “But under President Trump, we now have a secure border, a blue-collar wage boom, and major investments from trade deals.”

The labor market tells a different story. In the first year of Trump’s second term, unemployment rose, hiring slowed and wage growth stagnated. The construction sector was hit particularly hard.

We’re scholars of labor markets, immigration and public environmental policy who have examined how these economic trends can be traced to the mass deportation campaign of Trump’s second term. Notably, while areas with heavier ICE enforcement saw a drop in employment among immigrants, there was no increase in either employment or wages among U.S. citizens.

A chilling effect on immigrant workers

Using data from October 2023 through November 2025, we looked at employment rates and wages for immigrant and U.S.-born workers in places that experienced sudden spikes in ICE arrests and compared them to places that did not.

In the regions where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ramped up its activity, we found a significant drop in the employment rate among likely undocumented immigrants who were neither detained nor deported. This was especially notable in sectors where such workers are heavily represented – such as agriculture, construction, manufacturing and wholesale markets – where we found a 4% drop in the employment rate.

These immigrants appeared to be staying home out of fear, a concern that’s widespread. In a Pew Research survey from summer 2025, 43% of foreign-born respondents said they feared deportation for themselves or someone close to them. We call this a chilling effect, since these people aren’t physically removed from the labor market. Instead, they changed their behavior because of ICE.

The chilling effect on employment in Trump’s second term is roughly double of what we found in prior work on mass deportations, when we looked at a program in President Barack Obama’s first term called Secure Communities. As we wrote in a companion paper co-authored with sociologist Caitlin Patler, a likely explanation is that ICE arrests during Trump’s second term have been far more indiscriminate and visible: The average number of daily ICE arrests was higher than any time in the past 10 years. The percentage of arrests conducted in public spaces – streets, workplaces, courthouses and school parking lots – more than doubled, rising from 19% to nearly 50% of all apprehensions. As a result, the intimidation effect was likely more widespread.

The broader effects

Trump pledged during his 2024 presidential campaign to focus ICE enforcement on criminals, especially violent offenders. In fact, we found the share of immigrants arrested by ICE who had a criminal conviction fell to a nearly record low in this time period, from roughly 60% in January 2025 to under 30% by the end of the year.

The economic effects have extended beyond immigrant workers. More broadly, many consumers have pulled back.

Other researchers have found that in cities with expanded ICE raids in 2025, consumer spending and economic activity fell. In February 2026, for example, Minneapolis officials estimated that the city’s economy lost US$203 million due to falling restaurant, hotel and retail revenues, as well as lost wages. Another analysis found that states with enhanced ICE enforcement saw aggregate credit- and debit-card spending drop by 1.7 percentage points compared with those that did not.

Scholars have found similar effects with foot traffic, which dropped sharply in areas where ICE expanded its activities. A Wharton study released in May 2026, for instance, estimated that foot traffic in areas heavily impacted by ICE operations dropped by 2.7%, with spending down by 6.2%, per week.

What happened to US-born workers?

Trump’s core political promise was that deportations would open up jobs for American workers. But we found the opposite: Employment among U.S.-born workers also declined in areas with heightened ICE activity. And employers didn’t respond by raising wages to attract more Americans to their workplace. Their demand for workers contracted instead.

At issue is the premise that foreign-born and U.S.-born workers directly compete for the same jobs. But the example of Trump 2.0 underscores a different dynamic. As we and other economists have documented, the labor market is not zero-sum. Immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to fill complementary jobs rather than compete for identical ones.

Construction is a clear example. Fewer undocumented laborers on a job site means less work for the electricians, roofers and supervisors – roles more commonly held by U.S.-born workers who depend on those projects moving forward.

The broader stagnation of employment in the construction industry in 2025 fits this pattern. It also mirrors earlier findings that Obama-era deportations reduced homebuilding and pushed up new-home prices.

