Give Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas credit: she knows a good political issue when she sees one. While her recent efforts to hold Virginia’s two-year budget hostage over tax subsidies for data centers gave many pause, it certainly focused attention on what has emerged as a major national issue. And it helped turn data centers from a wonky economic-development discussion into a potent political one.

Make no mistake: data centers are essential to cloud computing and for America to maintain its edge in AI development. They provide substantial economic benefits, including significant tax revenues for localities. ^[1] And research suggests that, with proper regulation, their impact on water and air quality can be mitigated.^[2]

All of this may be true.

But the politics have changed!

Americans are increasing skeptical of these energy-consuming behemoths. A national Gallup poll found that 71 percent oppose having a data center built in their community. Similar results were reported by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Policy Center, whose July survey showed a 12-point jump in opposition in only four months.

This Heatmap graph shows the collapse in the last year.

Even in Virginia and Texas, the states with the highest number of centers, public opinion has turned against the industry. 72% of registered Virginia voters oppose sales tax exemptions for centers, and 81% believe they should pay extra fees to offset the heavy electricity demands they place on the state’s energy grid. A recent poll in Texans found that almost 60 percent oppose the construction of data centers in their community, including two-thirds of those living in rural areas, where the industry hopes to spread.

These numbers should set off alarm bells with politicians.

In many places, it is becoming political malpractice for an elected official to defend data centers. And your political party makes no difference.

Republicans may face the greatest difficulty navigating the politics. President Trump is closely associated with the industry, recently calling data centers “a tremendous thing”, criticizing Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for pausing their construction, and then scolding Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for doing the same.

But voters do not appear particularly interested in party talking points. They are worried about who pays the bill.

The Terrain

At least 4,000 data centers are spread across the country, with the largest concentration in Virginia, Texas and California. Demand for data centers is projected to grow 9% annually through 2030.

Thirty-eight (38) states offer dedicated tax incentives for data centers, ranging from sales and use tax exemptions for computers and electricity to property tax abatements. And state subsidies to the industry are enormous; Virginia’s now total $1.9 billion per year, a hefty chunk out of the state’s budget.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that local governments receive huge tax benefits from the centers. In Henrico County, Virginia, taxes generated from data centers help create a housing trust. Loudoun County will receive nearly $1.3 billion in local tax revenues from its centers in FY27; in the last decade, officials reduced real estate tax rates because of data center tax revenue.

More than Congress is Up for Grabs

Americans are rightly focused on this year’s Congressional elections. But these seats are not the only races this fall --36 states have governor contests, and 6,122 legislative seats in 46 states at up for grabs. And recent elections show that the data center debate can affect results. In Georgia, one of the fastest growing data center states, two Democrats recently won major upsets in races for the Georgia Public Service Commission by criticizing the state’s tax incentives for the industry and arguing that ratepayers should not be made to subsidize data center electricity demands. This marks the first time in two decades that Democrats have won any seats on the body.

In the recent Democratic governor’s primary in Kansas, state Senator Laura Holscher upset a better funded candidate endorsed by two-term governor Laura Kelly, largely because she opposed public subsidies for data centers and sports stadiums (the state just enacted a 20-year tax subsidy). In Michigan, William Lawrence, an insurgent candidate who strongly criticized data centers, won his primary contest against several traditional candidates. And Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams’ strong support of a controversial data center is widely believed to have caused his recent primary loss.

Local elections have also been affected. In June, two county commissioners were ousted in Spartanburg, S.C, after supporting a large center opposed by their constituents. Local officials in Frederick and Calvert counties, Maryland lost seats to data center opponents. Four incumbents in this spring’s city council election in Festus, Missouri were defeated after supporting a new center. The Louisville, Kentucky suburbs witnessed a similar dynamic, as several incumbents supporting the industry were ousted in primaries.

Actions in the States

Some elected officials are responding quickly to the increasing opposition.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul(D), known for her support of the tech industry, made New York the first state to halt construction of new data centers when she signed an executive order this July. In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker(D) paused tax incentives. Washington legislators removed a tax exemption for data center replacement equipment. Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro(D) just imposed stricter requirements on the industry, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen recently paused tax incentives for the industry. and New Hampshire Governor Ayotte (R) has recently announced her support for a moratorium.

Like Senator Lucas and her colleagues in Virginia, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs(D) attempted to use the state’s budget process in hopes of repealing data center tax incentives, which cost the state $38 million, a pittance compared to Virginia or Texas. She did not win her fight with the Republican legislature, but a compromise emerged by which the state budget imposed a three-year moratorium on the tax breaks.

Legislators in fifteen states recently introduced bills to ban or delay new data centers. None became law. Maine came the closest; the legislature passed a temporary ban, but the bill was ultimately vetoed by outgoing Gov. Janet Mills.

Rural and suburban localities across the country are passing data center prohibitions, including, in Virginia, where Spotsylvania County Supervisors just called for a statewide moratorium, and ordinances are being considered in Warren, Henrico, Frederick, and even Loudoun, arguably the data center capital of the world. Fredericksburg and Chesterfield just rejected centers proposed for their communities.

This is not a NIMBY problem; it is a bipartisan, cross-geographic revolt.

This Fall’s Elections

Data centers have emerged as major issues in the Georgia and Texas governor’s races. In Georgia, the state with the nation’s fifth-largest concentration of data centers, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms is calling for a temporary pause on new construction and criticizes her opponent for investing in a Texas data center and touting the industry’s economic benefits. Gina Hinojasa, the Democratic candidate opposing Greg Abbott, one the industry’s strongest supporters, in Texas, has made opposition to data centers a central campaign issue.

And the issue could impact who controls the U.S. Senate. In Ohio, where 71 percent of voters favor a moratorium on new construction, tax subsidies for the centers cost the state nearly $1.6 billion in 2025—vastly more than earlier estimates. Democrat Sherrod Brown is using this a wedge to flip a critical seat, slamming the incumbent’s record of supporting tax breaks for data-center developers while serving as the state’s attorney general.

As Virginia Goes….?

Of all the states, Virginia is the most intriguing. The Commonwealth has the largest concentration of data centers in the country and some of the industry’s most generous tax incentives. But, unlike many states, neither the governor nor the legislature is on the ballot this fall.

That gives Virginia leaders something rare: time to make policy without the pressure of an immediate election.

When the General Assembly first exempted data centers from the retail sales and use tax on computer equipment in 2008, there was little opposition. The estimated revenue loss to the Commonwealth was just $2.46 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

Two years later, lawmakers expanded the exemption to include centers employing fewer workers in distressed areas. In 2016, with little opposition again, they extended the exemption sunset date from 2020 to 2035. At that time, 13 data center operators were taking advantage of the subsidy, which cost the Commonwealth $49 million in Fiscal Year 2015.

A decade changed everything.

The subsidies worked, and Virginia today is home to over 600 centers--the largest concentration in the world. Their tax subsidies have now grown to an estimated $1.9 billion per year, and the 82% of the benefits flow to just five companies. Most observers agree that the centers place enormous pressure on the electric grid and their demand for electricity is pushing up prices.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger is trying to walk a difficult line between supporting the technology industry and responding to the growing public backlash. She has yet to support a building moratorium, an attractive political option which does little to affect the massive subsidies nor our future needs

Instead, the governor insists that centers “pay their own way”. She signed an executive order requiring the centers to pay the full cost of new transmission infrastructure built exclusively for them, and the State Corporation Commission (SCC) supported the action by ordering major utilities to shift 100% of those costs onto the high-consuming facilities. And she signed a budget that imposes a temporary electricity-consumption tax that could raise $600 million and provides some hope that consumers could receive some electricity rebates to help with their bills.

Under the budget compromise, legislators and the governor are required to consider other reforms, and the subsidies—which are set to expire in 2035-- are likely to be part of that. Expect efforts to condition future tax breaks to the protection of water supplies and commitments to use on-site solar and battery as backup power in lieu of gas-fired generators.

Other states are watching because of the state’s importance to the industry.^[3] If Virginia can develop a framework that allows data centers to grow without shifting their costs onto taxpayers, ratepayers and communities, other states are likely to follow.

A resolution will involve neither unlimited subsidies nor a moratorium, but a regulatory framework in which the industry pays its full costs and addresses the energy and environmental challenges. The Commonwealth was a leader in helping establish the industry; we will now see how it will shape its future.

ANOTHER STUNNING UPSET IN A SPECIAL ELECTION. On Tuesday, August 18, Democrat Brandon Dukes flipped a conservative state House district north of Pittsburgh.

The seat was held by Republicans for nearly 30 years.

The victory increases the Democratic state House majority to 103-100. Dukes will try to keep the seat in the upcoming November election.

This is not the only major flip of a state legislative seat in Pennsylvania since Trump took office. In March 2025, James Malone won a state Senate seat in Lancaster County in a district won by Trump by 15-points.

It was also the 31st legislative flip of the cycle, all of them won by Democrats.

^[1] In Virginia, for example, one report argued that data centers generated nearly $40 billion in statewide economic impact in 2025, and that the sector supported more than 112,000 jobs, provided roughly $9 billion in employee compensation, and contributed over $1.5 billion in state taxes alongside $1.3 billion in local property taxes. That they contribute huge tax dollars to localities seems not to mollify the opponents.

^[2] https://fieldreport.caes.uga.edu/publications/TP121/how-data-centers-impact-surface-and-ground-waters/.

^[3] NC Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC) operates the Database of Emerging Large-Load Tariffs — the first public, user-friendly database of contemporary utility tariffs and service rules for large loads. The site includes much information about state policy and regulatory trends. UVA has a similar database.

A condensed version of this appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Notes on Virginia

In Virginia, the ballot is now set for November. Republicans chose a relative unknown to face Senator Mark Warner this fall. Incumbent Democrat Don Beyer easily defeated a challenge to his renomination in the 8th Congressional district. Strong candidates were chosen by Democrats to face incumbent Republicans, including Tom Perriello in the 5th, Elaine Luria in the 2nd, Beth Macy in the 7th, and Shannon Taylor in the 1st. Given the political mood reflected in the chart at the end of this post, these races will be highly competitive and will likely determine control of the U.S. House next January.

While attention centered on the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, equally significant developments occurred elsewhere—particularly in Kansas and Missouri. Those results underscore how state constitutions and state courts have become central battlegrounds in American politics.

What’s With Kansas City?

The citizens of Kansas City went to the polls yesterday---in two states. I constantly must remind myself which Kansas City is actually in Kansas. The larger city—home to the Chiefs, Royals, jazz, and legendary barbecue—is in Missouri. Its smaller namesake across the state line is in Kansas. They share a metropolitan area but are distinct cities, and I will diplomatically decline to say which is the better place to live. On Tuesday, they had one thing in common—they voted.

In the state of Kansas, voters soundly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have replaced the state’s merit-based system for selecting state Supreme Court justices with direct popular elections. Under the current system, a bipartisan commission recommends three finalists, the governor appoints one, and justices later stand in retention elections. Variations of this “Missouri Plan” are used in thirteen other states.

For decades, Republican legislators have sought to dismantle the system, largely because they disagree with several landmark decisions of the court, including the 2019 holding that the state constitution protects abortion rights. Earlier, following deep education cuts under Governor Sam Brownback, the Court ruled that legislative funding failed to satisfy the state’s constitutional requirement to provide an adequate education, and forced lawmakers to increase school spending. That decision was especially irritating to republican leadership because it helped elect Democrat Laura Kelly as governor. Her opponent and the state’s current attorney general, Kris Kobach, has tried to transform the Supreme Court ever since.

Rulings like these made the state Court a prime political target. Tuesday’s vote confirms that Kansas voters prefer judicial independence over a politicized supreme court.

In many states, Supreme Court justices are selected directly by the public in statewide elections. These elections will occur in 32 states this fall, including Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Since state courts decide most cases in our nation, the composition of these courts is increasingly significant. Virginia is an outlier in how it choses Supreme Court judges. Neither the public nor Governors have any direct role; it is the legislature’s responsibility.

Missouri

Kansas City, Missouri also voted on Tuesday, and both the city and the state dealt a political blow to conservative republicans in rejecting efforts to make citizen sponsored amendments to the state constitution more difficult. Republicans retain broad legislative majorities in the “show me” state, which have been further enhanced by partisan redistricting. But this has not stopped the voting public from asserting its power by directly putting measures on the ballot, which is their right under the state’s Constitution. Missourians have repeatedly used the initiative process to enact what the legislature would not—expanding Medicaid, legalizing marijuana and sports betting, establishing a constitutional right to abortion, and raising the minimum wage.

Republican lawmakers have spent years trying to curb the power of the citizen initiative. On Tuesday, voters rejected their latest effort. These voters will face yet another challenge in November, as conservative legislators have placed a measure on the ballot to repeal the citizen led initiative from 2024 that established a constitutional right to reproductive freedom.

Virginia Amendments the Fall

Citizen ballot initiatives are permitted in 26 states, and a variety of proposals will appear on ballots this fall. Virginia differs sharply from these states. Citizens cannot place constitutional amendments on the ballot in the Commonwealth. Instead, amendments must pass both houses of the General Assembly in two successive sessions separated by an election before voters have the final say. This fall’s ballot includes three significant amendments. One would establish the right of reproductive freedom. The second would repeal the 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, language rendered unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision recognizing that right nationwide. The third amendment would automatically restore voting rights to people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences.

States Matter

We spend enormous energy watching Washington, but democracy is just as often shaped in Topeka, Jefferson City, Richmond, and hundreds of other state capitals. State constitutions still matter. They determine how judges are selected, how citizens can change their laws, and which fundamental rights are protected. The results from Kansas and Missouri are reminders that, even in an era of deep polarization, voters in the states continue to insist on having the final say over the rules that govern them. And we will have that chance once again this November.

THE CHART THAT CONCERNS REPUBLICANS AND EMBOLDENS DEMOCRATS

Father’s Day and our Nation’s 250^th birthday invite reflections on our children and the nation they are inheriting. Most parents want the same things for their sons and daughters: health, safety, meaningful work, loving relationships, and the freedom to build lives of purpose. We push them to develop judgment, compassion, and a sense of responsibility to others. We want them to have a fair chance. We hope that they can live in a country in which they can be proud.

These aspirations are neither partisan nor ideological. They are widely shared regardless of politics or views of the person occupying the White House.

The success and happiness of our children often depends on their own efforts. They can be aided by support they receive from family, friends, teachers, and mentors. Or just lucky. But much is shaped by the country in which we live — and by the public choices that determine its direction.

Today, those choices feel unusually consequential. Our world is marked by uncertainty and risk, where the path forward seems less clear, and more perilous, than at any point since the end of the Second World War.

As we look to the future, our children and country face significant challenges. Here are several that give cause for concern, together with options to address them. Some solutions can come with the next election; others may take decades. But we ignore these at our peril—and at great cost for future generations.

1. Health Care Is More Expensive and Harder to Access.

Your family may be among the Americans fortunate enough to receive employer-sponsored health insurance. Or, if their income is limited, they may qualify for Medicaid. But what about those who must buy insurance on their own, either in the private marketplace or through the health care exchanges?

Their challenge has recently become more difficult. Despite President Trump’s promises of better and cheaper health care, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” took direct aim at the Affordable Care Act by dramatically reducing the marketplace subsidies that help millions of Americans afford coverage.

As a result, over 20 million Americans saw increases in their health insurance premiums for Marketplace coverage in 2026, and higher bills are projected for 2027.

When premiums climb, families sometimes step in to subsize the cost. For many, however, this is not an option; instead, they will simply drop coverage. Marketplace enrollment is projected to fall by 7.3 million persons this year. In Virginia, 389,000 people were enrolled in Virginia’s Insurance Marketplace at the end of 2025. That number has now dropped to 298,000.

This will increase the burden on our hospitals, many of which are already challenged economically. The insured’s only option for care may be the emergency room — assuming one remains nearby.

A recent report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform concludes that almost 300 hospitals nationally risk closure in the next several years, including 13 in Virginia. Rural communities are especially vulnerable. Of the ten states with the largest number of hospitals at risk, nine voted for Trump in the last election.

When uninsured patients cannot pay, the costs do not disappear. Hospitals absorb some of them, and states often reimburse part of the bill with taxpayer dollars. And while health insurance does not guarantee good health outcomes, it make it easier to access care and improve health outcomes.

Medicaid changes enacted by Congress further complicate matters. If you are poor and depend on Medicaid, the Trump plan may force you off coverage as it reduces federal aid to the states by $665 billion between 2025 and 2034. New eligibility requirements will mean fewer people will qualify and more will go without coverage.

This problem cannot be fixed without electing a different Congress in the Midterms. Congress has the power to restore the subsidies and the funding. In the meantime, some hope can be found in the states. Virginia and 14 other states, including DC, provide fully state-funded coverage for income-eligible children, and are passing short term fixes to fill some of the gaps. Ten states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Washington—have created premium subsidies to reduce the cost of insurance in their marketplaces. Ultimately, a new President in 2028 will see the importance restoring the federal cuts and improving access to health care.

