IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah


IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.
WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”
In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.
The portrait of Reza Valizadeh stands in the Senate Russell Rotunda in front of images of wrongful American detainees that the Foley Foundation has helped bring home. (Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)
The morning of Wednesday, May 6, the families of the campaign stood together in the Senate Russell Rotunda holding the portraits of their loved ones.
One of the people holding portraits was Neda Sharghi, a former chair of the campaign, whose brother returned to the U.S. in 2023 after being wrongfully detained in Iran for 5 years, convicted of espionage without a trial.
Sharghi said the challenges of individual advocacy reinforce the value of a campaign made up of families.
“Individual families generally have a hard time getting the attention of the media, senior-level officials, and the administration,” Sharghi said. “We decided that we were going to bring our voices together and advocate as a whole organization.”
While people walked through the portraits set up on easels, Congress was out of session, so no lawmakers were spotted.
“For a lot of these families, it’s the last photo they have of their loved one,” said the artist for the campaign, Isaac Campbell. “Art offers so much opportunity for storytelling and interpretation and reflection that I think it’s really the best way to meet people and remind them that these people are not political issues, they’re human beings.”
Valizadeh is among 42 Americans determined to be wrongfully detained overseas by the Foley Foundation. Because the U.S. does not publicly disclose a list of wrongful detentions abroad, the nonprofit advocacy group researches cases and maintains a list. The Foley Foundations names 16 of the 42 whose families requested public advocacy. These people hail from Florida, California, Massachusetts, Texas, New York, Virginia, Michigan, and Washington, D.C. The Bring Our Families Home campaign is a family-led initiative funded by the Foley Foundation.
The Foundation began its work advocating for American hostages and reporter safety in 2014, just 16 days after American journalist James Foley was murdered by ISIS in Syria while covering the civil war.
The concept of the portraits was meant to use the power of art and communicate the humanity behind each individual story.
One of those stories is Zach Shahin, an American businessman arrested in the United Arab Emirates in March 2008. In 2017, a Dubai court sentenced him to spend the rest of his life in prison for a white-collar crime without any evidence, according to his sister-in-law Aida Dagher. Like many families in the campaign, Dagher gave up her career and has worked endlessly to bring her brother-in-law home.
“This is his 19th year,” Dagher said. “We’ve been fighting all the time to get him out. We’re hoping the U.S. government is doing what they should, the UAE government as well. We’re hoping that now finally they will compromise, settle, whatever it takes to release them.”
Wrongfully Detained Americans Overseas
Wrongfully Detained Americans Overseas public.flourish.studio
A Flourish data visualization by Jacques Abou-Rizk
Campbell said the murals are meant to make people stop to think about the scale of what he calls the American hostage crisis.
“It’s hopeful because you look at all those stickers of people coming home, and they far outnumber the people that are still in detainment,” he said. “And that could be the same result for these other families that are in detainment, and hopefully will be, that they’ll come home.”
Among those involved is Ryan Fayhee, a former federal prosecutor and board member of the Foley Foundation who now conducts pro-bono work for families of those wrongfully detained abroad. His pro bono work began with Paul Whelan in 2018, a veteran arrested in Russia for alleged espionage, before being released as part of a United States-Russia prisoner swap in 2024. He now represents Valizadeh, who is being held in Evin Prison in Tehran.
“He’d already been in Evin Prison last July when the Israeli strike targeted the prison,” Fayhee said. “With a continuing blackout in Iran and threats from the IRGC to his family, we really haven’t been able to communicate in any way, and that’s deeply concerning.”
But Fayhee expressed hope over the changing landscape of American hostage and detainee recovery over the past decade. In 2015, after Foley’s murder, President Barack Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive 30, which created the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs and restructured U.S. policy toward terrorist negotiations. In 2020, Congress passed the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, which codified some of the processes set up in the policy directive.