Immigration crackdowns are, of course, nothing new in U.S. history. In the early 1930s, President Herbert Hoover expelled 400,000 Mexican workers, which lifted neither wages nor employment of U.S.-born workers. Obama’s Secure Communities program in the 2010s had similar results.

And as our most recent research shows, mass deportations don’t create new job opportunities for American citizens. Presidents seeking to strengthen the labor market will need to look elsewhere.

Chloe N. East receives funding from the Russell Sage Foundation and NSF.

Elizabeth Cox receives funding from the Russell Sage Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

Erin Davis calculated the average age of people with a given name to find the oldest name in the United States:

In short, the U.S. government produces estimates of the share of people born in year X who will still be alive in year Y. It also produces data on how many babies with a given name are born in each year.

By combining these two datasets, we can estimate how many babies with a specific name born in year X are still alive in 2025. Then, we can use those numbers to find a weighted average age for that name. (One big flaw this doesn’t account for immigration, but I haven’t found a way around that)

Myrtle wins for oldest average age. Davis provides an interactive version to search for your name.

Tags: age, Erin Davis, names

When major new climate change scenarios are released, there’s always strong interest. These scenarios lay out what our future climate will look like, depending on how fast we act to cut emissions.

But what was surprising about the seven new scenarios announced last week was that United States President Donald Trump took an interest.

Why? Because a high-emissions scenario – known as RCP8.5 and its successor SSP5-8.5 – had been removed. Under these worst-case scenarios, nations would make no effort to cut emissions and expand fossil fuel use. By 2100, carbon dioxide levels would almost triple, to 1,135 parts per million and the world would be around 4.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial period.

The climate scientists responsible for laying out the range of possible futures removed the RCP8.5 scenarios for a very good reason. Although often slow and incomplete, our efforts to tackle climate change have made a tangible difference. We have averted the worst climate future once thought possible.

The job is far from done. Emissions are at record highs and global warming is speeding up.

But the removal of this high-emissions scenario isn’t, as Trump and other climate sceptics have claimed, a sign of failed modelling, or that climate change was a hoax. It’s a sign the expansion of solar, wind, electric vehicles and batteries have slowed emissions growth.

How are these scenarios made?

Many climate impacts are becoming evident after about 1.4°C of warming – the level we’re roughly at now.

Because this period of extremely rapid climate change is due to human activities, it means we also have the opportunity to shape the future.

What will this look like? Will the world keep heating up, or will rapid action cut emissions and bring warming to a halt? The answer will make a big difference to the future humanity faces.

Predicting anything is difficult. But a group of scientists has created scenarios representing a range of possible climate futures.

Because the future is not set, scientists lay out a range of possible pathways for our future greenhouse gas emissions. They base them on what’s happened so far and what might happen in politics and technology over coming decades.

Then they select the emissions pathways deemed most plausible and then sample a range of different futures which are more or less optimistic about our fossil fuel use.

Scientific groups around the world then model these scenarios in depth using different climate models to ensure there’s a large amount of data available at global, regional and local levels.

These scenarios aren’t ranked by how likely they are. All are considered to be plausible futures. The huge range of temperature outcomes – approaching 2°C between the most and least optimistic scenarios by 2100 – points to how much of the future is in our hands.

Why the fuss about RCP8.5?

The two previous releases included two closely related scenarios – RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 respectively.

Here, “8.5” refers to radiative forcing – the level of extra heat (in watts) trapped per square metre by 2100.

In these worst-case scenarios, the world sharply boosts fossil fuel use. Unsurprisingly, this leads to very high amounts of global warming. Scientists have long argued over whether this was plausible in the first place.

None of the new scenarios are as pessimistic as RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5. The worst possible scenario now envisions high emissions leading to warming of around 3.5°C by 2100. That would still be very, very bad.

Sceptics acting in bad faith

Climate sceptics leapt on the removal of RCP8.5 as a sign the projections were wrong. These attacks were not made in good faith, but to cast doubt on climate science.