2. Corruption Is Rampant; Will Americans Tolerate It?

Most parents teach their children a simple principle: if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have the chance to go as far as your ability will take you, no matter your wealth and connections.

But what happens when the rules themselves seem negotiable? Each day seems to bring another broken norm, another crossed line, and another example of powerful people avoiding accountability. This is the kind of conduct we usually associate with fragile democracies, not our own.

How do we explain the pardoning of hundreds who attacked the Capitol and injured police officers on January 6? Or efforts to reward some of them afterward? How do we justify the continued failure to fully release the Epstein files so that the full scope of wrongdoing can be known? What if one of the victims was your daughter, and the most powerful person in the world was blocking perpetrators from being held accountable?

How do we rationalize presidential pardons and commutations granted to major Trump donors and political allies convicted of fraud—including one that defrauded the Medicare program $1.3 billion? Or the administration’s recent quashing of a federal investigation of whether improper payments were made to secure a commutation for private equity executive David Gentile, previously convicted by a jury of defrauding small investors out of $1.6 billion?

If our children are disillusioned with government, these events help explain why. Many elected officials I know, including those with views sharply different from mine, appear honest and serve with good intentions. Yet Americans increasingly see public office less as a vehicle for service than as an avenue for private gain. This administration’s conduct has only increased that cynicism and should concern anyone who values ethical government, regardless of party.

That distrust is fueled by reports that President Trump’s personal wealth increased by approximately $1.4 billion in a single year. Forbes recently argued that the President has repeatedly leveraged his office for financial benefit. Unlike most predecessors, who avoided stock purchases while in office or took other steps to prevent conflicts of interest, Trump’s investment advisers remain active in the market. Shortly before the Commerce Department approved the sale of Nvidia chips to China, Trump purchased shares in the company. After the announcement, the stock rose, increasing the value of his investment. Similarly, Dell shares surged after Trump publicly encouraged investors at a White House event to “go out and buy a Dell.” In another example of influence peddling, Trump and Commerce Secretary Harold Lutnick recently engineered a mining deal with Kazakhstan that directly benefits their children—hardly something you or I could, or would, do.

At the same time, many internal safeguards designed to expose misconduct have been weakened or removed. Shrinking the federal workforce has made many employees wary of reporting government impropriety. But Trump went farther, firing 17 Inspectors General, the independent watchdogs who have long played a critical role in uncovering corruption and government inefficiency on his first days back in office. By the end of 2025, 55 percent of the 38 presidentially appointed Inspector General positions remained vacant.

The combination of weakened oversight, growing perceptions of self-dealing, and the use of presidential clemency for well-connected allies sends a troubling message: that accountability depends less on the law than on proximity to power. When citizens believe that there is one set of rules for ordinary Americans and another for those with money and influence, trust in government inevitably suffers.

Trump has concluded that loyalty matters more than competence. At the FBI, Director Kash Patel has overseen the removal of numerous career officials. Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth engineered the departure of key military leaders. Justice Connection, a group of former Department of Justice employees, reports that 75 percent of attorneys from the Civil Rights Division have been fired or forced out since Trump took office, largely because they participated in cases he disliked or disputed department policy. Acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte is now firing intelligence personnel whose expertise is critical to identifying terrorist threats.

When loyalty becomes more important than competence, government eventually loses its ability to fulfill its most basic responsibilities. The recent debacle at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is a vivid illustration. The pool has required repairs for

decades, and President Trump promised to restore it in time for the nation’s 250th anniversary, including painting its bottom what he called “American flag blue.” The plan has been a disaster. The administration awarded a $1.7 million no-bid contract to a company headed by a Trump campaign donor who had previously been convicted of bribery and had little relevant experience. The result is a project plagued by problems: safety fences now surround a reflecting pool that has become both an eyesore and a hazard.

When expertise is discounted and loyalty is rewarded above all else, failure becomes more likely—not just at a memorial in Washington, but throughout the institutions on which Americans depend.

Good news and new hope. The midterm elections hold prospects of a new Congress willing to exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities and hold hearings on these and other examples of corruption, favoritism, and incompetence.

At the state level, prosecutors can charge individuals who violate state law, even if Trump has pardoned them for similar conduct in federal cases. Wisconsin and Nevada, for example, have active cases against individuals involved in the “fake electors’ scheme.” New Mexico has reopened an investigation into events at Epstein’s ranch in the state after closing the inquiry in 2019 at the request of federal authorities. And while the federal investigation involving Gentile has ended, the New York State Attorney General may still open her own inquiry.

State attorneys general can also intervene. Recently, twenty-four of them filed suit in federal court to overturn Trump’s agreement with the IRS, which granted broad protections to him, his family, and his business interests while creating a $1.776 billion slush fund to reward Trump allies who had violated the law. A federal court has now blocked the fund pending trial.

And courts have resisted Trump’s efforts to legally harass and prosecute prominent people with whom he disagrees. Cases against James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed, though Comey was later reindicted in another federal court. This week, the chief judge of the United States District Court in Minnesota quashed six grand jury subpoenas targeting state and local elected officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, saying they “were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate.”

It is difficult for the public to follow the many ways Trump has used his position for private gain and sought to intimidate those demanding accountability. But follow we must, because understanding the threat is essential to countering it.

3. The Midterms Will Be Disrupted and Votes Suppressed.

Freedom and liberty mean little if votes are suppressed or disregarded. Using the erroneous claims that the 2020 election was “stolen”, many conservative states have passed new laws to make voting more difficult. Between January and May of this year, lawmakers in Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia adopted new measures that laws Between January and restrict access to voting. Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah now require proof of citizenship before a person can register to vote in state and local elections.

Similar actions are being pushed by Trump. His administration is trying to assert federal control over elections that have historically been administered by state and local officials.

The President has demanded access to every state’s voter files—a move that would give the federal government, regardless of who holds the presidency, greater power to determine who is eligible to vote. To date, he has failed. Many states refused to provide their files, prompting the Department of Justice to sue in federal court to force compliance. Trump has now lost every case that has reached a federal trial court ruling. In late June, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld one of those rulings, setting up a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those court defeats, however, did not stop the FBI from raiding and gathering data from election offices in Georgia. Nor have they ended Trump’s push for voter lists. He recently held a popular housing bill hostage, hoping to force Congress to give him access to this information.

Trump has also targeted mail-in voting, which is used by 30 percent of all voters. In eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington—plus Washington, D.C., a majority of voters cast ballots by mail, and ballots are automatically sent to eligible voters before an election.

Trump’s March executive order restricting mail-in voting is likely unconstitutional, but no court has yet voided it. Particularly troubling were Trump’s demands, now blocked by a federal court, that the U.S. Postal Service, despite its status as an independent corporation, refuse to deliver ballots from voters in states that decline to provide the administration with their voter rolls. And reports surfaced this week that the administration is threatening to withhold federal homeland security funds from states unless they adopt a sweeping set of election changes, including providing voter lists.

Trump recently declared that failure to enact the SAVE Act, with its sweeping changes to election administration, is a “national emergency.” What this means for elections this fall is not clear. Federal and state laws largely bar the deployment of federal agents to polling places, but Trump allies like Steve Bannon suggest that federal forces should be stationed at voting sites during the midterms. The administration has never ruled out the use of ICE for this purpose, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has publicly endorsed this option.

The explosion of the agency’s size (up 10,000 to a total of 22,000 in 2025) and expansion of its budget from $6 billion to $85 billion in the last two years only increases the anxiety.

Our children learn about democracy not from textbooks alone, but from watching how elections are conducted. If Trump succeeds, our elections will be fundamentally transformed, and our children’s ability to cast a meaningful vote could be in peril. Even if these executive orders are ultimately overturned, they create confusion, chill participation, and make it harder for millions of Americans—regardless of party—to cast a ballot. Imagine if these lists were cross-checked against a list of gun owners to reduce their ability to vote.

To date, courts have supported keeping elections in the hands of state and local officials and denied Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in ballots and invade Americans’ privacy by assembling state voter files. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a Republican lawsuit attacking early voting, and held that all mail ballots postmarked by Election Day are counted, so long as they arrive within five days later. Currently, 14 states have laws allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive after.

Some states – including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington—have passed their own Voting Rights Acts to protect access to the ballot. Even leaders in some red states have not fully embraced the Trump agenda. Legislative leaders in Indiana, Georgia, and South Carolina refused to join the hyper partisan redistricting train. And Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine recently vetoed a bill that would have required voters to include a copy of their ID when requesting a mail-in ballot.

The Challenges are Serious.

It is difficult to remain calm in the face of so many serious challenges coming at us so quickly. They will not be easy to overcome. First step is keeping informed. Next is combating them as much as we can—and supporting leaders who do the same. But ultimately, this November’s elections is a chance to turn the tide. If enough Americans show up to vote, the difference can be enormous.

In the Next Installment, I will explore the following trends that have only gotten worse in the last several years. Our 250^th birthday is a perfect time to consider the American Dream and how more can gain access to it.

It is Harder to Get Ahead

Cultural Conflict and the Loss of Freedom

The Balkanization of America

[FLASH: Rumors are now circulating that House and Senate negotiators may be close to a budget deal. That is good news, but it still must pass both bodies and be signed by the governor by June 30]

Want a good example of the “tail wagging the dog?” Look no further that this year’s budget process in Virginia. The “dog” is a $74 billion budget that needs to be passed by June 30 to avoid a government shutdown. The “tail” is the data center industry — and whether the state should end tax exemptions for the industry that otherwise expire in 2035. The proposed House budget did not change the exemption, and legislation to terminate the program failed during the regular session. Rather than wait for a new bill in a new session, Senate Democrats and Sen. Louise Lucas, a leading critic of the subsidies, inserted language into its budget to end the program, and proposed using the savings to increase spending in other areas. The House rejected that approach.

Under our state constitution, Virginia government is not authorized to operate without a budget in place by July 1. While the General Assembly has failed to pass a budget by the end of its regular session in March 11 times since 2000, it has always met the fiscal year deadline. The closest call came in 2006, when Gov. Tim Kaine signed the budget on June 30. The House just canceled its plans to return to Richmond on June 18, and it is not clear when the budget impasse will be resolved.

The data center trade off

The state tax exemptions for the industry means $1.9 billion less in revenue is collected by the state this year. That is a significant sum, but it represents only about 2.6 percent of the $74 billion budget proposed by the House and endorsed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, and pales by comparison to spending on education, local government and key services. Yet, it has become the driver of the budget impasse.

The Senate budget would eliminate the subsidies; the House budget would retain them.

Spanberger, while arguing that the industry should pay its “fair share,” has also warned that terminating the incentives eight years before their scheduled expiration would damage Virginia’s business reputation and signal that the commonwealth does not honor its commitments. If a change should be made, the legislature should do it in an independent bill separate from the budget.

Since their adoption in 2008, the exemptions have helped make Virginia the nation’s largest data center market, far outpacing Texas which is second.

The exemption is the largest tax incentive that Virginia government provides, and its return on investment(jobs, personal income, GDP) is substantial. JLARC’ s 2024 report estimated that data centers contribute roughly $9 billion annually to Virginia’s gross domestic product. The centers also generate significant local real tax revenue, particularly in Northern Virginia, helping many jurisdictions maintain relatively stable tax rates despite economic pressures. Supporters argue that data centers could provide a similar revenue source and other benefits for less affluent localities seeking funding for schools and other public services.

Critics also point to the industry’s huge demand for electricity. As energy consumption rises, so do the costs of generation and transmission infrastructure. JLARC projected that a typical Dominion residential customer could see monthly electricity costs increase by $14 to $37 by 2040 because of this expanding demand.

National skepticism of data centers

Virginia’s debate is unfolding amid growing public skepticism toward the industry. A recent Gallup poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose the construction of new AI data centers in their communities, and some states have acted to restrict them.

Lawmakers in New York recently passed a measure to stop construction of new centers, while legislators in 14 others have proposed construction pauses. In April, Maine lawmakers passed a temporary statewide moratorium on new data centers, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills. Washington state has now limited its tax breaks to first-time investments in data centers, and Ohio’s Gov. DeWine paused some data center tax exemptions even as legislators failed to agree on a bill to regulate them.

Notably, most of these actions were not the result of the budget process but instead through standalone bills, typically the way legislatures consider major policy change. Data center regulation is complex policy that usually would not be considered in the budget, but in separate legislation. Virginia has traditionally avoided major policymaking through the budget, making the current approach unusual.

Policy, politics and personalities

Budget impasses usually involve major policy debates. Michigan narrowly avoided a shutdown in 2025 over transportation, with Republicans controlling the Senate clashing with House Democrats and Gov. Whitmer before compromise was reached. A recent budget fight in Minnesota focused on access to state-subsidized health insurance for undocumented adults. Virginia has not been immune from these fights. In 2012, the budget was delayed until June 11 over transportation funding and Medicaid. Two years later, Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s push to expand Medicaid produced a stalemate that lasted until June 20. In 2022, disputes over tax relief between Republican Gov. Youngkin and the Democratic-controlled legislature again forced lawmakers into overtime before reaching agreement on June 20.

This year’s conflict, however, is about more than policy.

Powerful legislators still bristle at the record number of vetoes Spanberger issued this session and claim that her office has not accorded them sufficient respect. Senator Lucas recently derided Spanberger as a “Data Center Diva,” and labeled the House Speaker “Amazon Don.”

Spanberger has largely avoided responding in kind, preferring instead to maneuver behind the scenes to isolate Lucas by pledging to support the House leadership’s push for a $74 billion budget which includes many Senate priorities. Whether that strategy can generate enough pressure on Senate conferees to reach a compromise — or even override Lucas’s objection —remains unclear. There are rumors that a fee on data centers might be substituted for the demand that exemptions be eliminated. But data center are still driving the debate.

Uncharted waters

Budget delays are common in many states, but government shutdowns remain rare. Michigan experienced brief closures in 2007 and 2009. Minnesota furloughed 19,000 state workers and shuttered state parks during a 20-day shutdown in 2011. In 2017, Gov. Chris Christie’s demands forced the shutdown of New Jersey’s government for three days.

Other states have developed mechanisms to avoid such disruptions. Massachusetts routinely relied on temporary spending measures until ending a 14-year streak of missed budget deadlines last year. Pennsylvania and Oregon frequently use stopgap funding bills, while New York employs “budget extenders” to keep government operating.

In several states, including Kansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, government shutdowns are avoided by statutes that authorize funding at the previous year’s spending levels until an agreement on a new budget is reached.

Virginia has no such safeguards.

Instead, the Commonwealth is among a small group of states that include Minnesota, New Jersey, Maine, Michigan, Washington, Alaska and Florida, where failure to enact a budget can trigger a partial or complete government shutdown.

Because Virginia has never experienced such a closure, it would be entering uncharted territory.

Lawmakers could still pursue what has periodically been rumored: a so-called “skinny budget” that funds essential operations while postponing contentious issues. Yet such an approach may prove politically difficult because it invites comparisons to the continuing resolutions adopted by Congress that Virginians often criticize.

Meanwhile, Spanberger is almost certainly exploring contingency plans to maintain critical services should the General Assembly fail to act by June 30, including the possible use of reserve funds set aside for emergencies.

A shutdown would carry significant economic and political consequences. Essential services could be disrupted. Credit-rating agencies could begin questioning Virginia’s prized AAA bond rating. And because Democrats control both the executive branch and the legislature, their ability to govern effectively would come under immediate scrutiny.

The stakes are high, and the deadline is approaching quickly. There are strong arguments for cutting some if not all tax benefits for data centers. They should likely pay higher electric rates than residential customers, so families are not subsidizing the industry’s high consumption. But whatever one’s view of this issue, allowing data center issues to force Virginia into a shutdown would represent a remarkable break from the commonwealth’s longstanding tradition of fiscal governance and prudent budgeting.

The above piece was first published in Cardinal News, a terrific newspaper that is worry of reading on a regular basis.

Faced with a potential Democratic wave this fall, Republican legislators across the nation continue their efforts to placate Donald Trump by adopting unprecedented mid-cycle gerrymanderings designed to protect their majority in Congress.

Emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in the Callais decision, Republicans just adopted new maps in Florida and Tennessee to target Democratic incumbents, including some of most senior African American representatives in the House. Thirteen states will have new congressional districts for 2026 midterms; South Carolina and Louisiana will likely join the list soon. The changes give Republicans more chances to preserve their House majority this fall.

States of Redistricting-May 22, 2026

Remember how we got here.

When President Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Texas decided last year on their redistricting gambit, they ignited a political firestorm that threatens to destroy yet another political guardrail. North Carolina and Missouri followed Texas, passing new maps in fall, 2025. California then responded; in November, the state’s voters approved a constitutional amendment to counter the Republican actions.

