Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Political grief: A U.S. epidemic stimulated by Project 2025

Woman holding her head in her hands in front of her computer

A woman watches Vice President Kamala Harris' concession speech on Nov. 6 after Donald Trump secured enough voters to win a second term in the White House.

Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

When most people think about grief, they associate it with the death of a loved one. They reflect on past memories, shared experiences and precious moments of life. It is natural for one to yearn for the past, the comfort and safety of familiar times and stability. Now, with the promise of a second term for Donald Trump and the suggested implementation of Project 2025, thousands of U.S. citizens are anticipating a state of oppression driven by the proposition of drastic, authoritarian political policies.


This feeling of overwhelming loss of safety and trust in the government is known as political grief. Minority groups — such as individuals who identify as LGBTQA+, immigrants who are currently residing in the United States with or without visas and women of child-bearing age — are currently experiencing political grief due to the possibility of bills being passed in support of Project 2025’s initiatives.

New concerns about adherence to checks and balances have arisen due to Trump’s suggestion that Republican Senators consider agreeing to recess appointments. This is problematic for two reasons. First, recess appointments allow the president to bypass the time taken by the Senate to vote on the appointment of the presidential Cabinet, judicial openings or any vacancies within the executive branch that may occur when the Senate is not in session. In doing this, Trump could authorize temporary appointments to his Cabinet and expedite Senate legislative action.

Second, by encouraging Republican Senators to adhere to recess appointments, Trump is essentially suggesting that he will be more willing to consider endorsing their rise up the leadership ladder. Additionally, the new Trump administration will be operating with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, increasing the chances that bills regarding initiatives from Project 2025 could be approved.

With these developments, fear of what is to come is now plaguing LGBTQA+ and immigrant families, as well as women and their right to reproductive health. For non-heterosexual families, the possibility of losing their right to marriage, having fostered or adopted children removed from their care or requiring transgender teachers to register as sex offenders are just a few concerns.

Project 2025 also calls for state and local law enforcement to adhere to stricter federal immigration laws. Families of immigrants will now be at risk of expedited deportation following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids of public areas such as schools and religious institutions. These non-violent immigrants would be placed in massive detention centers for months or years while waiting for deportation. Further, immigrants could expect the elimination of visas for children and adults who have come to the United States for education or seeking asylum from war-torn countries, as well as complete denial of access to the U.S. from the southern border.

Project 2025 aims to restrict access to birth control, and eventually eliminate access to medication abortion by nullifying Food and Drug Administration approval for safe, effective and commonly used drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol. Hospitals will be allowed to deny abortion care to women who are at risk of losing their lives due to pregnancy complications, placing more pressure on already overwhelmed and under-funded clinics. Businesses will also be prosecuted for transportation and dissemination of abortion pills and associated medical supplies.

If passed, bills and laws solidifying Trump’s plans will harm hundreds of thousands of citizens, immigrants and women. Project 2025 will instigate the separation of loving families, cause the death of thousands of women, incite nation-wide trauma, displace hundreds of thousands of people and potentially provoke economic collapse due to the major loss of workforce. Even U.S. citizens who are not in these minority populations have begun to experience political grief for their friends, neighbors and colleagues.

In preparation of events to come, many individuals are seeking resources and services to protect their rights. Immigration and LGBTQA+ lawyers will soon be in high demand, as immigrants, residents and citizens fight to maintain their rights in the United States. If you or someone you know is in need of legal or mental health services during this time, please reach out for assistance.

Resources

National Mental Health Hotline: 9-8-8

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-TALK (8255)

The Trevor Project (LGBTQA+ Crisis and Suicide Prevention Hotline): 866-488-7386 Lambda Legal (LGBTQA+ Legal Support System): 212-809-8585

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833, VRS 877-709-5797)

Liley publishes editorial content as well as peer-reviewed scientific publications in the field of behavioral neuroscience.


Read More

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less