Heidi Pascual's web site

By Neera Tanden, Ryan Mulholland and Adam Conner

Fifty-six years ago, on July 20, 1969, the United States landed a man on the moon, culminating a decade-long race that showcased the ingenuity of America’s public sector, its universities, and its thriving private industry. The moon landing was a singular accomplishment in the history of humanity and a triumph of the U.S. innovation ecosystem. The United States’ unparalleled science and technology advantage, developed in large part through federally funded research and development (R&D) world-class colleges and universities and its openness to the best and brightest from anywhere created not just the technologies that define the modern world but also many of the world’s most successful companies. Now, the Trump administration is dismantling America’s science and innovation lead. The impacts will be felt for decades.


America’s lead in innovation is the product of policies spanning decades, with support of policymakers from both political parties. Public funding for R&D helps generate billions of dollars’ worth of economic activity every year, driving private sector productivity and growth and generating prosperity for communities across the country. ​ -- READ MORE

By Andrea Ducas


America’s health care system is imperfect. Too many people lack coverage health care is too difficult to afford and access to care is inequitable. But, for 60 years, a key source of health care coverage for 1 in 5 Americans—Medicaid—has made tremendous strides toward addressing these challenges. Now, that progress is under unprecedented attack.


Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed congressional Republicans’ One Big “Beautiful” Bill Act (OBBBA) into law, greenlighting the largest cuts to Medicaid in the program’s history. Ten million Americans—including disabled people, veterans, and parents—will lose their coverage as a result of the law, with the bulk of those losses coming from the Medicaid program. For those who are able to stay on Medicaid—especially seniors and people with disabilities—vital benefits will be at risk of being cut as states grapple with onerous new limits on their ability to fund their Medicaid programs.


The consequences will be catastrophic. Hospitals, particularly those in rural communities that disproportionately rely on Medicaid, will be forced to close their doors as uncompensated care costs soar—impacting not just people with Medicaid but also entire communities. -- READ MORE

By Hailey Gibbs & Rosa Barrientos-Ferrer


The Center for American Progress submitted a comment letter to the Health and Human Services Department opposing the agency’s unprecedented notice requiring Head Start programs to verify citizenship status in order for families to qualify for services.


On August 13, 2025, the Center for American Progress submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) opposing the agency’s notice, titled “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) Interpretation of ‘Federal Public Benefit,’” which requires Head Start programs to begin verifying applicants’ citizenship status in order to qualify for services—something these programs have never been required to do in their 60-year history.


In the letter, CAP argues that stripping children of crucial support programs is both senseless and harmful to the communities to which these families belong. HHS should instead focus on supporting Head Start’s mandated goal of promoting school readiness, which can generate significant, long-lasting positive outcomes for children, the economy, and society as a whole. -- READ MORE

By Dan Herman, Robert Benson, & Vishal Gogusetti

In democracies, the military exists to defend the nation from external threats. Yet, even in free societies, leaders have, at times, turned that power inward—blurring the boundary between national defense and domestic repression. When militaries shift from defending the nation to policing its citizens, they risk becoming tools of state repression. History shows that once militaries become entangled in internal politics, reversing the trend can become difficult, as soldiers gain influence civilian leaders grow reliant on force to hold power and checks on executive authority weaken or collapse.


Recent events demonstrate how easily a mature democracy like the United States can edge toward this dangerous terrain. On August 11, 2025, despite violent crime at a 30-year-low, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of the National Guard into Washington, D.C., and federalized D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department—a federal power grab under the guise of crime prevention. This followed the June 2025 deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to suppress protests against Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. This decision came despite strong opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who warned that local police were fully capable of maintaining order and that federal military involvement risked escalating tensions on the ground. -- READ MORE

By Michael Sozan

A remarkably small number of Americans can help stop the nation’s slide into authoritarianism. Political science research has quantified that when a mere 3.5 percent of a nation’s population mobilizes in peaceful protest at a key moment, it becomes nearly impossible for the government to ignore the people’s demands for transformative change. In the United States, that percentage equals approximately 12 million people. If Americans who oppose the Trump administration’s policies effectively mobilize to reach this number, they have a solid road map to ensuring that the government does not ignore their demands on issues such as deporting community members without due process, cutting vital health care and food programs to pay for millionaires’ tax breaks, and engaging in unprecedented power grabs.

The 3.5 percent “rule” explained

Most Americans have no experience in large-scale resistance against a federal government engaged in authoritarian policies. But the 3.5 percent “rule” is a helpful yardstick positing that in almost every relevant instance, no government around the world has withstood a challenge when 3.5 percent of its population peacefully mobilized against it. This rule was developed principally by professor Erica Chenoweth of Harvard University, with foundational underlying research by co-authors Maria J. Stephan and Christopher Shay. ​-- READ MORE

By Mia Ives-Rublee, Mariam Rashid, and Hayley Durudogan

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which targets disparate impact liability, a vital source of legal protection for victims of discrimination. “Disparate impact” is a legal term that describes the consequences of policies and actions that appear neutral but disproportionately affect a protected group of people and often perpetuate historical discrimination. The EO tells the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attorney general, the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the heads of other agencies to stop pursuing disparate impact claims.

This article aims to help affected communities understand what Trump’s executive order means for them and how it affects advocacy work.

What is disparate impact? -- As mentioned above, “disparate impact” is a legal term that refers to policies or actions that may appear neutral but in reality perpetuate historical discrimination that disproportionately, negatively affects a protected class of people, including people who identify with a specific race, color, religion, disability, national origin, and more. -- READ MORE