In April 2026, Virginia voters also approved a change in its constitution to create new temporary districts, only to have the vote nullified by the state’s Supreme Court. Several other states, including Georgia, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, may alter their districts in 2027, depending on who wins their state legislative races.

This redistricting arms race may create some short-term winners, but the American public loses in the long run. In search of political power, the politicians are dividing the nation—state by state—into two separate nations.

Threading the Needle in Virginia?

Virginia is no stranger to redistricting wars. In 2011, Republicans who then controlled state government, adopted new maps for congressional and state legislative districts that were dramatically partisan. At a time when Democrats were frequently prevailing in statewide races for Governor and U.S. Senate, artful map-drawing by Republicans produced a 67-33 GOP majority in the state’s House of Delegates. The plans were finally struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, something unlikely today because of the Callais decision. After the courts drew new maps, Democrats gained the majority in the Virginia legislature.

As Texas was drawing its new map, Virginia Democrats debated a response. They understood that the challenge would be more difficult than California’s. Changes in Virginia’s redistricting rules also require a constitutional amendment approved by the electorate. But California lawmakers need only pass a measure once before placing it on the ballot for a popular vote. Virginia requires passage in two successive legislative sessions separated by an intervening statewide election. Only then can voters consider the measure. If they approve, the amendment is ratified and becomes part of the Virginia Constitution.

Democrats would need to move fast to pass an amendment before the November 2025 election. The regular session of the legislature had adjourned in February, months before Texas acted, and would not reconvene until January 2026—two months after the fall statewide election.

But Democrats thought they had a work-around. The legislature remained in a “special session” that had been called primarily to pass a budget. Democrats planned to call legislators back to Richmond to pass the amendment before election day. The intervening election would then occur, and the legislature could adopt the measure a second time in January, enough time to have it legally placed on the ballot for a special election in April. Nonetheless, the path was not easy.

Unfortunately, legislators did not return to pass the amendment resolution until late October, a month after early voting in the Commonwealth had begun. During debate, Republicans and their Attorney General asserted that the Democrats had missed the deadline, arguing that the election had begun on September 19, the first day of “early voting.” Democrats countered that “election” under Virginia law means “election day.” The amendment passed on party lines on October 31, 2025, only 5 days before the statewide governor’s election, and 40 days after “early voting” had commenced. The timing would prove fatal.

Court Nullification

The referendum campaign was bitter and costly. Almost $100 million was spent during the election, much from out-of-state “dark money” PACs. Republicans were united in their opposition, but the campaign against the amendment also gained votes from some Virginians who had supported a constitutional amendment in 2020 that had established a nonpartisan redistricting commission.

Almost 3.1 million citizens participated, a record number for a constitutional referendum. When the votes were counted on April 21, 2026, the amendment barely prevailed, gaining than 1.6 million votes and 51.7% of the total vote.

The Democrats victory was short-lived. On May 8, the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, invalidated the referendum, finding that the General Assembly failed to pass the amendment before an intervening election, not early enough to satisfy constitutional requirements. On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Democratic lawmakers’ request to intervene, effectively killing the amendment.

Those who respect the rule of law must recognize the court’s authority. But accepting a decision does not require embracing its reasoning — or ignoring its consequences.

The Virginia Supreme Court -- More Political than Many Assume

Virginia is one of only two states (the other is South Carolina) where supreme court judges are selected by the legislature. Advocates of this system argue that it shields judges from the pressures of campaigning to gain a seat or retain one, a dynamic that shapes judicial politics elsewhere.

Yet the process itself is far from apolitical. Campaigns for these seats are largely invisible to the public, unfolding instead through private negotiations and legislative maneuvering as lawmakers work to secure the selection of their preferred candidates. Public participation is generally limited to hearings before legislative judicial committees, where nominees are questioned and routinely pledge to “follow the law,” defer to legislative statutes, protect the constitution, and avoid political controversy. Judges are almost always chosen by the party controlling the General Assembly.

While recent Virginia’s Supreme Court decisions have not been viewed as political, there are exceptions. In 2016, for example, shortly after Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe, relying on Article V, Section 12 of our Constitution, restored voting rights, en masse, to more than 200,000 Virginians who had completed felony sentences. Republicans sued, and the Court decided that the governor had exceeded his authority. Undaunted, McAuliffe restored those rights individually, one signature at a time.

Today’s Court is arguably more conservative than the one that decided the McAuliffe case. Of the four justices who voted to strike down the referendum, three — Arthur Kelsey, Stephen McCullough, and Teresa Chafin — were chosen when Republicans controlled both chambers of the General Assembly.

Public records show that all four either voted exclusively in GOP primaries in the last 15 years or have given money to Republicans before becoming judges. McCullough is a particularly interesting case, having been appointed after GOP lawmakers denied the seat to the well-respected Hon. Jane Roush, mainly because she was supported by McAuliffe.

Unless they retire, several of these judges will soon face reappointment by the General Assembly. Legislators have not rejected a justice seeking reappointment since 1895, but we are living in a different political world.

Gambles All Around.

While any decision on the referendum by the Virginia’s Supreme Court was likely to be criticized, its timing and decision are troubling. Since the referendum process was clear from the beginning of the lawsuit was filed to overturn it in March, why wait until after the vote, and the considerable expenditure of energy and resources on all sides?

The court’s ruling — issued weeks after Virginians had already voted — has fueled concerns that the court was improvising the law to obtain its desired result, the defeat of the amendment. Don’t forget that Virginia’s supreme court drew the maps in the most recent redistricting, after the redistricting commission deadlocked. The court’s ruling included the opinions of experts that these maps were “fair,” and that the referendum would drastically change them.

The court’s opinion asserted that the judges considered “the process, not the outcome.” But if the issue was procedural all along, why not rule earlier, and save everyone considerable resources?

The 4-3 majority found its justification for waiting in a century- old case, Scott v. James, which held that these decisions must await “the completion of the proceedings,” that is, the vote. Under this logic, the court should have dismissed the initial petition opposing the referendum as premature, as it was filed before the measure was placed on the ballot. Alternatively, since the constitutional infirmity was with the first General Assembly vote, the court could have ruled the defect prevents the measure from even being considered.

A cynic could argue that in delaying, the judges were gambling that the referendum would be defeated, and the court could avoid a decision. But they were not the only gamblers in this game. In early hearings, Democrats also argued that the court should delay a ruling until after the vote, perhaps calculating that a positive result at the polls would make it less likely that the court would overturn “the will of the people.”

The court’s decision turned on the meaning of the word “election,” a term not explicitly defined in the Virginia Constitution. The court rejected that Democrats’ reliance on Article IV, Section 3 of the Virginia Constitution, which states that elections for the House of Delegates occur on “the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November.” Instead, the one-vote majority found that the intervening election included early voting, which commenced days before the Assembly acted, thereby invalidating the amendment process. The narrow decision means that the congressional districts will remain as they are—at least for 2026.

What’s Next: Democrats May Still Gain Congressional Seats

Even before the proposed maps in Virginia were introduced, Democrats believed they had realistic opportunities to defeat Republican incumbents in the 1st and 2nd congressional districts, both carried by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in 2025. They also saw an opening in the 5th District, where former Congressman Tom Perriello is attempting a political comeback. And redmaps still face lawsuits in some states, including Florida and Missouri, where citizens have gathered enough signatures to challenge the map by a popular vote. In Florida and Texas, some believe that the Republican maps may give Democrats more opportunities than the GOP desires.

The collapse of the amendment in Virginia makes recapturing the House this fall more difficult. But elections are still decided at the ballot box, and Trump’s favorables are cratering, even in the reddest states. Ultimately, the most effective response to partisan manipulation remains free and fair elections. November will reveal whether Virginians — and Americans more broadly — are prepared to restore meaningful checks and balances to a political system increasingly dominated by one man: Donald Trump.

Note: A condensed version of this post was published in the Virginia Mercury.

In dramatic fashion, Virginia voters decided on Tuesday to resist Donald Trump’s efforts to rig the midterm elections. The vote gives the Virginia legislature temporary power to redraw congressional maps, potentially boosting the Democratic delegation in Congress by as many as four seats this January (see above). Democrats need only clear one more hurdle in their fight to level the playing field in Washington. The Virginia Supreme Court could still rule that the referendum does not pass legal and constitutional muster—a heavy lift given the weight courts traditionally give to the expressed will of the voters.

Most observers expected the vote to be close—and it was. The “yes” side prevailed by about three points, tracking closely with pre-election polling. The cost was staggering: roughly $100 million poured into the race, much of it from out-of-state “dark money” PACs—nearly matching the $112 million just spent in Virginia’s 2025 governor’s race.

What It Means:

1. Trump is toxic in Virginia.

Prominent Republicans are incensed at Democrats, saying they will never forget this moment. Their anger is misplaced; this amendment never reaches the ballot without Trump’s aggressive push to reshape the midterms. Not only does his recent disapproval rating in the Commonwealth stand at 62%—only seven points lower than in California—its intensity likely explains the ultimate result. Even the strategists for the “no” campaign implicitly recognized this, largely avoiding him until the campaign’s final days. If there is a single driving force behind the amendment’s passage, it is Trump himself.

2. Virginians distrust extreme gerrymandering.

Messaging on both sides stressed the unfairness of partisan gerrymandering, which was explicitly recognized when Virginia voters in 2020 overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that created a nonpartisan Redistricting Commission. Turnout tells the story: more than 3.1 million voters participated, an extraordinary figure for an off-cycle election and approaching the 3.4 million votes cast in last November’s governor’s race. For some “yes” voters, the amendment was tolerable precisely because it does not dismantle the Commission, and the constitution will require its use in the next decennial redistricting.

3. Virginia Democrats executed a near-flawless legislative strategy.

Adopting a constitutional amendment in Virginia is not easy. It must be passed by the General Assembly in precisely the same form by two successive legislative sessions—separated by a statewide election. Only then does it go before the voters for a final decision. This is more complicated than processes in other states, where the legislature can simply vote to put an amendment on the next November ballot.

A quirk of timing made success possible. After the 2025 Virginia regular legislative session ended, a budget impasse forced Gov. Youngkin to convene special session, which had not concluded when Texas redrew its maps. Democrats seized the moment, advancing the amendment in time for a second passage in 2026. The result: a rare April referendum—the first of its kind since 1970. It was a mix of preparation, timing, and political skill. Democrats were both lucky and good.

4. Major changes in Virginia’s congressional delegation.

If the Virginia Supreme Court does not overturn the new maps, several Republican incumbents who already face tough election fights will likely retire or lose. Former members of Congress Tom Perriello and Elaine Luria may regain their previous positions, and Republicans like Rob Wittman, Jen Kiggans, and even Ben Cline might consider seeking other offices. Remember George Allen, who sought—and won—the Virginia governorship after his congressional seat was redistricted?

5. Political guardrails continue to be shattered.

Since the late 1800s, states would typically redistrict every ten years, providing some stability to a process that is already exceedingly political. When Texas acted, it started an arms race in which Democratic states felt they needed to act to prevent being disadvantaged in the next election. Would a Virginia “no” vote have stopped GOP efforts to influence the midterms? Probably not; Florida is already poised to redraw maps, and other states like New York may do so after the midterms.

What Remains Unclear

1. Is Virginia yet a blue state?

The referendum margin does not disrupt what has been the trend since 2006, when Tim Kaine was elected governor to succeed Democrat Mark Warner. Instead, it likely reflects ambivalence within the Democratic base about partisan redistricting. Democrats were a major force behind passing the amendment in 2020, and some felt a “yes” vote was a betrayal of their principles. They either voted “no” or stayed home.

The close vote does not disturb the Commonwealth blue tinge. The state has voted for Democratic presidential candidates since Obama in 2008, has been represented by the same two Democratic senators since 2009, elected Democratic governors in five of the last seven elections (with Spanberger winning by an astounding 15 points), and controls both chambers of the General Assembly. Former Gov. Youngkin’s narrow victory in 2021 appears more of an anomaly—and a backlash to President Biden—than anything else. But this obscures another trend that has been occurring for decades: Virginia is increasingly “two states,” with the rural portions increasingly red and the suburban and urban areas, the source of the majority of votes, a darker blue.

2. Will all the new maps make a difference?

The New York Times graphic above suggests that even with redrawn districts, the national balance of power may not shift dramatically based on maps alone. Broader political forces—particularly Trump’s standing with voters—will play a larger role in determining control of Congress. In fact, some argue that Texas Republicans may have overplayed their hand and have placed more GOP seats at risk than they intended. The practice of mid-cycle redistricting for political advantage in the late 1800s ended with the wave national election of 1896. Perhaps we will see a similar wave in 2026.

3. Spanberger’s stature.

Unlike California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who made mid-cycle redistricting his personal crusade to counter Trump and Texas, Gov. Spanberger has been more measured in her support, partly because her instincts are less confrontational and her brand is less partisan. She had no power to veto the proposed amendment, though she could amend the map.

Some suggest that her support for the measure is linked to her recent approval ratings. A 10–1 Democratic congressional map in a state where 42 percent voted for a GOP governor last election appears partisan to Republicans and some independents. But her term has just begun. She has yet to propose her first budget, and the state continues to be buffered by economic forces generated from D.C. Her refusal to propose tax increases and her vetoes of several Democratic bills may eventually improve her numbers with some of the electorate.

What is Next?

Everything now hinges on the Virginia Supreme Court. Its ruling will determine whether the new maps take effect—and whether Virginia’s bold action reshapes the 2026 midterms.

Beyond that, a larger truth remains: political outcomes are not predetermined. They are shaped—sometimes dramatically—by voter participation and timing. Tuesday’s vote is a reminder that even in an era of deep polarization, electoral decisions still carry lasting consequences for the direction of American democracy.

If you like this newsletter, please pass it along to a friend. They can subscribe if they desire—at no cost.

Five Reasons to be Encouraged

1. Protests are Growing.

The March 28, 2026 actions produced more than 3,300 organized events across the
country and an estimated 8 million participants, making it perhaps the largest
single-day protest in American history. That follows 5 million participants in
June 2025 and nearly 7 million in October 2025. The photos tell the
story: flags waving, crowds energized, signs both pointed and witty, and a
spirit of defiant humor. The protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful,
which makes them harder to dismiss and easier for others to join.

2. Cracks in the Monolith.

Until recently, Congress has largely folded in the face of Trump threats. But
the coverup of the Epstein files has exposed real fissures in the Trump coalition, and the war in Iran is straining MAGA’s “America First” base. Sen. Thom Tillis dismantled Kristi Noem in Congressional hearings, and Pam Bondi
destroyed herself. Republican Senators are increasingly uneasy, and are
beginning to question the actions of cabinet officials.

That Senate Republicans abandoned Trump’s proposed SAVE Act is
also telling. Constitutionally suspect and politically reckless, the measure
risked disenfranchising not just Democrats but millions of Republican
voters lacking ready access to proof of citizenship. Roughly 21 million
Americans lack such documentation; 2.6 million have no government-issued photo ID. Efforts to restrict mail-in voting run headlong into reality; more than 40 states allow it, including eight and Washington, D.C., which conduct their elections entirely by mail.

Meanwhile, public tolerance for ICE’s tactics is eroding. Americans still broadly support deporting violent offenders—but draw a sharp line at the detention of children, the arrest of legal residents, or the use of excessive force against citizens. Roughly two-thirds of Americans now say ICE enforcement has gone too far.

3. Trump’s Popularity is Tanking.

Poll after poll shows a steady decline. Democrats are racking up wins in key special elections across the country, flipping 29 Republican seats in state and Congressional elections since Trump took office. Just last Tuesday, liberals in Wisconsin easily won another state Supreme Court seat. And while Republicans won the election to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene in Congress, the Democratic challenger massively overperformed – another warning sign the GOP can’t ignore.

4. Democrats Are Finding Their Voice.

For a party in the minority, clarity and victories are hard-won, but Congressional Democrats are beginning to deliver both. During the recent government shutdown, they seized the moment—standing up for TSA workers and forcing Senate Republicans to back down. They’ve also fielded a deeper, more disciplined group of candidates, putting far more seats in play this fall, including Senate races once written off as unwinnable.

5. Legal Resistance Remains Mobilized—and is Winning Key Victories.

The administration has been sued—a lot. Even setting aside immigration detention cases, it has now lost at least 150 cases in lower courts. Leading the fight has been 23 Democratic state Attorneys General, alongside a network of legal advocacy groups, who move quickly – often within days – to challenge Trump’s unconstitutional orders.

A significant battle now involves Trump’s attempts to nationalize elections by seizing state voter lists. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice demanded that states turn over voter registration lists, not just publicly available data like names and addresses, but highly sensitive information, including driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers.

A majority of states have refused, including at least eight led by Republican election officials. Even deep-red states such as Idaho and West Virginia — where Trump won overwhelming majorities –-resisted this intrusion.