“Even from the time when I began doing work of this sort with Paul Whelan and his family… we’re just light years ahead of where we were in terms of the resources, the personnel, the engagement, the willingness to resolve,” Fayhee said.
Dagher, who lives in Texas, stressed the importance of the Foley Foundation and the campaign in bringing these families together.
“[Zach Shahin’s] wife cries every single day for the last 18 years,” Dagher said. “That’s why I left my career… But I think finally we’ll get him out. I feel that this year they will be out.”
Jacques Abou-Rizk is a graduate student journalist at Northwestern Medill.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Headquarters Building in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON — Nearly a year after President Donald Trump threatened to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a review council he appointed released a final report on Thursday to overhaul the agency by reducing administrative costs and shifting responsibility for disaster response to states.
The review council was created in January 2025 through Executive Order 14180. According to the order, the council, led by Homeland Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was tasked with evaluating and improving the agency's efficacy and disaster response.
Last year, Trump described FEMA as “not a very successful experiment” and “extremely expensive.” He originally called to abolish FEMA outright, but later hedged.
“We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it back to the state level,” the president said in the Oval Office in June.
However, the council approved a report on May 7 that would preserve the agency but ask Congress to downsize personnel and raise the threshold for disaster aid. The report heads to Trump for review. Many recommendations would need congressional approval.
“We need to refocus FEMA and get it back on its mission that it originally was,” Mullin said. Mullin assumed the role of co-chair after former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was fired.
FEMA, part of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinates federal response efforts before, during, and after natural disasters. It aims to reduce risks and support communities before, during, and after these disasters, including providing financial assistance for response efforts such as debris removal and infrastructure repairs.
The report advised reducing administrative costs and transferring responsibility for disaster response to states and local territories, with FEMA taking on a supporting role.
It recommends, for example, that FEMA abandon efforts to help survivors secure long-term housing, saying the agency should instead help temporarily house people whose homes are uninhabitable.
FEMA’s support should “only be reserved for truly significant events,” said Kevin Guthrie, the director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management and a member of the review council.
Florida, along with Louisiana and Texas, has received the largest share of FEMA assistance since 2015, according to Axios. In the meantime, states like Illinois and California say FEMA isn’t delivering aid efficiently.
Thousands of survivors of the 2024 Los Angeles Fires, for example, still await more than $30 billion in federal aid for rebuilding homes and infrastructure.
In the 1990s, it took less than two weeks, on average, for a governor’s request for a major disaster declaration to be approved by the president. It now takes more than a month under the Trump administration, according to analysis from the Associated Press.
This new recommendation to overhaul FEMA under the Trump administration raised concerns for activist groups, which say FEMA is critical for disaster assistance. An advocacy organization called Sabotaging Our Safety, composed of disaster experts and former FEMA employees, criticized the president for deep cuts to the workforce.
“The agency Americans rely on when disaster strikes is measurably less prepared than at any point in recent memory,” the organization said in a report.
The group opposed the council's recommendations.
“Slashing the workforce in half and putting the burden of disaster recovery on the states would not save money. It would cost lives,” according to the report.
The Trump administration implemented, early on, a policy requiring top-level approval for FEMA contracts over $100,000. This policy, aimed at rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse,” delayed $17 million in federal disaster funds in January, according to The New York Times.
When Mullin took over as DHS secretary, he lifted the policy to speed up FEMA grants and reimbursements. Following this decision, more than $1 billion in backlogged funding was released.
FEMA under the partial government shutdown
During the 76-day partial government shutdown, FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund was reduced from nearly $10 billion to roughly $3 billion, forcing the agency to prioritize lifesaving and immediate relief, according to a press release from FEMA.
Non-essential activities, like rebuilding projects and funding for mitigation, were halted. Roughly 4,000 FEMA employees were furloughed, and another 1,600 worked without pay, according to the same press release.
Funding for the Disaster Relief Fund was reinstated on April 30, when the shutdown ended, but the agency faces a backlog of delayed projects.