A clear eyed assessment is that RCP8.5 was removed because climate action is starting to work.

But while the worst outcome has been averted, we have also missed the window for the best future climate.

The new scenarios have no pathway as optimistic as the lowest emissions scenario from the last round of major climate projections. That scenario – SSP1-1.9 – envisaged strong climate action and rapid cuts to emissions, leading to global warming peaking at around 1.5°C.

Because global emissions haven’t yet begun to fall, the most optimistic new pathway would lead to warming peaking at about 1.9°C.

While we will definitely now pass 1.5°C, the hope is to only temporarily overshoot that level of warming while working to draw carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere to get back to 1.5°C.

Our current emissions trajectory is somewhere in the middle – below the high emissions path but well above the most optimistic scenario. Based on current policies and countries’ actions, we’re looking at around 2.6°C warming by 2100.

You might wonder why we need to keep redoing these climate scenarios.

One reason: facts change on the ground. Solar keeps rolling out far faster than expected, but fracking has opened up large new fossil fuel deposits. Political shifts make climate action more or less likely.

Another is because our climate models are continually improving. The better the models get, the more accurate and detailed our projections of sea level rise and other climate impacts can be.

Yes, this is progress

Taking RCP8.5 off the table is a sign of progress – we’ve avoided the worst-case scenario. But we have also missed the best case future.

The next five years could play out in many different ways, leading to better or worse future climates. We must understand and prepare for what we’re facing – and double down on our efforts to create the best future possible.

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program.

An experimental gene-editing therapy that aims to lower bad cholesterol for the long-term after a single infusion is off to a positive start in an early clinical trial.

Researchers running a Phase I safety trial for the drug, dubbed VERVE-102, published interim results from just 35 patients this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Though the numbers are small and the analysis is preliminary, VERVE-102 appeared safe, with no serious adverse events reported from the treatment, even at the largest doses. The most significant finding was a temporary, mild increase in a liver enzyme that suggested minor injury in the liver, where the drug works.

The small amount of data also hints that the drug is effective. The subgroup of participants who received the largest dose have seen their bad cholesterol—that is, their low-density lipoprotein or LDL—drop 62 percent, to a mean of 78 mg per deciliter. For people with high cholesterol—like the participants in the trial—a reduction of this magnitude could cut the risk of cardiovascular disease from plaque buildup in arteries by an estimated 50 percent if it's sustained for over 20 years. The trial only has up to 18 months of follow-up data so far, but from that, the positive effects of VERVE-102 seem to be holding up. The LDL reductions have been sustained in all the subgroups.

Read full article

Comments

A few days after President Donald Trump abruptly canceled a plan that would have given the federal government power to vet frontier AI models over fears that it might hobble innovation, Illinois lawmakers passed the nation's strongest AI safety law.

On Wednesday, the Illinois legislature passed SB 315. If Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signs the bill into law, the largest AI firms would be required to submit public safety plans and annual reports summarizing the results of independent, third-party safety testing of their frontier models. They would also have to report any critical safety incidents to the state within 72 hours—or within 24 hours if there's potentially "an imminent risk of death or serious physical harm." And their employees will have a clear avenue for reporting emerging safety risks that companies may be tempted to downplay, with protections provided by the state's whistleblower laws.

On X, Pritzker confirmed his intent to sign, proclaiming that "Illinois is leading the nation in holding Big Tech accountable."

Read full article

Comments

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

More than half a million people rely every year on the ability to apply from within the United States for a green card, the government-issued ID that allows an immigrant to legally live and work in the country long term.

But in May 2026 the federal government issued a policy memorandum – essentially, a draft change to current policy – that could upend this process and deny immigrants the ability to apply for a green card while in the U.S. Instead, they would have to return to their home country to do it.