The DOJ responded with lawsuits to compel compliance. So far those efforts have fallen flat. Federal courts have dismissed four such cases – in California, Georgia, Michigan and Oregon, underscoring both the legal weakness of the administration’s position and the continued strength of institutional checks.

Five Sources of Concern

1. An Uncertain War in Iran.

The administration has offered no clear rationale for military intervention—and appears to have no exit strategy. Whether the recent a “ceasefire” can bring an end to the conflict, or merely delays Trump’s threats to annihilate “an entire civilization” for another two weeks, the risks of escalation, more American casualties, and wider economic instability remain.

2. Making Voting More Difficult.

Across multiple states, election rules are being reshaped to entrench GOP power, with new congressional maps in Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri, limits on early
voting, and stricter ID requirements. Texas reduced the number of its polling
places, Iowa eliminated nine days of early voting, and Georgia made providing
water to voters waiting in line a crime. 16 states, mostly in the south, now prohibit or restrict use of drop boxes. Utah, South Dakota, and Mississippi recently joined nine other states in requiring proof of U.S. Citizenship to vote.

3. A Slow-Moving Judiciary Meets Fast-Moving Power.

While many administration actions have been overturned by the courts, this takes time, and Trump continues his attempts to manipulate the legal system. Following the failure of the SAVE ACT, Trump issued another executive order to restrict mail-in voting and centralize voter verification. Almost immediately, a coalition of more than 20 states —led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington —filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the order. Virginia recently joined the action.

4. The Remaking of the Federal Government.

Key institutions are under sustained pressure. Noem, Bondi, and Bovino are now gone, but don’t hold your breath that we will get a “kinder and gentler” ICE or DOJ. Kash Patel continues to undercut the legitimacy of the FBI. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has been hollowed out, with about 250 attorneys (or 70% of the component) having left, been reassigned, or resigned since January, 2025. Confidence in federal law enforcement is being undermined. Science-based policymaking, particularly in health under RFK,Jr., is under attack.

5. Midterm Elections Remain the Major Battleground.

Reports—denied but persistent in light of a memo circulating among MAGA faithful—suggest possible federal intervention at polling places this fall. Trump says he
“knows nothing” about this, but he said the same of the Project 2025 document. Even the suggestion of deploying federal agents raises alarms. States are beginning to respond. Eight state secretaries of state have written the administration to oppose the option, and Virginia and Nevada just passed state laws against it. ICE personnel and funding increases and the administration’s rapid building of detention centers throughout the country only fuels the concern.

Five Things to Do

1. Keep Up Peaceful Public Protests and build “coalitions of the willing.”

Public demonstrations remind people they are not alone—and signal to leaders that the public is engaged. The next major mobilization is May 1. You need not agree with all protesters about every issue, but numbers make a difference. U.S. history show protests work, but they do not substitute for electoral power. If Republicans maintain control of Congress after the midterms, the constraints on presidential action will weaken further.

2. Vote for key issues—and good candidates.

If you live in Virginia, support the state referendum on April 21 to counter GOP plans to control Congress by skewing congressional districts. Vote as early as possible and in person if you can. Don’t let changing rules catch you off guard.

3. Plan 6-8 months in advance.

Check your registration today. Then get five others to do the same. Know your rights. Connect with local organizations. A handful of calls or door knocks each week can matter more than you think. Google your local political party to get information and volunteer. Rogan’s List always has discrete tasks for volunteers, including these options.

4. Invest where it counts.
Support candidates and organizations strategically. In our area, our former Congressperson, Tom Perriello, needs your help. If your local race is safe, look elsewhere. Here are some flippable seats. The DCCC continues to update its “Red to Blue” list with the best prospects. Every State Blue is committed to creating grassroots communities of people like you who want Democrats to fight everywhere.

Interested in state races? Forward Majority, States Win (formerly Sister District), and The States Project are working for candidates in state legislative races. If your state legislator is safe, help flip a district in another state. The Downballot provides much useful information about state races.

5. Support the legal fight.
Legal advocacy groups will shape the battlefield in 2026. They need support. Prominent groups include Democracy Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund, the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, and Elias Law Group. Democracy 2025 lists groups that focus litigation on civil rights, immigration, and democratic institutions.

Meeting the Moment

The political environment is changing. The opposition is expanding. The window is now open—but it is up to us to widen it. That will take discipline, persistence, and strategy equal to the moment. Momentum can dissipate as quickly as it forms. Opportunity alone is never enough; only sustained effort can take advantage of this opening to bring the change we all desire.

New Congressional Map Proposed by Democrats.

If a car runs a red light and is about to hit you, you don’t just complain that the driver violated the rules–you do something! When Texas and other Republican legislatures across the country, at Donald Trump’s request, enacted unprecedented mid-decade redistrictings designed to ensure GOP control of the U.S. House after this year’s midterm elections, a response was necessary. Virginia voters now have the chance to be part of that response.

The vote on Virginia’s redistricting constitutional amendment in the next month could influence who controls Congress and whether the Trump administration faces any meaningful accountability in the next several years. A “YES” vote on April 21 improves those odds.

Virginia’s Redistricting Commission

After years of effort, Virginia voters in 2020 overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment designed to end partisan redistricting in the Commonwealth. The amendment created a redistricting commission to draw state and Congressional electoral districts, becoming fifteenth state to do so. If the commission could not agree, the state Supreme Court would determine the districts.

In its inaugural effort in 2021, the commission deadlocked, and the state Supreme Court, as required by the amendment, intervened to draw lines. Even so, the court’s maps won praise as fair, if not politically impartial. Supporters of nonpartisan redistricting hoped Virginia’s example would inspire similar reforms elsewhere. Instead, key Republican-controlled states took Trump’s direction to create new districts for partisan advantage.

Less than six months into his second term, Trump urged the Texas legislature to redraw its congressional districts — an extraordinary move with almost no precedent in modern American politics. His goal: to gain five additional Republican seats heading into the 2026 midterms. Few Republican leaders objected to changing the rules for Trump. Missouri, North Carolina, and Utah then began their own plans to increase Republican Congressional districts in their states, and Florida will soon call a special session to do the same.

The courts have done nothing to stop this power grab. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has been removing obstacles to hyper-partisan gerrymanders for more than a decade. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), SCOTUS eliminated the previous requirements of the Voting Rights Act that required southern states to submit redistricting plans to DOJ for “pre-clearance” before they took effect. And their decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) barred challenges to partisan gerrymandering from being heard in federal courts. Not surprisingly, when Texas’s new maps came before the Court — despite evidence that race was improperly factored into their design — they were allowed to stand.

If this “Trump-packing” of Congressional districts was to be countered, then, it would come from states where Democrats controlled the legislature. That is why California voters got the chance to approve a constitutional amendment to allow mid-cycle redistricting if Texas proceeds—and why Virginia voters are now voting on a similar change.

An Administration Without a Check

With Congress firmly in Republican control, Trump has had free rein to exercise executive power on a scale not seen in decades, issuing order after order to bend government and our institutions to his will. Lawyers have been silenced, universities strong-armed, and ICE agents unleashed on Democratic cities. FBI agents and military top brass have been purged, and criminal investigations have been opened against Trump’s political opponents. Trump’s DHS seized voter files in Fulton County, Georgia and threatened similar action in Arizona. Respect for the rule of law has been undermined by pardons of 1,500 convicted or charged in January 6 attacks on our Capitol, including people who violently assaulted the police.

Throughout it all, Trump has evaded accountability. Some federal courts have pushed back against the administration’s most aggressive actions. But the Supreme Court—apart from its tariffs ruling—appears firmly in Trump’s camp.

Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional responsibility to check the excesses of the executive. It did not challenge the tariffs, the immigration raids, or the attacks on voting rights. The President’s personal financial enrichment during his presidency — now estimated to exceed $4 billion — has drawn no serious legislative scrutiny. Congress shows little interest in questioning Trump’s war of choice in Iran. And even when our representatives have attempted limited oversight—such as over the Epstein files—the Justice Department has stepped in to obscure key facts.

This failure to check and balance the administration will continue unless Democrats win the House this November.

Trump understands this perfectly, explaining to his Republican colleagues how his gerrymandering strategy “will guarantee the midterms; If you don’t get it, big trouble, my opinion.”

If Democrats win the House, Trump’s legislative agenda will likely stall—and his administration will finally face real congressional oversight.

Virginia’s plan is unlike Texas—or Missouri, Florida, or North Carolina

The mid-cycle gerrymanders proposed in Texas, Missouri, Florida, and North Carolina are being enacted solely by state legislatures. Virginia’s approach is fundamentally different. Like California, which also has a redistricting commission, Virginia’s new maps require a much higher standard for enactment---a Constitutional amendment approved by a vote of the people. Californians overwhelming embraced their change on November 4, 2025. Virginia is voting right now; polls are open through April 21.

Virginia’s proposed redistricting amendment is narrow in scope. It permits the legislature to draw new lines mid-cycle only if other states do so. Like California’s new law, it does not eliminate our redistricting commission. Instead, the amendment only gives the General Assembly power to draw lines “until October 31, 2030.” “The Virginia Redistricting Commission would reassume the responsibility of drawing the congressional districts in 2031.” Just as importantly, voters will see the proposed map before casting their ballots. The people—not politicians alone—will make the final decision. For Charlottesville and Albemarle, the proposed map will give us a chance to elect a Democrat for the first time in almost two decades.

Under normal circumstances, a case could be made for preserving Virginia’s redistricting system exactly as designed. But these are not normal circumstances. Trump and his allies have already rewritten the rules.

Misleading the Public

Example of a Misleading ad is show above.

Several of my former colleagues in both parties oppose the amendment, arguing that it sets a troubling precedent and that the proposed map does not reflect the statewide partisan vote. Those are legitimate concerns.

Unfortunately, some within the opposition have also produced a stream of misleading—and at times racially insensitive—advertising. One ad falsely claims that Governor Abigail Spanberger opposes the amendment. She does not. Another mailer, apparently aimed at Black voters, warns that the new districts would disenfranchise them—an odd charge against a proposal that will itself be decided by voters statewide. Given the high stakes, President Obama has produced ads in support of the amendment.

Don’t Guess-Vote Yes

Elections never occur in a vacuum, and the vote on Virginia’s constitutional amendment is no different. If Virginia’s amendment had been proposed a decade ago—before today’s wave of hyper-partisan GOP redistricting—the case for voting “no” would be stronger. But the political landscape has changed. Trump and his allies have already moved the goalposts.

Supporters of checks and balances cannot ignore that reality.

Voting “yes” on April 21 may not be perfect. But allowing one party to manipulate congressional maps across multiple states without a response would be worse. Approving the amendment is a pragmatic step toward restoring accountability to a federal government that urgently needs it.

P.S: Encouragement for your day:

Over the past 14 months, Democrats have flipped 28 Republican-held state legislative seats across the country — including in Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi — often by margins that make Republican leaders uneasy that they could lose control of the House, and maybe the Senate, in the midterms.

Not only that, but Democrats are participating at higher levels in primaries than in years past. In Texas, Democrats not only outnumbered Republicans in the recent Senate primary election, but the party’s primary had the highest number of people voting in it than in any other primary for statewide office in Texas history.

In Mississippi, Democratic vote in the Senate primaries almost equaled the Republican participation; the last time Mississippians voted in a Senate primary in a non-presidential year (2018), Republicans nearly doubled Democratic turnout.

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. With that decision, billions of dollars collected from Americans through higher prices were deemed to have been illegally extracted.

Shortly after the ruling, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker submitted an invoice to the federal government itemizing the financial harm suffered by households in his state because of the tariffs. The invoice served an important purpose: it translated an abstract trade policy into a concrete household expense. During her response to last night’s State of the Union, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger emphasized the same point—tariffs imposed costs that our families and businesses did not choose, could not avoid, and should not have been required to pay.

Citizens in other states are also totaling the costs; and Virginia is no exception. The above invoice represents the monetary impacts on households in the Commonwealth.

The Virginia invoice was generated by using economic assumptions comparable to those applied in Illinois. In January, 2026, the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy group analyzing tariff impacts, placed the loss to the average U.S. household at $1,751 per year. Multiplying this by the 3,449,307 households in Virginia places the total burden at $6 billion.

This is real money that otherwise could have used by families to help cover rising rent, higher electricity bills, groceries, childcare, health care, or even a modest vacation. Because of the illegal tariffs, those resources were instead siphoned away.

Although tariffs are formally paid by importers, the costs are passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices—making them functionally equivalent to a tax on households. Estimates indicate that, through February 20, 2026, more than $160 billion were collected by the U.S. Treasury as a result of these tariffs. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled those collections unlawful, the central question facing Americans is no longer theoretical or ideological, but practical and urgent: How do we get our money back?

Painting With a Broad Brush

Governor J.B. Pritzker’s invoice—and the methodology behind it—was quickly criticized as overly simplistic. And admittedly, getting to precise numbers is challenging. Since the Trump tariffs could change day to day depending on which country he chose to punish, their impact on American families frequently varied. The invoices do not account for costs to U.S. companies that absorbed some duties rather than passing them on to consumers. Nor does the analysis reflect how impacts vary depending on what people buy, their income level, or the industries affected. Some households feel these costs more acutely than others. Certain sectors are hit harder depending on the size and scope of the tariffs.

Economists can debate these nuances for years; Americans feel the impact now.

But Americans understand the central point Pritzker made—and the Virginia invoice reinforces--the bill has come due, and President Trump must answer to the public.

Rather than acknowledging the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, the president has instead sought to impose new tariffs that appear to be aimed at circumventing the Court’s decision. At the same time, public frustration over rising costs has intensified.

Recent polling shows Trump has the lowest favorability rating of any recent president at this point in his term, underscoring that the so-called “affordability hoax” feels very real to a large number of Americans. Partly because of Trump tariffs, U.S. prices grew at an annual rate of 3 percent in December.

Virginia impact.

Virginia’s economy has been hit particularly hard in the last year.

The Commonwealth has experienced the disruption and pain of layoffs among federal workers. Virginians who provide contract services to the federal government have seen projects suspended or terminated. The Port of Virginia has suffered an 8.2% yearly reduction in ship traffic through November 2025. And Virginia’s agricultural sector—especially soybean producers and export-dependent industries—has seen markets disrupted and profits squeezed.

These are not theoretical costs. They are lost jobs, lost income, and lost opportunity.

What Happens Next

What comes next is uncertain.

The Supreme Court did not establish a mechanism for refunding duties that were illegally collected, and refunds will not occur automatically. The Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade, but it remains unclear how any restitution process would function in practice. Will businesses seek rebates, and if so, how will those funds be used? Hundreds of companies, including FedEx, Costco, and Revlon have already filed lawsuits seeking ‘full refunds’ of all duties paid. Can American families be compensated for what the U.S. Supreme Court has now found to be an illegal act? Don’t be surprised if state attorneys general pursue legal action on behalf of citizens financially damaged by these policies.

All of this could have been avoided had President Trump consulted the Constitution and recognized that the authority to impose global tariffs lies with the legislative branch, not the executive.

Instead, Virginians—and Americans across the country—are left holding the bill.

Data Center Complex in Ashburn, Virginia.

It is a delicate balance. Consumers naturally want lower rates and reliability. But when it comes to energy policy, there is no free lunch. It is not simply finding the cheapest electrons, but ensuring that they can get to our homes, even if they have been generated from thousands of miles away. This requires transmission and distribution, two costly infrastructural needs whose costs are rising as our demand for electricity soars. When infrastructure is neglected, consumers face higher prices and power outages. Texas learned this lesson the hard way in 2021, when years of underinvestment caused major power outages during a historic winter storm. Today, Texas’s electricity rates and monthly bills exceed those of many states, even those that promote climate change initiatives.

With limited federal leadership, states must decide how to lower bills now without undermining long-term reliability and sustainability—and be honest about who bears the costs.

Rates are rising—and so is demand

Average residential electricity rates have risen 37% nationally since 2020. States investing heavily in infrastructure or lacking easy access to natural gas—such as California, Vermont, and Massachusetts—have seen the sharpest increases. Resource-rich states like Louisiana and South Dakota have experienced smaller hikes.

Rates, however, don’t tell the full story. Usage matters. In Virginia, electric rates remain below the national average, but typical household bills rose 27% between 2021 and 2025, reaching an average of over $167 per month—higher than those in New York and nearly matching Texas and Florida. Low-income households are hit hardest; a recent Virginia study found electricity consuming up to 17.5% of their monthly budgets.

The causes of these increases are numerous and differ from state to state. Hawaii has higher rates because its access to sources of electricity is difficult; Washington’s are lower due to its proximity to hydroelectric power.

Regulatory conditions also differ. Most states have utility commissions (PUCs), but their roles vary depending on competition in the marketplace. In places like Virginia, where investor-owned utilities like Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power dominate, our PUC, called the State Corporation Commission (SCC), has great power over rates. Other states, primarily in the Northeast, have deregulated systems where consumers can buy their electricity from different providers. But even in these deregulated markets, a utility that has monopoly control over the poles and wires of transmission and distribution is regulated by PUCs to ensure the rates for those services are reasonable and prudent. In all instances, energy providers pass on increasing costs, whether they are derived from the fuel itself, or from maintaining an aging infrastructure.