Samantha Freeman is a graduate of politics, policy, and foreign affairs journalism student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.
Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.
The money the White House is tapping into to pay people like Transportation Safety Administration airport screeners and Coast Guard members was approved by Congress, but not through regular appropriations. DHS is using a pot of $10 billion dollars set aside in last year’s massive budget reconciliation bill – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) – to cover payroll for more than 100,000 employees, the same bill that reserved $75 billion in multi-year operating funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Accessing that money to pay DHS employees, however, is legally dubious. The funds are made available in Section 90007 of the OBBBA until September 2029, but specifically for supporting DHS’s work “to safeguard the borders of the United States.” TSA agents working security lines in U.S. airports for domestic flights are not safeguarding the border, for example. Similarly for FEMA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), parts of DHS substantially focused on domestic security.
Government watchdog groups and other appropriations experts argue that tapping into that $10 billion runs afoul of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which prohibits federal employees from moving funds from a purpose given in law to a purpose not given for the money in law. The law gives teeth to Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Former Senate Budget Committee and Office of Management and Budget staffer Bobby Kogan thought using this section of the law for other purposes was a clear ADA violation.
The Trump Administration made a similar violation during the government shutdown last October by using research and development funds for military personnel pay.
The trouble with the ADA is that it relies on agency heads to report violations to the President and the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of Congress currently controlled by the Republican majorities of the House and Senate. In this case, the president directed the violation and Republicans in Congress do not want GAO to challenge it. Although violating the Antideficiency Act carries with it criminal penalties, no one has ever been prosecuted under it. Unlike the current situation, most violations have been by mistake.
Legal or not, the OBBA funds will run dry at the end of this week based on the rate at which DHS is spending it down.
Congress is moving forward to end the DHS funding lapse. The Senate began the process of budget reconciliation on funding for DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year and beyond this week. Because it allows for expedited consideration of spending and revenue bills, reconciliation will allow the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold holding back this funding in the regular appropriations process, which Democrats have leveraged for more than two months over their concerns about immigration enforcement agencies within DHS.
As the name implies, budget reconciliation requires the House and Senate to agree on which programs will be funded and at what level. That hasn’t happened yet, as some House Republicans want to fund immigration enforcement at a higher level than the Senate and include other items like funding for the Iran war.
Nevertheless, the unchecked ability of the executive branch to use money appropriated by Congress for other purposes violates the bedrock principle of the separation of the power of the purse from the power of the sword, which dates back to the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution of the 17th century. The Constitution grants Congress the power to determine how federal funds will be spent as a check on the presidency. What we’re experiencing now is a Congress and Executive Branch that does not care to check the President to the harm of the government’s democratic structure.
Using the reconciliation process still undermines congressional power in this case. The framework the Senate approved would extend funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for more than three years. Regular appropriations bills generally apply only to one fiscal year. They also carry with them language requiring agencies perform certain oversight-related duties or prohibitions on using funds for specific purposes. ICE and CBP will get a blank check through the next Congress, which, if Democrats retake the majorities, will have to live with it.
DHS Funding During the Shutdown was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.

Journalists gather in front of the Connecticut State Capitol Building during a press conference on SB259 and an anti-FGM art installation
Across the Americas, hundreds of thousands of women and girls are living with or have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). These affected populations are citizens and residents of countries where protections are incomplete, entirely focused on criminalisation, inconsistently enforced, or entirely absent.
FGM is not a “foreign” issue. It is a human rights violation unfolding within national borders, one that all governments in the Americas have the legal and moral responsibility to address.
Glimmers of progress are beginning to emerge across the region. On April 28, 2026, Connecticut state legislators in the United States passed a bill banning FGM and strengthening protections for survivors within the state, a long-awaited victory for survivors and advocates who have spent years calling for action.
As regional governing mechanisms, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), begin to formally recognise FGM as a human rights issue within the Americas, states have more concrete guidance on their obligations to take action to prevent and eradicate this form of violence against women and girls.