To see why this matters, picture a British woman, let’s call her Lucy, who comes to the U.S. on a student visa to earn her Ph.D. at Ohio State University. During her studies, she falls in love with Mike, an American engineer, and they marry. Under long-standing practice, Lucy could apply for her green card right in Ohio without uprooting her life.

The new policy memorandum, however, could force families like hers to make wrenching choices, sending one member of a couple out of the country with no guarantee they would be allowed back in.

As law professors who study the legal procedures relating to citizenship and immigration, we see this shift as a significant departure from how the system has worked for decades.

Congress built what’s called “adjustment of status” – the shift from one immigration status to another – into the immigration legal framework as a pathway to permanent residency. A policy memo cannot cut off that avenue.

Instead, what is being proposed by the Trump administration would require congressional action or agency rule-making that follows the proper procedural steps. The hundreds of thousands of people every year who have been clearing the legal requirements of adjustment of status cannot have their rights cut off arbitrarily.

Separation, disruption

Approximately 54%, or 608,260, of the 1.17 million new lawful permanent residents in fiscal year 2023 received a green card from within the United States.

But now, the draft policy emphasizes that those who entered the United States as nonimmigrants – such as people on student visas, who stated that they would be leaving the country once their education was finished – “are generally expected to pursue an immigrant visa and admission from outside the United States if they wish to reside permanently in this country.”

Applying from within the United States, as Lucy sought to do in the hypothetical example above, would be seen by officials as a negative element – a strike against granting the green card – that would need to be balanced out by what officials deem extraordinary counterevidence, such as sufficient family ties, hardship or length of residence in the United States, for the applicant to succeed.

The memo deems application from within the U.S. a red flag, calling such an application an “attempt to avoid the ordinary consular immigrant visa process,” implying that the immigrant hid their intention to immigrate when they obtained the nonimmigrant visa.

If the memo becomes implemented as official policy, individuals like Lucy would be expected to return to their country – in her case, the U.K. – to apply for a green card.

This could take a substantial amount of time. She would thus need to interrupt her studies, which her university may or may not allow for her to complete the degree. Her husband, Mike, would get the choice of being geographically separated from his spouse indefinitely or disrupting his own career in Ohio, with his employer potentially not letting him return to the job. The family would face even more disruption if Lucy and Mike had children.

Unsupported implications

Even if the process to get a green card goes smoothly, it can easily take over a year from applying to receiving the status symbolized by the card.

Spending over a year in the home country while waiting for the application to be resolved is a massive disruption for any individual or family. The policy memorandum justifies this by stating that seeking a green card from inside the United States is founded on applicants’ desire to evade the normal immigrant visa process, “usually accompanied by their violation of our immigration laws.”

In other words, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services believes that certain people applying for green cards from inside the country – the ones who came here saying their time in the U.S. was limited – are trying to cheat the system.

The agency, however, provides no support in the policy memorandum for its claim that most individuals who seek a shift from a temporary status to a permanent one have done anything illegal.

To the contrary, the document acknowledges that such an adjustment of status already can be used only by individuals who have been either inspected and admitted or inspected and paroled, both lawful processes. And it gives no evidence for the accusation that most such individuals have done anything illegal since.

The memo also implies that all applicants for green cards who were previous holders of nonimmigrant visas – such as students and tourists, but also performing artists, athletes coming to compete, diplomats and their staff – should expect greater scrutiny in the future. It treats the move from nonimmigrant to immigrant status as highly unusual. That’s despite the fact that over half a million people a year have routinely benefited from such transitions.

A substantial number of those applicants would now be treated with greater suspicion about their original intentions. They would likely also need to take on tremendous burdens, including spending months or even years separated from a spouse or children while waiting abroad; interrupting or abandoning a degree, a job, or a career; and gambling on whether they’ll be allowed back into the U.S. at all, since consular processing abroad carries the risk of a denial with no easy appeal.

Legal change or intimidation?