REGULATED VS. DEREGULATED MARKETS FOR ELECTRICITY, 2026

The Disruption of Data Centers

After years of flat demand, U.S. electricity consumption is surging, primarily due to the proliferation of data centers—especially those powering artificial intelligence. These facilities bring economic benefits to states and local communities, but consume enormous amounts of energy, driving up rates and forcing costly grid upgrades that utilities pass on to consumers.

Top Ten States for Data Centers

Virginia hosts more data centers than any other state. And more and bigger ones are coming. Colorado-based EdgeCore Digital’s new facility in Louisa County contains 3.9 million square feet and will consume over 1.1 gigawatts of power, enough to power over 700,000 homes. In Texas, “Stargate Abilene”—a massive data campus backed by OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank—will approach 4 million square feet by 2026.

Electricity use by these facilities has grown exponentially. In 2007, data centers used just 1.5% of U.S. electricity; by 2030, usage is projected to exceed 12%. Utilities are struggling to keep up, not just in the production of energy to feed these behemoths, but the means to transport it.

The U.S. does not presently produce enough electricity to meet this unprecedented need. Yes, we need more wind and solar. But are they scalable quickly enough? The electricity demand will be most acute in states like Virginia and Texas. Virginia Dominion Energy estimates that data centers will drive 85% of Virginia’s new power demand over the next 15 years. And the Electric Power Research Institute projects that data centers in Texas will account for over 10% of that state’s power consumption by 2030, leading rates to almost double in the next five years.

States Push Back

In the last decade, states began to lure data centers with generous tax breaks—often without anticipating their scale or impact on energy use. Virginia was the first to grant large subsidies. Since the Commonwealth began granting tax exemptions in 2009, over $2.7 billion has been provided, including $1 billion in 2024 alone. Many states followed, and the tax breaks have been hefty. In 2024, Georgia waived $2.3 billion in taxes while Texas subsidies approached $1 billion.

The energy and environmental consequences of more data centers have lawmakers concerned. In New York, Governor Hochul said that data centers should either “pay their fair share” or generate their own power. The new governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill, recently ordered the state’s Board of Public Utilities to provide credits for ratepayers and pause proceedings that could approve new rate increases.

States like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine and New Jersey are exploring moratoria on new data centers; others like Oregon, Virginia and Ohio are adopting special rate classes so data centers pay higher rates than residential customers. Virginia legislators are advancing a proposal that would raise data center bills by about 15% while reducing residential bills by roughly $5.50 per month.

Reliability Risks

Beyond cost, data centers pose challenges to our electric grid. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently warned that their constant, high demand makes it more difficult to sustain sufficient electricity supply under extreme conditions. Fluctuating usage from these centers can create havoc. Unlike traditional industries, data centers can “drop” or “add” massive amounts of electricity to the grid almost instantly.

If several centers temporarily go off line, the grid can be flooded with excess power, overtaxing the system and causing blackouts. In mid-July 2024, data center demand equaling nearly a third of all households in northern Virginia suddenly disappeared from the grid; a disconnection of 60 data centers in northern Virginia caused a 1,500-megawatt power surplus, which forced emergency adjustments to prevent cascading outages. Backup diesel generators further raise environmental and health concerns, and utilities are seeking to build more natural gas peaker plants to address demand.

States are responding by tying subsidies to efficiency standards, cleaner backup power, and on-site generation such as solar and battery storage. One Virginia bill would condition data center subsidies to locating clean energy generation on-site. Alternatives like battery storage could add grid capacity, improve reliability, and help hold down residential rates. Some data center facilities in Texas are including battery storage in their plans; Google’s new data center in Haskell County will be paired with a new solar and battery storage plant.

Keep Climate Change in Mind

Despite the challenges of higher rates brought on by data centers, some lawmakers continue to stress the link between electricity rates and climate goals. One way to dampen electricity costs is to reduce demand by making buildings more efficient. This was one reason why new governor Abigail Spanberger in Virginia decided to rejoin the 10-state consortium called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) after a two-year hiatus. The program is typically viewed as a climate change initiative; carbon emissions declined by 22% during the years Virginia was in the program, only to rise by 20.5% in the two years after Gov. Youngkin removed the state.

But RGGI is more than that! States receive millions of dollars from their participation. Virginia uses one-half of RGGI monies[3] to improve energy efficiency—and reduce bills—for low-income families. Like most states, Virginia utilities are permitted to recapture the costs for RGGI participation from ratepayers----$2.39 per month for a typical residential customer(the RGGI Rider)when Youngkin took office in 2022. So rejoining will likely mean a small monthly increase for Virginia ratepayers. But a 2023 VCU study found that funds from RGGI monies could provide energy upgrades to as many as 130,000 homes by 2030, creating $89 million in energy savings, an average annual reduction of $676 per household. Unfortunately, nearly $120 million in RGGI housing funds remain unspent due to inaction by the prior administration. One goal of the Spanberger administration is to get these funds into the field.

Leadership is Needed

There is no single fix for rising energy costs. Cheap power without investment is an illusion—and the bill always comes due. Who will pay, and when, will determine whether we emerge with resilient energy systems or face recurring crises marked by higher costs, reduced reliability, and diminished public trust. And with little federal leadership, much of the success or failure of this effort will be determined by the states.

[1] On Dec. 22, 2025, The Trump administration paused leases for five large-scale offshore wind projects off the East Coast in an effort to prevent their construction or operations. Different federal courts then issued preliminary injunctions allowing each of the five to resume construction. Virginia’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) is a 2.6-gigawatt (GW) commercial project, making it the largest in the U.S. and the first owned by an electric utility company, Dominion Energy. It will likely begin producing power in the next several months. The wind turbines will soar 836 feet into the air, and when operating, CVOW will generate enough energy to serve 660,000 homes. Since turbines are located 27 miles offshore, only the upper portions of the are visible from land.

[2] This decision not only harms the climate, but forces the military to spend more for electricity from coal even if cheaper sources such as natural gas and renewables are available. In 2024, 16% of US power generation came from coal, down from 40% in 2014.

[3] The other half is used for storm mitigation and coastal resiliency. During the years prior to Youngkin’s withdrawal from the program, about $832 million in RGGI monies were received by Virginia.

America’s standing in the world suffered a profound blow this January. In yet another apparent violation of international law, Donald Trump ordered the military removal of another nation’s leader—an act that would have triggered global alarm even if the target had not been Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. Days later, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti were broadcast around the world, fueling doubts about America’s commitment to justice and restraint. These shootings sandwiched the debacle at Davos, where Trump’s incendiary threats and rambling incoherence reinforced a growing international fear: that America’s claim to a distinctive moral and democratic character is fighting for survival.

Our American Exceptionalism

For those of my generation, the idea of American exceptionalism was instilled from birth. We were not merely the most powerful nation on earth, but something more. As historian Daniel Boorstin argued in The Genius of American Politics, the United States was “unique,” possessing a “genius all its own.” Born of revolution and sanctified by the Declaration’s audacious claim that “all men are created equal,” America was animated by freedom, self-reliance, democratic institutions, and even a sense of moral superiority endowed by our Creator. We were a nation unlike any that had come before.

There is, of course, ample history to challenge that narrative. American exceptionalism has often functioned as myth—one used to justify imperial conquest, the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, the barbarity of slavery, Cold War interventions from Vietnam to Chile, and catastrophic misadventures such as the war in Iraq. But even those actions were often sold as a mark of our exceptionalism. “Mission accomplished” crowed President George W. Bush, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, as virtue had triumphed over the forces of oppression.

Optimism and Idealism

Exceptionalism is, at its core, rooted in America’s optimism and idealism: the belief that no problem is unsolvable, no obstacle insurmountable, no frontier unconquerable. It is not the bleak pessimism of Trump’s “American carnage” first Inaugural or even Jimmy Carter’s “crisis of confidence.” Instead, it is Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” Barack Obama’s promise of “hope and change,” and John F. Kennedy’s challenge to go to the Moon “not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”

Even war has been wrapped in this language of purpose. World War I was fought not only to “make the world safe for democracy,” but—with characteristic American optimism—to be “the war to end all wars.” Westward expansion was framed as Manifest Destiny rather than conquest. Vietnam was justified as a bulwark against “godless communism,” not support for an illegitimate regime. Iraq was cast as a uniquely American mission to remake a nation through “regime change.”

This is the language of mythmaking. And while nearly 250 years of history have tested America’s virtues repeatedly, the nation has long claimed a unique capacity for self-correction. Even our reckonings with injustice have been framed through exceptionalism itself. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously declared, “one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed….”

Today, that legitimacy—at home and abroad—is under sustained assault. With each day, democracy and the rule of law erodes, both by single dramatic ruptures, but also through a steady accumulation of abuses, all increasingly bent to the will of one man. If American exceptionalism can die by a thousand cuts, the events of January 2026 have inflicted the most dangerous wounds yet.

Losing Our Strategic Capital

Maduro’s removal was an undeniably bold display of American power. The strongman inspires little sympathy; under his rule, Venezuela’s economy collapsed and its democratic institutions withered. Most welcomed his downfall, even if they did not approve the method. But kidnapping Maduro pales by comparison to Trump’s saber-rattling about acquiring Greenland, potentially by force.

Coming on the heels of Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine, his efforts to control Greenland threaten a NATO ally while fracturing that alliance at a time when we need it the most. Once again, Trump delivered on his promise to shatter norms and institutions. And the world’s view of our stature has suffered in the process.

For decades, presidents of both parties invested in America’s strategic capital: alliances, partnerships, and trust. While the United States maintained unrivaled military power, it generally preferred to act with others rather than alone. Interventions—from Kosovo to Kuwait, Haiti to Iraq—were justified, at least rhetorically, by appeals to international law and self-determination.

Unlike many former presidents, Trump has never grasped the central truth that America’s real power does not rest solely in its arsenal, but in its legitimacy—its claim to occupy the moral high ground as a “shining city on a hill.” Our allies followed us not out of fear, but because they trusted our intentions. We have occupied the high ground of diplomacy not because we are saints, but because we typically have not been perceived–-Vietnam and Iraq being the notable exceptions—as the unilateral aggressor nation.

That legitimacy is now being squandered. America now appears less like an exceptional nation upholding international law and more like a self-interested power pursuing oil and influence. As allies grow wary, they will increasingly look for other partners. As Canada’s P.M. Mark Carney warned, “Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They’ll buy insurance, increase options….” This will not increase our strength but instead heighten our isolation. Our nation’s once-bright light will further dim.

Believe Your Eyes

The world also watches with concern the shooting of two Americans by ICE agents in Minneapolis. First, Renee Good, an unarmed 37-year-old mother, was killed when an ICE agent fired multiple shots into her vehicle moments after she told him, “I’m not mad at you.” Then, ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed while on his knees surrounded by ICE agents who had forced him to the ground. These killings were outrageous, but the statements from our leaders prompt additional alarm.

Police shootings of unarmed civilians, while disturbingly common, are often followed by official restraint—calls for calm, expressions of sympathy, and promises of investigation. Not here! Within hours of each killing, the administration launched coordinated assaults on the victims. Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem called Good’s action an “act of domestic terrorism,” and described Pretti similarly. Trump labeled Good a “professional agitator”. Stephen Miller called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” and accused him of trying to “assassinate federal law enforcement”.

Administration officials suggest that there will be no independent investigations. But as more evidence emerges, more concerns arise. The videos do not lie. The New York Times amalgam makes clear that the agent in the Good case was not been struck by her car. Videos of Pretti’s shooting shows he was shot in the back while on the ground. But initial narratives, especially from those in power, are difficult to dislodge. Facts become secondary to political allegiance.

These victims will not be forgotten. Alex Pretti had no criminal record and was working to heal veterans. An agent at the scene of Good shooting called her a “f**king b*tch.” But Renee Good was neither a terrorist nor a lunatic. ICE agents may not be rogue officers eager to play “Dirty Harry,” but their masked behavior appears lawless.

Images of the post-shooting protests evoke 1960s Birmingham and the aggressive actions of Sheriff Bull Connor and local law enforcement against peaceful demonstrations. But there is big difference; in Minneapolis, the aggressors are agents of the U.S. government who have the full support of the President.

Rules, Restraint, and What Once Made Us Different

American law enforcement policies reject “shoot first, ask questions later” approaches. DHS policy states that deadly force is justified only when an officer has a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Firing on a fleeing, unarmed civilian is generally discouraged. Policy emphasizes disengagement—step back, gather information, prevent escalation.

These rules exist for a reason: to minimize unnecessary death and collateral damage. In America, we have traditionally cared about such distinctions. That concern—however imperfectly honored—has been part of what made us exceptional.

Such subtleties are lost on this administration, who prefers to distort the facts in service of its political agenda. Allowing a protester to escape is framed as weakness, as letting someone “get away with it.” When protest begins to carry a death sentence, however, we are losing our special character as a nation.

A Glimmer of Hope?

New polls reveal our discomfort with these events, a positive sign in a sea of negativity. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 53 percent of respondents believed the Good shooting was unjustified, while 57 percent disapproved of ICE’s enforcement tactics. A YouGov poll reported that 53 percent think the agent should face criminal charges, compared with just 30 percent who felt the shooting was justified.

Americans believe that Trump’s Greenland folly is just that; a recent poll reports that 75% of Americans oppose our possible takeover. And while nearly 72% of Americans initially supported the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s removal, opinion on Maduro’s seizure is sharply divided. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 34 percent opposed the action, 33 percent supportive, and 32 percent were unsure. Trump is increasingly isolated, at home and abroad.

For generations, American exceptionalism has shaped our national identity and our standing in the world. That construct is now crumbling under the weight of events both foreign and domestic. Whether the United States can reclaim the moral high ground that once distinguished it remains an open question. This administration—and its allies in Congress—are not up to the task. So, it is now on us!

.

The battle for the future of U.S. higher education is on. President Donald Trump frequently asserts that “our colleges [are] dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.” Vice President Vance argues that conservatives should “aggressively attack the universities in this country.” The Heritage Foundation proclaimed that “too many schools have lost their way” and proposed, in Project 2025, that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division serve as the “vanguard” in investigating and prosecuting institutions of higher education over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They have made their intentions clear--to change the country, transform higher education.

2025 brought a new level of attack. Almost every institution--public and private-- felt the heat. Trump suspended grant funding to force universities to adopt policies to his liking. The administration made it increasingly difficult for international students to enroll and continue their studies in this country, undermining a major source of revenue for our universities and an important source of research talent.[1] And DOJ has embraced the challenge of Project 2025; it is now leading these attacks. In this year, 120 investigations have been opened at 60 institutions in over 40 states. University leaders anxiously wonder whether their school will be next to receive a letter from DOJ announcing an investigation.

Never underestimate the turmoil caused by DOJ targeting. Simply look at the University of Virginia, where DOJ was able to use threats, a compliant state government, and a cowardly governing board to force the resignation of a popular and effective President. You can read more here and here, including my op-ed in the Richmond Times Dispatch about how our new governor, Abigail Spanberger, should respond. While most of Trump’s fury and federal intervention has been directed at the “elite privates” like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, state institutions like UVA and UCLA are increasingly being targeted, not only by DOJ but by conservative governors and state legislatures.

States Are the Laboratories

While federal actions attract headlines, changes at the state level may prove more consequential over the long term. State colleges and universities educate the largest share of American students and generate the bulk of undergraduate degrees. Today, we see many examples where governors with national ambitions join with conservative state legislatures to promote their agenda.

Florida is the textbook case. The state passed the “Stop WOKE Act” in 2022, a measure to prohibit DEI programs in colleges and universities. In 2023, Gov. Ron Desantis’s appointments to the governing board of the New College of Florida led to sweeping changes at the school. In January 2025, the Florida Board of Governors overhauled curricula across the state’s public institutions, removing courses that explored issues of race and gender. These measures have been described as among the most sweeping state attempts to regulate college curricula in recent memory. But the changes have not helped the institutions; more than two years after the conservative takeover of New College of Florida, its rankings have plummeted and costs have exploded.

Other states — including Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Alabama, Utah, and Iowa — have adopted laws and board policies to curtail diversity programs and place new limits on professors. In May, the University of North Carolina System’s board of governors forced the elimination of DEI programs and positions at 17 campuses.

Conservatives have also engineered leadership changes. The President of Texas A&M was fired after a controversy involving the release of a secretly-made video showing a classroom dispute between a student and an instructor about the appropriateness of exploring issues of gender identity. Northwestern’s President resigned several months after conservative state lawmakers opened an investigation into the school’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests on its campus.