Female genital mutilation (FGM), which affects more than 230 million women and girls worldwide, is a grave human rights violation deeply rooted in gender inequality and discrimination. FGM refers to the partial or total removal or other injury to female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
Across the Americas, FGM remains a hidden, poorly documented, and largely ignored practice impacting more than 700,000 women and girls. Although progress has been made throughout the hemisphere to combat various forms of gender-based violence, FGM has remained on the margins of public attention and protection policies.
The occurrence of this harmful practice is formally recognised in the United States, Canada, and Colombia, yet none of these countries has a comprehensive legal framework to address it. While the US and Canada have federal criminal laws, neither country has dedicated prevention or educational provisions. At the state level in the US, while 41 states have enacted specific legislation, these laws vary considerably in their scope and level of comprehensiveness, and nine states still lack any targeted legal protections. In Colombia, despite growing recognition and advocacy, there is currently no national law addressing FGM.
Across Latin America and the Caribbean, where data gaps leave the full extent of the practice almost entirely unmeasured, a persistent myth frames FGM as exclusively an African or Asian phenomenon with no presence in the region. In North America, two parallel misconceptions hinder progress: that FGM is a “global south” problem or that it is confined to specific Indigenous or diaspora communities and therefore does not require a comprehensive national policy response.
These misconceptions contribute to the invisibility of the issue and reinforce the lack of effective measures for its prevention and elimination.
FGM has long been recognised globally as a severe form of gender-based violence and a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights. Equality Now and its partners have collated evidence of FGM in 94 countries, including the US, Colombia, and Canada. Only 59 of those countries have a specific law prohibiting FGM, and considerable improvement is needed to ensure better access to justice and support for survivors.
Numerous human rights mechanisms, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Istanbul Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, affirm that states have a legal and moral duty to prohibit FGM, prevent, and provide survivor-centred support services.
In March 2026, the IACHR, the key regional body of the Organization of American States (OAS), charged with protecting human rights across the Americas, became the most recent inter-regional mechanism to formally recognise the presence of FGM in the Americas and called on states to take comprehensive action.
Grounded in states’ obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention and the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission urged governments to promote dialogue with communities to drive sociocultural change, and to strengthen legal and policy frameworks that ensure early detection, survivor-centered care, and access to services, all grounded in intercultural, gender-responsive approaches and backed by sustained funding.
This landmark acknowledgement followed the first-ever dedicated thematic hearing held by an international human rights mechanism focused on FGM/C in the Americas, just four months prior. The public announcement by the IACHR has the potential to redefine how FGM is understood under regional law, situate the violation within the regional human rights framework, and demand coordinated State action, accountability, and recognition that every woman and girl has the right to live free from this form of gender based violence.
As we approach the end of legislative sessions where pending FGM legislation has been proposed across the Americas, we must acknowledge the narrowing window for governments to act.
Across the Americas, momentum is mounting to enact anti-FGM legislation.
At least 577,000 women and girls are estimated to be at risk or affected by FGM. Federal law currently prohibits the violation through the STOP FGM Act, though recent proposals such as Congressional Bill H.R. 3492 wrongly conflate FGM with gender-affirming care and risks undermining enforcement of anti-FGM protections for survivors nationally.
These developments have sparked an additional drive toward state-level action to comprehensively protect against the practice. Individual state agencies and officials have far greater capacity than federal authorities to directly assist women and girls in local communities. An interactive map by Equality Now and the U.S. End FGM/C Network shares FGM/C legal provisions and gaps in every US state.
In a long-awaited landmark vote, Connecticut legislators unanimously passed Senate Bill 259 on April 28, 2026. After years of sustained advocacy by survivors, FGM advocates, civil society organisations, health experts, and legal policy experts, once enacted, Connecticut will be one step closer to aligning its state legislation with international human rights standards.
