Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Another coronavirus victim: public access to government

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

California Gov. Gavin Newsom of California issued an executive order allowing local and state bodies to meet on the telephone, cutting the public off from what are typically open meetings.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Advocates of open government are sounding the alarm that local, state and federal officials are too quickly sacrificing public access to the cause of public health during the coronavirus pandemic.

"This is the worst time to be putting up obstacles to access," said Daniel Bevarly, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, a group of state and national organizations promoting access to the meetings and records of government.

Bevarly is referring to a recent flood of emergency legislative changes, courthouse closures, orders from governors and mayors, and legal guidance from attorneys general making it more difficult to watch government in action — and at a time when officials are making sometimes unprecedented economic and public safety decisions in managing the Covid-19 outbreak.


The ability of journalists and citizens to attend and participate in public meetings and obtain public records is a backbone of our democracy. It allows for the informed involvement and input of regular citizens in the decision-making process. In addition, the oversight from the public and the media prevents improper actions before they happen and allows for the exposure of wrongdoing to the cleansing effects of sunshine.

The most common change so far is one that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California made this month by executive order: allowing local and state bodies in the nation's most populous state to meet on the telephone. (Most state public access laws require that the majority of a public body meet together at a location open to the public.)

GOP Gov. Eric Holcomb of Indiana was a little more aggressive in his executive order last week, suspending the requirement allowing for public participation in meetings. His order also temporarily banned telephone requests for public records and suspended one of the initial deadlines that agencies have to respond to records requests.

Carolina Beach, a town of 6,700 on the North Carolina coast just south of Wilmington, provides a good example of what happens when a public body — in an attempt to deal with an emergency — gets itself sideways with open meeting laws.

The Town Council appears to have violated the law last week when — after an influx of students on spring break and with no interest in social distancing — it went behind closed doors to discuss possibly closing the beaches and declaring a state of emergency.

The law requires a public policy matter of that sort to be discussed in a public meeting. Town officials apparently were also unaware they were required to cite, in public, one of the specific reasons the law allows for closing the meeting.

Another open government group, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, is maintaining a running list of changes being made in federal and state access laws in response to coronavirus.

Meanwhile, the National Freedom of Information Coalition, Bevarly's group, issued a statement last week signed by 132 state and national open government organizations saying that technology is available to assure public access and involvement in meetings even if they are not held in a state capital, county courthouse or city hall.

"We strongly urge government branches and agencies to recommit to, and not retrench from, their duty to include the public in the policy-making process," they said."Government bodies should not opportunistically take advantage of the public's inability to attend large gatherings to make critical decisions affecting the public's interest if those decisions can reasonably be postponed."

If meetings must be held, the coalition of groups argued, governments should be sure to tell the public when and where they are happening and how they can participate. Widely available technology should be used to conduct the sessions and a record created for quick posting online.

Regarding government records, the statement advises officials to lean toward public disclosure without requiring citizens to go through a request process that could involve long delays.

Another concern, Bevarly said, is that elected and appointed public officials — many of whom are working from home — make sure they use their government phones and email accounts to communicate about official business and that their texts and emails be archived.

So far in Washington, meanwhile, the number of reporters at the White House and in the Capitol has been curtailed because of the relatively cramped conditions.

But a daily briefing by President Trump and senior officials managing the government's coronavirus response has become a fixture on TV. And access to officials has remained largely unchanged during the negotiations on the $2 trillion economic stabilization package, except that most senators have stayed in their offices and most House members have gone back to their districts.

Bevarly said some governments are woefully behind in their use of technology to engage citizens. "This is a golden opportunity to revisit this kind of engagement," he said.

The rush of changes to access rules during the pandemic started, ironically, as access groups and media organizations celebrated Sunshine Week beginning March 15. The annual event is intended to highlight the importance of open access — sunshine, in a sense — to the proper operation of American democracy.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less