Not every state has taken this path. Those with Democratic leadership — such as California, Illinois, and New York — have resisted federal pressure to curtail academic freedom and unwind their efforts for DEI.

Is Public Support for Higher Education Slipping? It’s Complicated.

Americans’ views on higher education are complex and evolving. For the last century, Americans viewed the U.S. system of higher education as the envy of the world, and a source of economic growth and technological innovation. A college education was the way to “get ahead”, studies consistently showing that college graduates do better economically than those with a high school degree.

Recent polls, however, show overall public confidence in higher education has declined in the last decade, reaching multi-year lows in recent years. Gallup polling reported that in 2015, nearly 60% of Americans surveyed expressed strong confidence in colleges; by 2024, this had fallen substantially. Similarly, a October 2025 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that seven in ten Americans say the U.S. higher education system is headed in the wrong direction.

In mid-2025, Gallup reported the first noticeable uptick after a decade of decline, finding that 42% of Americans now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, up from around 36% in previous years, but the general trend has been downward. Democrats are significantly more likely to express confidence than Republicans.

The constant refrain of the conservative spin machine that higher education is nothing more than liberal indoctrination explains some of these numbers, especially among Republicans, many of whom were counted as strong advocates for these institutions only a decade ago. But criticism of higher education is not limited to perceptions of political bias.

Tuition and costs continue to rise at many institutions, and the public struggles to understand why more schools invest in elaborate facilities that seemingly have little to do with education. Citizens also do not understand—nor do many universities adequately explain---why the overhead costs of research are so high. Increasing layers of bureaucracy and the hiring of non-academic staff are questioned. Finally, there is growing concern that academic standards are not sufficient to prepare students for what is needed to be successful in a challenging economy.

Reasons for Optimism

Despite this swirl of negativity, some studies provide reason for optimism. Large majorities of Americans oppose cutting federal or state funding for science, health, or education by margins of roughly four or five to one. Nearly half of Americans say they favor more investment in scientific research, and 57 percent want more medical research funding.

And surveys show that Americans have more confidence in public colleges and universities than in private ones. In a 2025 survey, nearly half of respondents (46 percent) reported “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in public institutions, while only 30 percent felt the same about their private counterparts. Among traditional Republicans, the gap between assessments of private and public universities is even larger. For example, over 40 percent of traditional Republicans have confidence in public universities, but that number drops to just 16 percent for private institutions.

These data are significant, if only because public institutions award between 60 and 70 percent of undergraduate degrees. In Virginia, the number is approximately 67%.

State-specific surveys often reveal higher levels of trust in state universities than found in national polls. A recent poll in Virginia found confidence rates substantially above national figures. Only 18% expressed “very little” confidence in our colleges and universities, well below the 32% nationally. And the gaps between Republicans and Democrats are also smaller in Virginia. This is one reason why the twenty-two appointments that new Governor Spanberger will make to various Virginia college boards when she takes office this month are so critical; she can calm the rhetoric and set an example for the next four years.

Key Role of State Governing Boards

State colleges and universities are typically overseen by Boards of Trustees or, in the case of Virginia, Boards of Visitors. Historically, these boards largely deferred to academic leadership and focused on institutional goals rather than politics. Today, however, as appointments have become increasingly political, some board members are taking a more aggressive posture.

In 42 states, board members are appointed by the governor, and most are then subject to final approval by state legislatures.[2] Historically, legislatures have let governors have their choices. But as partisanship has intensified, appointments have become increasingly contested, especially in states where governors and the legislature are from different parties. In Wisconsin, for example, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers was unable to stop the Republican legislature from removing board members he supported, an action rarely seen in the recent past. And in Virginia, the Democratic Senate stopped approving Gov. Youngkin’s nominees once it was clear that he was pursuing an agenda not shared by the legislature.

In sharp contrast to previous governors, Youngkin argued that board members owed their primary duty to the state and not the institution. Many appointees embraced the governor’s attack on everything “DEI.” In May 2024, despite several years of work, plans by George Mason University and Virginia Commonwealth University to incorporate race- and diversity-related subjects into the general education curricula were blocked by boards whose majorities had been appointed by Youngkin. In early 2025, VMI’s Board voted against renewing the contract of the school’s first Black superintendent, Major General Cedric T. Wins, after he led efforts to expand diversity at the institution. Concerns arose about plans to replace the African American President of George Mason University for his DEI support. The UVAs Board involvement in Jim Ryan’s forced resignation may have received the most publicity, but it is only part of a national pattern of Boards pushing a political agenda.

Headlines Focus on Washington — But the Real Action Is in the States

Will 2025 be remembered as a turning point for American higher education, as institutions capitulate to federal and state pressures aimed at reshaping their governance and curricula? Or will educators, policymakers, and business leaders succeed in reaffirming higher education’s traditional role as a source of innovation and democratic vitality?

One constant stands out: while federal interventions draw most headlines, many of the most consequential decisions will be made at the state level. The actions of governors, legislatures, and governing boards will be critical in determining the future of U.S. higher education.

[1] According to the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), a drop in fall 2025 international student enrollment generated a revenue loss of $1.1 billion to the institutions and cost nearly 23,000 Jobs. Virginia alone received $893.5 million in the 2024-25 academic year from more than 23,000 international students at its colleges and universities.

[2] In eight states, the Governor plays no role in the appointment process. Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have boards directly appointed by the legislature or already-seated board members. In Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Michigan, some or all board members are chosen in statewide elections.

Former UVA President Jim Ryan’s recent letter to the university’s Faculty Senate—corroborated by former Rector Robert Hardie and other board members—raises new questions about the role that Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s and his choice for rector, Rachel Sheridan, played in recent University crises. Rebuilding the University’s reputation now becomes a challenge for Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger.

Virginia governors routinely appoint board members to the state’s public colleges, but Youngkin pursued sweeping ideological change. Echoing President Trump’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), he portrayed universities as drivers of unwanted cultural shifts and pledged to dismantle DEI programs. When the Trump administration threatened to strip UVA of federal research funding unless it accepted DOJ’s interpretation of discrimination law, neither Youngkin nor Attorney General Jason Miyares offered public opposition. Instead, they amplified anti-DEI rhetoric as the pressure campaign intensified.

What Youngkin Inherited

When Youngkin took office in 2022, UVA’s strengths were well known. The University ranked 25th among all U.S. universities and 4th among public institutions. The School of Law was the nation’s top public law school, and UVA’s programs in business, nursing, and veteran services were among the country’s best. Newsweek ranked the UVA Medical Center No. 1 in Virginia and 42nd nationally.

Research funding climbed from $311 million in 2015 to $570 million in 2024, including nearly $300 million for the School of Medicine. Under Ryan, UVA launched major initiatives such as the School of Data Science, the Karsh Institute of Democracy, and the Manning Institute of Biotechnology.

Fundraising also soared. UVA’s “Honor the Future” campaign hit its $5 billion goal 18 months early and now stands at $6.1 billion, helping expand affordability programs like “Success UVA,” which guarantees free tuition for Virginia families earning under $80,000 and full college costs for those earning under $30,000.

Many contributed to these achievements, but Ryan quarterbacked them for the last seven years.

DOJ Attacks Begin

The climate shifted dramatically when the Trump Justice Department began targeting UVA earlier this year. By then, Youngkin had appointed a majority of the Board, including Sheridan, who became the chief conduit between UVA and DOJ. Throughout June, Sheridan had multiple conversations with DOJ officials. According to responses to FOIA requests from Senator Creigh Deeds and Ryan’s recent letter , Sheridan kept Ryan, Rector Hardie, and most of the Board largely excluded from those conversations.

Ryan and his team had assembled extensive information to answer DOJ’s inquiries, but university lawyers advised him to wait before submitting them. That delay created the false impression that Ryan was slow walking the investigation and reinforced DOJ’s claims that it could not work with him. A June Board meeting that could have authorized the response was abruptly canceled, reportedly over legal concerns involving the proposed appointment of former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. In mid-June, DOJ escalated its demands through two sharply worded letters, including one addressed to “Rachel Sheridan, Rector”—a position she did not yet hold.

Youngkin was not a passive observer in this drama. His office drafted an extraordinary resolution requiring UVA to renounce DEI entirely. Although the Board softened the directive, choosing only to close its DEI office, Youngkin quickly went on Fox News to declare, “DEI is dead at UVA.” When DOJ threatened to “bleed [UVA] white,” both the governor and the attorney general remained silent.

While DOJ officials said they lacked confidence in Ryan, they consistently denied demanding his resignation. Yet Youngkin and Sheridan privately encouraged board members to push for Ryan’s departure before July 1, the date when Sheridan officially became Rector. To increase the pressure, Sheridan, apparently without Board authority and perhaps without the attorney general’s knowledge— engaged another lawyer who pressed Ryan to quit. When legislators use the word “malfeasance,” they cite this example as Exhibit A.

To resolve the crisis, Ryan proposed stepping down after the 2025–26 academic year to allow a smooth transition. Sheridan refused, claiming DOJ insisted he depart immediately. On June 26, 2025, Ryan resigned. DOJ never received the materials that Ryan had prepared.

The Kent Enterprise

Ryan’s ouster is not the only controversy involving Sheridan. In September 2024, an anonymous letter from 128 UVA doctors demanded the removal of Health System’s CEO Craig Kent and his leadership team, alleging a hostile work environment, improper billing procedures, and risks to patients and staff. The Board began an investigation and placed Sheridan in charge. She arranged for UVA to hire Williams & Connelly, a prestigious D.C. firm, to conduct the inquiry and present its findings.

No written report from this multi-million-dollar inquiry was ever shared with the Board, and the public knows nothing about its findings. Instead, shortly after the Board was verbally briefed by the law firm in February, Kent—whose contract had been extended for five years just months earlier—was told he would be fired if he refused to resign. He immediately stepped down and the public was left with no way to judge the allegations. Some, including Thomas A. Scully, a prominent Republican who directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under George W. Bush and was then a member of the UVa Health System Board, blamed Kent’s departure on “silly partisan politics,” arguing that Sheridan steered the investigation toward a predetermined conclusion. Kent’s critics were not satisfied by the resignation and continued pressing for leadership changes; within months, others from his team departed for other institutions.

Now, the University faces a novel lawsuit alleging that Kent and his team engaged in an illegal RICO conspiracy that contributed to patient deaths and damaged physicians’ reputations. The case may force disclosure of the Williams & Connolly materials—or provoke countersuits from Kent’s team. Such is the fallout from opaque decision-making and crisis mismanagement.

Spanberger’s Options

One of the Spanberger’s first challenges is to right the ship at UVA. She has wisely suggested slowing its presidential search until new Board members can be appointed. While Youngkin objects—hoping his appointees will pick the next president—there is no urgency, and the Board is not at full capacity.

Spanberger also has other options. She will likely propose legislation to reform the board appointment. She could even remove present board members for “malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty.” Governors must exercise such power sparingly, but Youngkin’s recent removal of Bert Ellis shows that it can be done.

The task of repairing the damage of the past year begins in January—and it will fall not to the outgoing governor who helped create the turmoil, but to his successor.

David J. Toscano practices law in Charlottesville and served 14 years in the Va. House of Delegates. He is the author of Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, University of Virginia Press, 2021, and Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020, Hamilton Books, 2022. He publishes commentary on state and federal policy and politics at Fights of Our Lives.

“Unprecedented” and “outrageous” were the words most often heard in response to Texas Republicans’ attempted mid-cycle redraw of congressional maps to boost GOP odds of keeping control of the U.S. House after the midterms. Now, a federal district court has concluded that the legislature’s new plan is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander—placing the strategy in jeopardy and leaving Republicans wondering whether this power play was worth the trouble.

Reading Judge Jeffrey Brown’s opinion brought back memories of my time in the Virginia General Assembly, including my years as House Democratic leader. Brown, a Trump appointee, cited the Virginia case that overturned the Virginia GOP’s 2011 redistricting plan to underscore his conclusion that Texas Republicans relied on race in drawing their maps. The parallels between the two states are striking.

The Virginia Precedent

When Virginia Republicans drew the 2011 maps, they controlled the governorship and both legislative chambers—conditions like those in Texas today. Unlike Texas, however, Democrats in Virginia regularly won statewide races, including those for Governor and every presidential contest since 2008. Despite this statewide success, Republicans maintained large majorities in the Virginia House for years, aided by a partisan and racially discriminatory gerrymander. Much of this can be traced to the GOP’s national strategy after Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. Republicans invested heavily in winning state legislatures so they could shape congressional redistricting. And they succeeded. In Virginia, the 2011, 2013, and 2015 House elections were conducted using maps designed to entrench GOP control. In 2016, the GOP held a 66-34 majority in the Virginia House.

It took eight years of court battles and several separate lawsuits, but the 2011 Virginia maps were eventually found to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. With new maps ordered by the courts, Democrats gained a majority of the state’s Congressional seats, and won the majority in the House of Delegates in 2019.

The Virginia maps might have survived if they had been purely partisan gerrymanders. By the mid-2010s, Supreme Court watchers wondered whether the justices were preparing to abandon review of partisan redistricting altogether, and allow states free rein to design their own maps. In the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, they did just that; partisan gerrymanders would no longer be subject to federal court review.

But the 2011 Virginia plan was different. In hopes of satisfying the Voting Rights Act’s former preclearance requirements^[1], Republicans packed Black voters into a small number of districts. This shored up African American incumbents but made surrounding districts whiter and more reliably Republican. All but one black House member voted for the map, a fact frequently cited by Republican defenders of the plan, which appeared to lock-in a GOP majority for a decade. But while the plan protected black incumbency, federal courts were unmoved. Protecting incumbents was one thing; using race as the predominant factor to shape districts was another. After years of litigation, the 2011 maps were struck down as unconstitutional.

The aftermath reshaped Virginia politics. When lawmakers failed to agree on new maps, the court imposed its own. In the 2017 elections, Democrats nearly erased the GOP majority—coming within one vote of a 50–50 split before losing a tied race in Newport News by a random drawing, as Virginia law requires. Two years later, Democrats won the House majority. Today, they hold 67 of 100 seats. ^[2]

Texas’s Self-Inflicted Wounds

Texas now finds itself in a similar bind—but unlike Virginia, the wounds are largely self-inflicted. In drawing their 2025 map, GOP legislators relied on a letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon[3] to Gov. Abbott and Attorney General Paxton that argued that the state needed to redraw its maps to remedy constitutional problems in the 2021 plan. Abbott endorsed the approach; it now threatens to unravel the GOP’s broader strategy.

Texas could have pursued a purely partisan gerrymander, which federal courts could have refused to review under Rucho. Instead, the Dhillon letter appeared to direct the state to use race to reconfigure districts—a move that helped open the door to federal constitutional scrutiny. Even lawyers in the Texas Attorney General’s office criticized the letter as “legally unsound,” “ham-fisted,” and “a mess.”

If Texas had conducted a pure partisan redistricting, the federal courts relying on the Rucho case may have dismissed the legal challenges. Instead, Texas admitted that it is used racial criteria to develop new maps, an approach that remains reviewable by the federal courts. And if the court throws out the new Texas maps, what will it do with the previous maps which the state and DOJ argue are constitutionally suspect?

Judge Brown seized on the Dhillon letter, concluding that the DOJ, by directing Texas to “separate its citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” pushed the state into unconstitutional racial line-drawing. He ruled that the state’s new maps cannot be used in the 2026 elections. Texas has appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and it is not clear how it will rule.[4] A decision will likely come quickly, as the state’s December 6 filing deadline is rapidly approaching.

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, the blow to GOP hopes of retaining the House would be severe. Texas would lose the opportunity to create five additional Republican seats. And blue states, most notably California and Virginia, have already begun exploring their own mid-cycle redraws that could add Democratic seats—- all because Trump and Texas tried to game the mid-terms!

Other States in Play

California was the first to respond to Texas’s gambit. Although its independent redistricting commission complicated matters, Democrats argued that if Texas abandoned the traditional rules, California couldn’t unilaterally disarm. Voters initially resisted, but after realizing the stakes, they approved Proposition 50 this fall by a wide margin. The action allows the California legislature Democrats to draw new maps. Unless they stand down, or courts block their action, they stand to gain five seats.

Virginia is poised to follow. It also has a constitutionally-mandated restricting commission, so a new constitutional amendment will require passage before action. This is difficult, if only because all amendments to the Virginia Constitution must be passed by two legislative sessions separated by an election. Virginia Democrats are attempting to thread a constitutional needle to provide this remedy, but if successful, the proposed amendment would permit the legislature to draw lines likely to create three new Democratic-leaning districts. New York, Illinois, and Maryland are examining potential mid-cycle moves, though most changes would not take effect until after the midterms.

And Republican states continue to confront obstacles. Missouri was first to embrace the Texas approach, and targeted one Democratic seat held by a prominent African American for elimination. But the efforts may founder if a petition drive succeeds in putting the issue on the ballot. Missourians have recently been successful in passing citizen ballot initiatives opposed by the conservative legislature. In 2024, voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s constitution and passed increases in the minimum wage.