Previously, legislators and advocates made six unsuccessful attempts to pass a law addressing FGM in the state. Proposed bills in 2018, 2020, and 2021 aimed at prohibiting FGM or studying its prevalence did not progress beyond the committee stage, while in 2019, a bill was rejected by the State Senate. In 2024, a drafted bill failed to be introduced, and in 2025, a bill was never raised to the House floor for a vote during the legislative session.
Senate Bill 259 will finally establish a state-level ban and provide essential protections for thousands of survivors and girls at risk by establishing the crime of female genital mutilation in Connecticut and setting higher safeguards for girls. The bill would also:
Legislators have until 20 June 2026 to enact Proyecto de Ley No. 440 de 2025 Senado-018 de 2024 Cámara, a bill that would establish the first specific legal framework against FGM in Latin America.
The bill combines prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection obligations, reflecting a comprehensive, survivor-centred, and intersectional approach developed in close collaboration with Indigenous women leaders whose communities are most affected by the practice.
Government health data shows that FGM disproportionately affects Indigenous girls in Colombia. Between 2020 and 2025, 204 cases were documented nationwide, 177 of them involving Indigenous girls, mainly in the departments of Risaralda and Chocó. Experts warn that such figures significantly underestimate the real prevalence due to persistent underreporting of FGM. Without accurate data, assessing the extent of the problem and designing appropriate responses is challenging.
In March 2026, the Senate’s First Commission approved the bill in its third debate, solidifying a significant step forward after years of advocacy. Now, attention turns to the Senate plenary, where the final vote will decide whether it becomes law. For Indigenous women leaders, advocates, and communities who have long called for action, the end of this legislative session will be their defining moment.
The End FGM Canada Network estimates there are more than 100,000 survivors of FGM/C. However, publicly available data estimating the scale of the problem within the country remains scarce.
Under the Canadian Criminal Code section 268(3), any person found guilty of conducting FGM faces up to 14 years imprisonment; however, to date, there have been no criminal prosecutions or convictions for FGM in the country.
Across the Americas, emerging best practice points to the clear conclusion that a sole focus on the criminalization of FGM is not enough to prevent, eradicate, or adequately protect survivors from harm.
Effective legal frameworks must be holistic in ways that combine prevention, education, community engagement, and survivor-centred support services.
Colombia’s bill offers an instructive model in this regard. Rather than centering criminal punishment, it establishes obligations around prevention, intercultural education, mandatory health protocols, and data collection, recognizing that a practice sustained by social norms and community structures requires responses that work within and alongside those communities, not solely against individuals.
Punitive frameworks, when applied in isolation, risk driving the practice underground, deterring survivors from seeking care, and criminalising communities without addressing the conditions that allow FGM to persist.
However, the effectiveness of even the most robust legal frameworks is ultimately dependent on sustained and dedicated funding. Legal obligations must be matched by investment in frontline training for healthcare providers and educators, in community-led prevention initiatives, and in accessible, survivor-centred services. Without this resourcing, laws risk remaining largely symbolic, unable to deliver meaningful protection in practice.
Crucially, legislation must also be carefully drafted to avoid conflating FGM with distinct medical procedures, including gender-affirming care. Such conflation risks undermining both legal clarity and access to essential health services.
In Colombia and beyond, comprehensive approaches in addition to political commitment toward the adoption of legislation and meaningful implementation will be essential to translate these efforts into sustainable protections for all women and girls within the Americas.
Governments, regional bodies, civil society, and advocates must work together to take collective action to align national laws, ensure public accountability and monitoring, and ensure survivor support. Fragmented approaches, isolated laws, underfunded programs, or short-term political attention will not deliver lasting change. A coordinated response, grounded in shared responsibility and sustained collaboration, can.
Mel Bailey is the Communications Officer at North America and Ending Sexual Violence.
From Colombia to Connecticut: The urgent need to end FGM in the Americas was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t