Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We took big steps toward a multiracial democracy on Election Day

Michelle Wu being sworn in as mayor of Boston

Michelle Wu was sworn in as mayor of Boston on Nov. 16. She is the first Asian American to lead the city.

Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Ispahani is co-director of Open Society-U.S., overseeing grant making, advocacy, and administrative work in U.S. offices of the Open Society Foundations.

Off-year elections typically produce rough nights for the party in power and this month's vote was no exception. Democrats lost every statewide race in Virginia and narrowly held the governorship in New Jersey — both blue states. Pundits are parsing familiar themes of Democrats in disarray and the GOP's ability to once again inflame the culture wars to their political advantage.

This negative narrative, though, obscures some landmark victories worthy of their own headlines, as they suggest milestones on the longer march toward a truly multiracial democracy.


In Boston, Democrat Michelle Wu became the first Asian American ever elected mayor of Boston. The runner-up was fellow Democrat Annissa Essaibi George, who is Arab American. Wu will succeed the city's acting mayor, Kim Janey, who became the first Black woman to hold the job after Mayor Marty Walsh joined the Biden administration as secretary of labor. This transition marks a sea change in a city not exactly famous for its racial inclusion, having been run for the better part of a century by white men.

In Cincinnati, Aftab Pureval defeated David Mann, a longtime local political leader. Pureval, whose family immigrated from India, becomes the first Asian American to lead his city. In Dearborn, Mich,, state Rep. Abdullah Hammoud became the first Arab-American and first Muslim to lead the city of 109,000, which has long been home to a sizable Arab population. He bested another political veteran, Gary Waronchak, a former state representative and former Wayne County commissioner.

And in Seattle, Bruce Harrell, a former city council president and second-generation Japanese American, has been elected the city's first Asian American mayor.

But those weren't the only firsts for multi-racial democracy on Election Day. Change was on the ballot from Manhattan to Middle America. New York City elected five new city council members from the AAPI (Asian American and Pacific Islander) community, including its first Muslim (in a city of 800,000 Muslims), its first South Asian Americans, and its first Korean Americans. And Duluth, Minn., elected its first Muslim to city office: Azrin Awal, a 25-year-old immigrant from Bangladesh.

These advances are all the more stunning given the wave of hate targeting Asian Americans during the pandemic. According to the latest FBI figures, hate crimes against Asian Americans increased by more than 73 percent in 2020. That number is all the more stark given a documented reluctance among Asian Americans historically to report incidents of hate to authorities.

It is also important to note that several of these electoral victories came in cities without large Asian American populations. Indeed, the AAPI community makes up a relatively small percentage of all voters in places like Boston and Cincinnati. The fact that significant numbers of white voters supported these candidates is a storyline surely as worthy of media attention as the fixation on white suburban swing voters who went Republican on Tuesday.

Pureval summed up the change nicely. When he was first starting out in politics, "[everybody] would tell me: 'there's no way a Brown guy is going to win a countywide seat in Cincinnati.' Now, people tell me, 'I can't run and win because my name is Joe Smith.' So there's a tipping point by which our community's perceived weakness turns into a real strength."

What is equally heartening is how many Americans turned out to vote, despite the tendency for turnout in off-year and midterm elections to drop significantly from presidential election-year levels. Virginia's vote was held following implementation of historic voting reforms, including no-excuse absentee voting, expansion of in-person voting, and removal of a photo voter ID requirement. Parts of the state saw the highest levels of turnout in recent history. Georgia and Iowa also saw substantial turnouts.

This level of civic engagement is encouraging — especially coming on the heels of Donald Trump's endless sore-loser rants about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, and a massive effort to approve voter suppression measures in Republican-controlled legislatures across the country. As the results in Virginia suggest, improving access to the ballot box, and removing impediments that make voting harder, can clearly benefit both parties — and all Americans. It's time for Congress to pass federal protections of voting rights, to ensure free, fair and secure elections across the country in 2022 and beyond. The future of America's multiracial democracy looks bright, if only the people have a chance to exercise their constitutional right to choose their leaders.

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less