Utah’s effort to gain another seat was blocked when a federal court ordered creation of a Democratic-leaning district in Salt Lake City. A decision in a lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s 2025 plan to dismantle a historically Black district is expected soon. Neither Kansas nor Indiana legislatures could muster the votes to attempt a mid-decade restricting; Hoosier legislators have been subject to threats and harassment as a result. Florida is considering new maps, but its constitution bans partisan redistricting, heightening the likelihood of a successful legal challenge.

A Strategic Miscalculation?

Whether Democrats are justified in “fighting fire with fire” remains a matter of debate. What is clear is that Texas’s decision to push the limits of mid-cycle redistricting has triggered a national chain reaction—one that may ultimately help Democrats more than Republicans. If the courts uphold the ruling against Texas, and if blue states capitalize on the opportunity, Democrats could gain the edge in the redistricting wars.

It would be an ironic twist: a GOP maneuver intended to secure long-term power may end up weakening the party’s grip on the U.S. House.

[1] Ironically, in 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court eliminated the previous requirements of the Voting Rights Act that required southern states to submit redistricting plans to DOJ for “preclearance” before they took effect. Had this occurred before the Virginia’s 2011 redistricting, Republicans would likely have adopted a plan that may have been interpreted as a “partisan” instead of “racial” gerrymander which could have more easily been defended.

[2] See Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020 (New York: Hamilton Books, 2022).

[3] Harmeet Dhillon is well known to Virginians as the AG who spearheaded DOJs attacks on the University of Virginia in spring, 2025 that ultimately led to the forced ouster of President Jim Ryan.

[4] The court’s decision is further complicated by the issues in a Louisiana case (Louisiana v. Callais) where federal courts initially ruled that the state needed to redraw its 2021 map to correct for black vote dilution by creating a majority-minority district. A group of white voters sued, arguing that all racially conscious redistricting is unconstitutional. Their victories in federal court led to an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule soon.

In the classic film, Network, Howard Beale delivered one of the most remembered lines in movie history: “I’m mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore”. Many voters, from Virginia to California and Maine to Georgia, seemed to feel that way. Frustrated by chaos, corruption, and exhaustion, they turned out in record numbers to deliver sweeping victories for Democrats, winning most every significant contest on the ballot.

Virginia, Virginia, Virginia

Virginia has again shown itself as a bellwether of change. Abigail Spanberger won by the largest margin since Bob McDonnell’s 2009 victory, as Democrats swept all statewide races in an election with turnout higher than four years ago — a clear sign of Democratic energy.

Less noticed but equally consequential were Democrats’ massive gains in the House of Delegates, where they flipped 13 seats and will hold a 64–36 margin come January. Speaker of House Don Scott, arguably now the most powerful man in the state and the primary architect of the romp, exclaimed that this “is what a mandate looks like,” while cautioning that “the word of the day is restraint. We can’t overreach.”

Republicans, meanwhile, imploded. Neither Trump nor mainstream conservatives ever embraced Winsome-Sears, whose campaign was derided by a Trump ally as a “dumpster fire”—a label made literal when her campaign bus caught fire on the roadside. Late GOP money shifted to Jason Miyares, but even that could not save him. Trump supporters unloaded after her loss. Chris LaCivita, longtime Virginia GOP strategist and Trump’s 2024 campaign manager, wrote: “A Bad candidate and Bad campaign have consequences — the Virginia Governor’s race is example number 1.”

Winsome-Sears faced incredible headwinds. Trump is even more toxic in Virginia today than he was in 2017, when Ralph Northam won the governorship by 9 points and Democrats gained 15 seats in the House of Delegates. And with this year’s Republican candidates carrying major weaknesses, it was a perfect storm for Democrats. You could see this in the turnout numbers. In Republican-leaning districts, turnout was down, while the opposite was true in Democratic areas. Fairfax alone produced a surplus of 205,000 votes, 100,000 more than McAuliffe’s total of four years ago. Spanberger’s margin remained consistent from the beginning until the very end, when the undecided vote broke decisively for the next governor.

Spanberger’s margin, coupled with the national environment, was key to the victories of her running mates, Ghazala Hashmi and Jay Jones. Jones was successful in linking Miyares to Trump, and the outgoing AG’s failure to fight for universities like UVA and George Mason left him further exposed to criticism. Despite the last-minute publication of Jones’s inappropriate text messages from several years ago, he still won more votes than Governor Youngkin did in 2021 (1.75 million to 1.66 million) and his margin of victory was much larger than the outgoing governor (200,000 vs. 64,000). Youngkin’s 2021 victory now appears to be more of an anomaly than it did at the time.

Looking to the future, Democratic performance improved across the state. Whether this portends a reversal of the party’s lackluster results in rural areas is not clear, but this year’s results provides some optimism.

New Jersey, New York, and Turnout

Trump was a factor in most every key race. In the Commonwealth, Trump’s cuts in federal employment was felt more personally. But the president’s “termination” of the Gateway Project in New Jersey and New York, the largest infrastructure and jobs project in the nation, because they were “democratic initiatives” became an organizing tool for both newly-elected Governor Mikie Sherrill and incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Sherill’s race was supposed to be close; it was not. Democrats also picked up seats in the Jersey state assembly, and may have a super majority when all votes are counted.

In New York, Mayor-elect Mamdani harnessed the affordability crisis to mobilize young voters and ran an insurgent campaign against entrenched wealth — including Donald Trump himself. Republicans will likely try to make him the face of the Democratic Party, but last night’s results show each electorate is unique, and victory depends on tailoring messages to local coalitions and concerns.

In New Jersey, about 54% of registered voters cast a ballot, the highest turnout in a non-presidential election since 1998, dramatically up from the 40% who voted in the last governor’s contest. New York City, turnout was higher than any year since 1969.

Voting for Ideas and Democracy

In California and Maine, where no statewide candidates were on the ballot, voters instead turned out for ideas! In the Golden state, an overwhelming majority approved a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to redraw congressional maps—an explicit rebuke to Texas’s recent partisan gerrymander designed to rig the midterms. In Maine, voters soundly rejected a voter-suppression initiative that would have required photo identification at the polls, defeating it by a commanding 64–36% margin.

Democrats in Pennsylvania notched 3 critical victories to retain seats on the state supreme court at a time when voting rights and democratic protections increasingly depend on state-level decisions.

Change even reached deep-red states. In Georgia, Democrats scored major upsets by unseating two Republican members of the Public Service Commission, the office that determines utilities rates and influences state climate policy. The victors will be the state’s first Democratic commissioners since 2007. And in Mississippi, two special-election victories ended the GOP’s supermajority in the state Senate.

Even in local areas, the blue tide swept Democrats into power. In Onondaga County, New York, a traditionally red jurisdiction surrounding Syracuse, Democrats won every contested seat for the local legislature, giving them the majority for the first in approximately 50 years. Just down the road in Oswego County, New York, Democrats picked up five Republican seats in the county legislature.

When Trump was elected, many predicted that there would be an electoral backlash. It has arrived. But the real test lies ahead: whether the energy of this moment can be sustained through the 2026 midterms and beyond.

The election results remind us that democracy still works when people believe in it, organize for it, and show up to defend it. The message from this election is clear—Americans still vote for ideas, fairness, and for the future.

Photo credit: Geoff Livingston

They came with baby strollers and walkers—young and old, rich and poor, entrepreneurs and socialists, the quiet and the outspoken. But they came. In more than 2,500 cities and towns—some gatherings as small as five, others as large as 300,000. And they rallied around a concept as American as apple pie: that we are a nation of laws, not of kings. They came to protest a government that continues to trample fundamental rights while attempting to rule by executive fiat.

G. Elliott Morris, a data journalist formerly associated with FiveThirtyEight who now publishes the “Strength in Numbers” Substack, places total participation, based on numbers gathered by independent Atlanta-based science newsroom The Xylem and the Crowd Counting Consortium (CCC), a joint project of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and the University of Connecticut, at between 5 and 7 million, perhaps the largest mass protest in since 1970. People can quibble with the actual number, but, in some ways, it doesn’t matter. The day’s importance lies in the growing participation in these events (Oct 18 numbers greatly exceeded the first “No Kings” protests of last June) and shows that dissent is large and exists in all parts of this nation.

What Protest Were You At?

The Trump team’s reaction was predictable, aimed at discrediting the protesters and minimizing their impact. Republican governors Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Greg Abbott of Texas invoked the specter of violence, mobilizing their state National Guards ahead of the demonstrations. Their fears proved baseless.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana dismissed the gatherings as “We Hate America” rallies, with Johnson claiming they were organized by “the pro-Hamas wing and, you know, the antifa people.” Had they watched any coverage, they would have seen countless American flags and handmade signs declaring, “I love America.” The only “antifa” present were several women in whimsical costumes calling themselves “Aunt Tifa.” Add to that the many inflatable animal suits bouncing through the crowds, and it’s clear organizers sought peaceful protests—with a touch of humor.

At first, the White House appeared to dismiss the protests, responding to a press inquiries with a curt “Who cares?” That tone soon shifted when Trump asserted that he is “not a king,” followed by the release of an AI-generated video depicting him flying a jet labeled King Trump and dropping a brown substance onto protesters below. Fox News and conservative blogs scoured footage for signs of unrest, highlighting a few isolated incidents and the occasional inappropriate display of First Amendment expression—but found little evidence of actual violence.

Does It Really Make a Difference?

The protests come at a key moment. Despite President Trump’s low approval ratings, the opposition has lately seemed dispirited—and with reason. Each day brings another outrage: the indictments of political opponents, continued attacks on universities, and a Republican Congress that has abdicated its constitutional duty to check the power of the executive. The judiciary has provided only a modest counterweight. Trump critics continue to win cases in the federal courts, but many of these victories have been temporarily blunted by the Supreme Court’s shadow docket of unaccountability. Some even question whether the coming midterm elections will be open and free, and whether the recent federalization and deployment of state National Guards into several American cities are early tests for future executive actions that could undermine the right to choose our representatives.

Evidence suggests that public protests are more widespread —and draw more participants—than during Trump’s first term. Yet critics continue to ask: Do these protests make a difference? While it may be hard to point to direct policy changes from any single event, last Saturday’s demonstrations, along with actions surrounding them, offer reason for cautious optimism.

Without protests, actions that previously would be viewed as outrageous take on an air of normality. Moreover, mass protests can transform not only how the public perceives the opposition, but how participants see themselves. Protesters cease to be passive witnesses to the erosion of freedom and instead become active agents of change. When peaceful, such demonstrations lend legitimacy to dissent—and make it easier for others to join in.

We Have Done This Before

America has a rich history of nonviolent protest. Our independence would not have been won without widespread civil disobedience to and noncooperation with British rule that began with boycotts in 1765. Colonists refused to buy British goods and stopped exports to England. They refused to sit on grand juries organized by the crown to punish resistant colonists. And in the early 1770s, they created the Committees of Correspondence in each colony (the Virginia House of Burgesses was among the first to do this—in 1773) that led to the formation of provisional governments that coordinated elections, organized resistance, and functioned as defacto alternatives to British rule. All this activity occurred prior to the exchange of gunfire at Lexington and Concord in 1775.

Both the labor and women’s suffrage movements employed nonviolent tactics to win key victories. And the civil rights movement would not likely have been effective without the use of civil disobedience and nonviolent protests.

Even today, we see dramatic elements of noncooperation that undermines the legitimacy of the Trump regime. Several weeks ago, we witnessed a rare display of unity, when virtually every major media organization — including Fox News and Newsmax — surrendered their press credentials rather than comply with the Pentagon’s new press directive that would have prevented the publication of stories not approved by the Defense Department. Seven of nine targeted universities have now rejected White House efforts to offer them more federal money if they align themselves with President Trump’s priorities. Even in some isolated cases, Republicans have chosen independence over blind obedience. The former Republican Speaker of the Virginia House, Todd Gilbert, resigned shortly after being sworn to serve as U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Virginia, refusing to compromise his independence by hiring personnel at the direction of the administration. Similarly, U.S. Attorney in Virginia’s Eastern District, Erik Siebert, resigned his post to protest pressure from Trump administration officials to criminally charge New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Economic Coercion in Action

Boycotts, another weapon in the nonviolent arsenal, are frequently criticized. But when done right, they work. The Tesla boycott tarnished the brand and is linked to a downturn in Tesla sales, an uptick in returns, and a 36% fall in its stock price in the first three months of this year. Musk has now exited DOGE. At Target, company stock plummeted 33% after its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in January prompted a massive consumer boycott. And when Jimmy Kimmel was fired, millions cancelled their Disney subscriptions and visits to the Magic Kingdom. Reports suggest that the company lost nearly $4 billion and 3 million Disney+ subscribers while Kimmel was off the air. The backlash proved so effective that even Sinclair and Nexstar—two right-wing broadcasters that had kept Kimmel silent in 60 markets after Disney reinstated his show—eventually relented and returned him to the airwaves.

The lesson for the public? Noncooperation works. And you don’t always have to take to the streets to make your voice heard.

Lessons from the World

While every case is unique, evidence from nonviolent movements abroad offers grounds for optimism. In the 1980s, Solidarity—a nonviolent workers’ movement—brought down Poland’s communist regime. In Serbia, mass protests in October 2000 eroded the loyalty of police and the public to Slobodan Milošević, leading to his downfall. Dictatorial governments in Algeria, Bangladesh, Armenia, and the Philippines have likewise been weakened or overthrown when widespread demonstrations stripped them of legitimacy and forced change. And just last December, Korea’s former Prime Minister unexpected martial law declaration was met with massive uprisings that led to his impeachment and ultimate removal.

Protests in Hungary, 2025.

Change can take time—but we can make it happen

Make no mistake: not all nonviolent movements succeed. In Hungary, for instance, mass protests have yet to transform the regime. And history shows that meaningful change often takes time—as it did during the Civil Rights Movement. While people may long for immediate results, that is rarely how progress unfolds.

For such movements to succeed, they don’t need to convert their fiercest opponents. Rather, they win by shifting the middle—turning neutrals into quiet supporters, passive sympathizers into active allies, and gradually eroding the foundations of opposition.

When people lose hope, they surrender their power—and hand control to those who would impose their will. That’s why participation in these protests matters. They remind Americans that they are not alone, and that others stand ready to defend what makes this nation unique.

This week in 1969, more than two million Americans joined the Vietnam Moratorium—the largest mass protest in U.S. history at the time. Like many other participants, it helped change my view of the possible. It took years, more marches, and immense courage to end that war. But it happened.

Restoring our democratic institutions will likewise take time and persistence—but it can be done, if we commit to it. So grab your flag, your homemade sign, your sunscreen, and head out there. The country you save will be your own.

[An abbreviated version of this post was published by the Virginia Pilot]

Redistricting is divisive and partisan enough when it happens every ten years. Now, Texas has opened a new front in our polarizing political wars by drawing new congressional maps mid-cycle and doing it for one purpose—to prevent Trump and the Republicans from losing the House majority in the 2026. Florida, Ohio, and Missouri, all with legislatures under the control of Republicans, may soon follow suit. In response, Democrats in states like California, Illinois, and New York, are threatening to redraw their own maps, actions that will further exacerbate the polarization in the country.

Texas has always been known for cooking its maps, but the process has only been made easier by our Supreme Court. In 2019, SCOTUS, in Rucho v. Common Cause, barred challenges to partisan gerrymandering from being heard in federal courts. And the Court is now considering arguments that would prevent federal courts from also hearing cases where maps are drawn to disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities. If this occurs, it will be the death knell of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and state redistricting plans would largely be free of federal judicial oversight.

BOTH SIDES DO NOT DO THIS

The public perceives redistricting as a cynical way by which legislators pick their voters instead of constituents choosing their representatives. When they exclaim “both sides do it,” it is easier to portray the Texas plan as “business as usual.” Except it isn’t!!

Our founders intended congressional redistricting to occur after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau. Census data would be used to adjust the size of a state’s congressional delegation to reflect changes in its population. To protect the principal of “one person, one vote,” embedded in our Constitution, each district must contain approximately the same number of residents. In that way, no person’s vote is more powerful than any other’s. Over the years, however, the redistricting process has been corrupted by power-hungry legislators and tech-savvy consultants who can slice and dice the electorate in ways previously thought unimaginable. This has served two purposes; to draw maps to favor the party in power, and to protect incumbents. Some states have created nonpartisan redistricting commissions to bring more fairness and transparency, but most state legislatures still control the process.

TEXAS AS OUTLIER

The Texas approach is very different—and much more insidious—than any typical partisan redistricting that we have seen in recent history. Unlike traditional once-a-decade redistricting, which has spawned partisan hijinks on both sides, Texas is manufacturing new maps off-cycle, and primarily at the behest of a President who deathly fears that he will lose the House majority in 2026. No court has ordered the legislature to draw new maps. The census is still five years away. Texas is already politically gerrymandered, with Republicans holding 68% of their congressional seats (25-12) in a state where Trump received 56% of the vote in 2024. But Republican lawmakers want more. Their goal is to draw new maps to gain 5 GOP seats in Congress and protect the Republican majority against the effects of a Trump backlash.