The largest group already in the U.S. that may avoid having to leave the country to apply for green cards is those who came to the U.S. on temporary work visas. But even they will likely face a tougher process to get a green card, and they may also face longer processing times than in the past.

Many questions have been raised about the legality of this new policy, including if it were to end up changing how pending applications are treated. Some analysts say that Congress did not intend to make the shift to immigrant status “extraordinary” and rare, as the memo claims.

Commentators – including ones who used to work at the Department of Homeland Security – have stated that, as with other announcements during the second Trump administration, the real goal may be to discourage immigration rather than effecting direct policy changes.

One immigration attorney wrote, “These policies send a clear anti-immigrant message intended to intimidate and drive undocumented immigrants to self-deport.” Another immigration lawyer called the memo legally “bonkers” and its text an “incoherent word salad.”

A number of immigration law firms are encouraging people to continue applying for adjustment of status as they had been. They are also cautioning applicants to “ensure, however, that their social media activity does not include any actions or statements that could be deemed problematic by the U.S. government.”

If the administration’s goal was to put immigrants on pins and needles, that has likely already been accomplished.

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

Local conservancy group concerned about contaminated sediment

The post Health officials lift advisory for majority of Potomac River shoreline, except near Minnie’s Island appeared first on Bethesda Magazine.

An American infected with Ebola is being treated in Berlin, while another exposed to the deadly virus is being sent to Prague after the White House reportedly resisted allowing citizens to return to the US for care and monitoring.

According to The Washington Post, five people close to the Ebola response said that, over the weekend, the Trump administration resisted allowing the return of Peter Stafford, a 39-year-old surgeon working in the Democratic Republic of the Congo amid a raging Ebola outbreak. The resistance allegedly delayed Stafford's evacuation and care, risking his health, as experts note that early treatment is critical for Ebola, which can turn deadly in days.

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Stafford had developed symptoms over the weekend and tested positive for Ebola late Sunday. In a press briefing on Wednesday, Satish Pillai, the CDC's incident response manager for the Ebola outbreak, said Stafford had arrived in Germany and is in stable condition. His wife, Rebekah Stafford—also a doctor who was exposed to the virus in DRC but is asymptomatic—along with the couple's four children, have been flown to Germany as well.

Read full article

Comments

The US government will take equity stakes worth a total of $2 billion in a slew of quantum computing companies, including a startup backed by a firm with links to the Trump family and one taken public by a Pentagon official.

The announcement by the commerce department that it had signed letters of intent with nine companies—including GlobalFoundries and IBM—sent shares in quantum specialists soaring on Thursday.

Both IBM, which is set to get $1 billion, and GlobalFoundries, which will receive $375 million, were up more than 6 percent in pre-market trading. D-Wave Quantum, an awardee that was taken public in 2022 by Emil Michael—now a top Pentagon official—was up more than 20 percent.

Read full article

Comments

President Donald Trump’s latest pitch for using taxpayer dollars to secure his White House ballroom featured a militarized building—including a rooftop hardened against drone strikes and a “drone port” that could potentially house military drones.

The remarks came on May 19 as Trump gave reporters a personal tour of the ballroom project that has already involved the demolition of the White House mansion’s East Wing. The president spoke of installing a rooftop drone base “for unlimited numbers of drones” operated by the US military as a “drone port that would protect all of Washington,” according to Reuters. He also highlighted a ballroom roof made from “impenetrable steel” that would supposedly be “drone-proof” against potential drone strikes.

To pay for such measures, Trump has been urging Republican lawmakers in the US Congress to approve $1 billion in taxpayer funding to provide a wide variety of “security adjustments and upgrades” for his ballroom project. The taxpayer-backed security enhancements would be separate from the $400 million construction cost for the ballroom project that has been funded by private donors, including companies such as Amazon, Apple, Coinbase, Comcast, Google, HP Inc., Lockheed Martin, Meta, Micron Technology, Microsoft, Palantir, Ripple, and T-Mobile.

Read full article

Comments