To protect their constituents against this power grab, Texas House Democrats employed a dramatic example of nonviolent noncooperation; they left the state. The Texas legislature has an unusual rule---a supermajority quorum is required to transact business.---and the Democrats exploited it to prevent a vote. Republicans were incensed, and threatened Democrats by issuing civil arrest warrants, requesting FBI assistance to compel their return, and filing lawsuits to remove them from office. They even accused Democrats like Beto O’Rourke of bribery, simply because he supported the legislators. This is not “business as usual.”

Democrats held their ground, and the special session, which was scheduled to run until August 19, ended early. Gov. Abbott then called another special session, and a new map has been passed.

OTHER RED STATES MAY JOIN

Despite Trump’s pressure on other red states to also draw new maps, it is not clear who will join this power grab. Ohio will have to do something, if only because the state’s supreme court ruled their 2021 partisan gerrymander to be unconstitutional. But how far will they go? The state is already gerrymandered to favor Republicans. While Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris 55%-45% in the 2024 election, Republicans control 66% of Ohio’s U.S. Congressional delegation, holding a 10-5 advantage over Democrats. Ohio Republicans think a gain of two to three is possible but some worry that if they push too hard, they could endanger some of their incumbents. The state has a redistricting commission, but it will not be involved until the next census.

Florida is another likely candidate, if only because Gov. Desantis has embraced hyper partisan redistricting for years. When the Republican legislature last produced a map in 2021, Desantis vetoed the measure and labeled it as too balanced. He then crafted, with assistance of national political consultants, his own plan that both favored Republicans and targeted Black-dominated congressional districts. Florida Republicans now have a 20- 8 advantage in their congressional delegation. Florida’s quorum rules would not permit Democrats from doing more than protesting, but challenges nonetheless remain for the GOP. The state’s population distribution may make it more difficult to create additional GOP districts. And its Constitution contains a provision inserted by state voters in 2010 requiring “Fair Districts” in Congressional apportionment, a political talking point even if the conservative state supreme court would likely ignore the clause.

Missouri may also join, but Republican gains would likely be minimal. The GOP already outnumbers Democrats 6-2 in their congressional delegation, and some legislators have expressed concern that cooking the maps to target one or two seats could backfire.

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA—AND A TARGETED RESPONSE

Democrats, many of whom have been critical of redistricting and support nonpartisan commissions, face a serious dilemma. They are leery of employing the Texas approach for fear of losing the moral high ground embodied in a nonpartisan approach to drawing district lines. But they understand the stakes. They witnessed the U.S. Supreme Court open the flood gates to increasingly partisan maps in the Rucho case. They watched as North Carolina, a state where the Governor (who happened to be a Democrat) has no power to veto redistricting plans, redrew congressional lines in 2023 after the state’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier court decision holding that the GOP’s 2021 plan was unconstitutional. The result was a hyper partisan plan giving the GOP an advantage in 10 of 14 congressional seats.

The Democratic base is demanding a response and rejecting the opt-repeated phrase, “when they go low, we go high.” Gov. Newsom in California is leading the charge, but the state requires redistricting to be done by an independent commission. Consequently, his proposal will require voter approval, and the maps only take affect if Texas passes new ones. The new map will simply balance the new Republican seats in Texas with the same number in California. A ballot initiative is a big gamble and has drawn criticism from former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The new maps would only remain until after the next census and would keep the next redistricting in the hands of the commission.

While Illinois and New York leaders have discussed drawing new maps, those efforts have challenges of their own. Illinois is already highly gerrymandered, with Democrats having 14-3 advantage in their Congressional delegation. The state does not have a redistricting commission, but there are not many more seats to squeeze out of new maps. In New York, where Democrats presently hold a 19-7 congressional advantage, the presence of a 10-member Independent Redistricting Commission passed by voters in 2014, complicates any path to mid-cycle redistricting. A 2021 map drawn by the Democratic legislature was thrown out by a court in 2022; the party ultimately adopted a less partisan map in 2024. State Democratic leaders have now decided to propose a constitutional amendment to make changes, but any new map would not take effect until after the 2026 midterms. Some scenarios suggest that the Empire State could create as many as four new Democratic seats.

The public does not like this fight. A recent poll found that (75%) of Americans say that partisan gerrymandering is a major problem, with 69% of respondents stating that redistricting legislative districts to advantage one party over the other should be illegal. In addition, about half (51%) believe that responding to unfair redistricting by creating new hyper partisan maps in other states as a counterbalance is also wrong. This suggests that red and blue states should step away from this redistricting arms race.

VIRGINIA SHOWS IT NEED NOT BE THIS WAY

The Commonwealth is no stranger to the redistricting wars. In 2011, Republicans controlling the General Assembly pushed through a plan that ultimately led to GOP supermajorities in both Congress and the House of Delegates. It took years of court fights, but the plan was ultimately found to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. With new maps in place, Democrats won a majority of the state’s congressional seats and gained control of both the House of Delegates and the Senate. What few know, however, is that the state narrowly avoided a Texas-style partisan mid-cycle redistricting of its own in 2013.

In 2013, the GOP controlled both the governorship and the House of Delegates, and the Senate was equally divided.

The Commonwealth had a tradition of making off-cycle “technical amendments” to redistricting plans to fix split precincts and make small changes in the lines to correct errors. It was done in the collegial “Virginia Way” and premised on the idea that neither party would do this to gain an advantage. In 2013, the House passed such a technical amendments bill and sent it to the Senate, which had a 20-20 partisan composition at the time. But Republican Senators, seeing that a Democratic colleague was missing on the day of the vote to attend the second inauguration of Barack Obama, saw an opportunity to “game the system” , and amended the bill on the Senate floor to impose a new map for the entire state, which would create GOP advantages for the rest of the decade. As customary, the bill was then returned to the House for its consideration.

Then something remarkable happened. It was clear that the Senate amendment went far beyond the initial legislation and violated the rules of the House. But this would require the Republican Speaker of House, William Howell, to rule the amendment “out of order,” effectively killing the bill. After several days of delay and threats by his caucus to remove him as Speaker, he ruled the measure out of order. Because Republicans enjoyed a 66-32 supermajority, they could have challenged the ruling. They did not do so, and the bill died.

It was a powerful moment. Howell could have ignored the rules and allowed the bill’s passage. Instead, he upheld a principle: that political power should not be used recklessly, even if you have the votes to do it.

Several years later, Virginia voters established, by constitutional amendment, a redistricting commission which, while not perfect, puts a brake on partisan redistricting. In doing so, it joined nine other states with some form of redistricting commission: six Democratic trifecta states, two states with divided government, and two Republican trifecta states.

It is difficult to predict if Virginia will be another state to consider midcycle redistricting for the 2026 election. If Abigail Spanberger wins this fall, and the House remains in Democratic hands, anything could happen. While the state has a redistricting commission, the Constitutional provision guiding it requires that it meet “In the year 2020 and every ten years thereafter”. Would this language permit a legislative redistricting mid-cycle? If so, Democrats could draw districts providing them an advantage in 8 of 11 congressional seats and increase its delegation by two.

REDISTRICTING AS CHAOS

Redistricting multiple times a decade would create chaos. Congressional incumbents would not like it, as it would make their own districts less predictable and increase their chances of losing the next election. Options exist for those who want to avoid more polarization and greater division between the states. First, more states could create nonpartisan redistricting commissions. Second, Congress could pass a federal law prohibiting, absent court instruction, more than one redistricting per decade. More unconventional approaches, such as creating multimember congressional districts, and awarding each party seats based on the percentage of popular vote it receives in that election, are worth consideration.

As Justice Elena Kagan recently opined, partisan gerrymanders, by depriving citizens of rights to participate equally in the political process and choose their political representatives, are undermining the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people. Texas should follow states like Virginia and abandon this undemocratic scheme.

It may be shrewd politics, but it’s disastrous policy: offer upfront benefits like tax cuts but delay the painful provisions for future years. That’s exactly what Congress has done with the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). Don’t be misled by the name. This partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is, in effect, the largest cut to health care in U.S. history.

The bill is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and reduce financial assistance to those who buy insurance through ACA Marketplace by another $268 billion over the next decade. Admittedly, the bill will provide some tax benefits, primarily to those with higher incomes, but at tremendous costs to many of our friends and neighbors.

States are now scrambling to assess the impact on their residents and budgets. According to Congressional estimates, this bill—combined with anticipated regulatory changes—could leave 16 million more Americans uninsured, including those on Medicaid and those who gained coverage through the ACA marketplaces. The consequences won’t be immediate, but they will be profound.

Budget Deficit Hawks Should be Screaming

If you care about balanced budgets, you should hate this bill. While its supporters tout cuts to federal spending, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” actually increases the national deficit—and shifts significant costs onto states and local governments. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit between 2025 and 2034. Even the business-friendly Tax Foundation, using a model that includes projected revenue growth, estimates a $3.0 trillion increase over the same period. That’s a staggering amount of debt—and a warning sign for anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility.

How OBBBA Rolls Back Health Care Gains

In 2017, Trump also tried to kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but one vote—-Senator John McCain’s in the U.S. Senate—- prevented that from happening. Not this time. Republicans voted in lockstep with the President, and the result threatens to undo much of the progress achieved since the ACA was enacted. By 2023, the uninsured rate in the U.S. had dropped to just 8%—the lowest in history and nearly half of what it was in 2010. Among the elderly, the uninsured rate is below 1%. In Virginia, the ACA and Medicaid expansion in 2018 made a major difference: the Virginia Health Care Foundation reports the nonelderly uninsured rate fell from 14.3% to 7.6% between 2013 and 2023.

Now, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) threatens to unravel these gains. How will this happen?

[NOTE TO READER—MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS WHO SUPPORTED TRUMP REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL WILL HAVE SUCH EFFECTS. WHILE THE ANALYSIS BELOW MAY SEEM DENSE, PASS IT ALONG TO THOSE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE. IF THEY STILL SUPPORT THE BILL KNOWING WHAT IT WILL DO, THAT IS UNFORTUNATE BUT REMAINS THEIR RIGHT]

First, millions will lose Medicaid benefits. The precise numbers will depend on how states interpret the work requirements in the bill (a June, 2025 Urban Institute study found 69% of Medicaid expansion enrollees already work or go to school), but the CBO projects that by 2034, those with Medicaid coverage would decrease by about 7.8 million adults. This is one reason why the bill is so unpopular, even in rural areas known for their conservative politics.

Second, tax subsidies available to citizens to help them purchase private insurance on the health care exchanges will be cut. Experts predict that those insurance premiums will then skyrocket, and many people will drop their insurance simply because of cost. Apparently, Republican Congress members either ignored ---or did not care about ---the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that changes in the subsidies would lead between 3 and 5 million Americans to lose health insurance in the next decade by abandoning the marketplace.

The collapse of the exchanges will also affect hospitals forced to serve those who need care but cannot pay. And since the healthiest are more likely to take the chance of abandoning insurance altogether, the pool of those remaining in the program will be costlier to service, therefore raising health insurance premiums in general.

Moreover, some insurance companies, believing that they will lose money providing health insurance through the marketplaces, may leave the program altogether. In early July, Aetna announced it would pull out of the ACA marketplace in Virginia and 16 other states as part of a strategy to reduce its participation nationwide. If other companies do the same, there will be fewer choices for consumers, and higher prices will likely result. Market forces are strong, and Trump and his allies ignore them at our peril.

If You Like Local Hospitals, Worry about this Bill

A recent analysis by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform indicated that more than 700 rural hospitals nationally already risk closing because of financial problems, including seven in Virginia. This bill will make those challenges greater. First, even if people lose Medicaid or drop out of the exchanges, they will still need treatment and will go to emergency rooms to get it. But with no insurance available to pay for the services, hospitals will either be forced to eat the expenses or turn to their states, which may or may not reimburse this uncompensated care. Academic medical centers like the University of Virginia Health System and VCU Health will be squeezed by new restrictions on what they can charge for care.

But it is a lesser-known provision in the federal legislation that will hurt the most. In the last decade, states were permitted to collect what are called “provider fees” from hospitals, surcharges on all patients for care and services. Those fees were then used by the states to draw down additional federal monies to reimburse hospitals for Medicaid patient care. Under the OBBBA, provider fees will decrease each year beginning 2028, making less money available for states seeking to draw down federal dollars, and likely reducing state reimbursements to hospitals.

At the last minute, the Senate included $10 billion in one-time funding in the bill to lessen impacts on rural communities. Lawmakers from rural areas and swing districts like Virginians Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans, both of whom initially expressed concerns about Medicaid cuts, will likely explain their final support for the bill by referencing this provision.

Don’t let them duck the real impacts! Half of the $10 billion each year will be distributed evenly across states that apply for it. The other half will be distributed by the head of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — currently Dr. Mehmet Oz. But even if states can access the money, it is not enough to fix the problem. Research from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) finds that the money would only offset about one-third of the estimated Medicaid cuts in rural communities.

Watch Your Medicare

Remember Trump and Republican pledges that they would not touch Medicare? Well, this bill potentially does just that. Provisions of PAYGO legislation of 2010 requires certain cuts to federal programs if subsequent legislation increases the deficit. Since the OBBBA will increase the deficit, it would trigger, absent Congressional action, about $500 billion in mandatory cuts to the Medicare program between 2026 and 2034, including a 4% reduction in payments to hospitals. Trump promised not to touch Medicare, but without Congressional action, that is precisely what this bill will do.

State Budgets will Suffer

Reduction in “provider fees” will mean less money coming to states from the federal government. States like Virginia, who were using these to pay their 10 percent cost share for services to the Medicaid expansion population, will have to find another source to replace those lost fees or cut services.

Since the federal reimbursements for Medicaid will decline, states will need to absorb additional costs in their budgets, tighten Medicaid eligibility, or both. Even as the Medicaid population declines, then, state funding obligations will not necessarily follow. The bill imposes new work requirements on recipients and compels states to reduce error rates administering the program. Both are admirable goals, but they come with costs that will be assumed by state and local governments. When work requirements were implemented in Arkansas and Georgia, administrative costs increased dramatically. As part of the 2018 deal to expand Medicaid in Virginia, the state imposed work requirements on the expansion population but abandoned them shortly thereafter when they were found to be unworkable. And hospitals will be seeking larger reimbursements for uncompensated care. Taxpayers will pay, one way or the other.

The Battle Now Moves to the States

Republicans structured many of the OBBBA’s deepest cuts to take effect after the midterms. New rules like Medicaid work requirements won’t begin until 2027, and some analysts say the most severe consequences won’t occur until 2028. The federal government will have to issue guidance to the states about how to implement the bill. Still, the fiscal trajectory is clear: federal Medicaid reimbursements to states are expected to drop by over $1 trillion over the next decade.

Some states will feel the pain more than others. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than half of the cuts in rural health care spending will be concentrated in just twelve states—all of which expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Topping the list is Kentucky (a $12 billion hit), followed by North Carolina and Virginia. Kentucky and North Carolina have Democratic governors and Republican legislatures. Virginia is the opposite, with a GOP governor and Democratic legislative control. Virginia’s Governor Youngkin has embraced OBBBA, dismissing concerns about its effects as “exaggerated” and “made up.” That could be a political miscalculation: polls suggest that Virginia Democrats may secure full control of state government this fall. Four of the twelve hardest-hit states—Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma—are led by Trump-aligned Republicans who have long supported ACA rollbacks.

While states cannot stop the elimination of federal tax subsidies that help people afford Marketplace insurance, their policies will make a huge difference in how their residents will experience the changes. States will still have some control over Medicaid eligibility, implementation, and funding levels. How will they enforce, for example, work requirements? Will they use rural health grants to protect Medicaid recipients’ access to health care—or just channel them into supporting the bottom line of hospitals? Will they use state dollars to replace federal subsidies that will be lost by those who have insurance through the ACA marketplace? State decisions on how to interpret new federal rules and allocate funds will shape how much coverage remains—and for whom.

This is where your vote matters. Virginia and New Jersey both hold statewide elections this fall, and, in addition to elections for the U.S. House and Senate, voters in 36 states will choose governors in November 2026. The OBBBA’s full impact will be determined by these elections. Polls show the public sees through this bill. Hopefully, that awareness will translate into electoral wins that can blunt the damage ahead.

David J. Toscano is an attorney in Charlottesville, Virginia and former Mayor. He served fourteen years in Virginia’s House of Delegates, including seven as the Democratic Leader. He is the author of two books, Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, University of Virginia Press, 2021, and Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020, Hamilton Books, 2022. His FREE Substack, “Fights of Our Lives” discusses threats to Democracy and the role of states.