The central problem is that Trump thought the Iranians would, in his words, “cry uncle” after he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the first air assault on Feb. 28, apparently not realizing that the Islamic Republican Guard Corps would double their resolve to fight back. To use another of Trump’s terms, they had no idea how many cards Iran had to play. 

Most analysts of the region did understand, which is why the U.S. never succumbed to the entreaties over the past 47 years by the likes of Netanyahu and war hawks in Congress, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to attack the country. They understood that Iran could strangle the global oil supply by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and it’s been clear for some time that Iran had the capability of endangering oil production facilities all over the region with their drones and missiles. This is one reason why American allies like Saudi Arabia are starting to panic that the U.S. is opening them up to even more destruction. 

Iran still has that card up its sleeve, but everyone knows it’s there because they showed it back on March 18, when Israel pushed the envelope and bombed one of Iran’s biggest gas fields and Iran retaliated by damaging the world’s largest natural gas export plant in Qatar that will take years to repair. After that Trump declared a ceasefire that required minimal concessions from Iran. That was pretty much when it was all over. 

Robert Kagan in the Atlantic pointed out that even if Trump were to follow through on his threat to end Iran’s civilization with a massive bombing campaign or hit them as a parting shot before leaving the region, the Islamic Republic has shown they have the willingness and capacity to go out in a blaze of glory — and catastrophically cripple the world’s energy supply. As Kagan put it, “if this isn’t checkmate, it’s close.”

So what’s a bored, frustrated president to do? Trump knows by now he can’t bomb his way to victory, and it doesn’t look like his blockade is making any difference. He can just leave and say he won, but unless the strait is open even he can’t sell that lemon, not even to the MAGA faithful, and not with gas prices hitting a national average of $4.52 — and rising above five dollars in Nevada, Oregon, Washington state, Alaska and Hawaii, and more than six dollars in California.

But Trump may have an audacious plan: yet another military operation, but one that would be much closer to home. 

That may sound barmy, what with all the ships being deployed in and around the Arabian Sea for weeks already, and reports that the military is running out of munitions. But CNN is reporting that there has been a steep increase in military intelligence-gathering flights over Cuba. 

Trump has been talking about invading and occupying Cuba for months, but that prospect has seemed less likely as the quagmire in Iran has developed. His eagerness to take action against the island nation was more or less a holdover of the giddy days in January when the U.S. was kidnapping Venezuela’s president and taking over their oil fields with no resistance. Trump apparently thought that operation went so smoothly because everyone was awestruck by his manly power and strength, and that he’d been foolish to avoid war all this time. It was easy! Now, the thinking seems to go, an invasion of Cuba could be just the ticket to remind the world of his strength — and to distract from his failure in Iran. 

The president has said publicly that he would have “the honor of taking Cuba,” and with the U.S. running a blockade on the country for months, to all intents and purposes it has already taken military action there. On May 1 he said he was considering sending the USS Abraham Lincoln to Cuba to force an immediate surrender. It’s currently in the Arabian Sea, but he seems to think it could make “ a little excursion” to topple the government and take it over. Trump even said as much — that it could “come in, stop about 100 yards offshore, and they’ll say: ‘Thank you very much. We give up.’

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

As Axios noted, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s “escalating rhetoric” is raising the possibility of an imminent military operation against Cuba. Then there are their actions.

On May 5, Rubio attended a conference at the military’s Southern Command in Miami, where he and military leaders discussed “efforts to counter threats that undermine security, stability and democracy in our hemisphere.” Considering the dumpster fire that is U.S. foreign policy at the moment one would think Rubio would have more important things to do — that is, unless some kind of military operation is really on the table. Otherwise it would just be a major coincidence that Rubio and Marine Corps Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of Southern Command, posed for a photo in front of a map of Cuba.

Two days later, Rubio announced a new round of sanctions against the island that targeted its military and a state-owned energy company. This accompanied the news that the State Department is bolstering a South Florida disaster-preparedness supply center.

The administration no doubt believes the military can execute another Venezuela-style operation, and maybe it can. After suffering from years of economic hardship that has been made worse under the American blockade, Cuba is weak. It certainly wouldn’t be too hard to take the country. The real question is what happens then. 

“[Trump’s] done regime change in two nations, and hard-liners are still running things,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told MS NOW recently after another war powers resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to use military action, including in Cuba, was defeated in the Senate. “So it’s not like he has produced a Venezuela for Venezuelans or an Iran for Iranians. The U.S. has a very poor track record of successfully executing regime change, particularly in the Americas.”

It’s unclear who would be running Cuba. There has been talk of making Rubio president, although Trump has said that he would actually be the “acting president” after they go in, a job he would no doubt relish. The general contractor in chief could really sink his teeth into rebuilding that little island country in his image. I’m sure they could use a big beautiful ballroom.

The post What’s a bored Donald Trump to do? Apparently, target Cuba appeared first on Salon.com.

In America’s political imagination, Democrats live in big cities, are racially and ethnically diverse, and college-educated. Republicans live in rural America and are working class. Red State America has been fully MAGA-fied; big cities and blue states are dominated by “out of touch liberals,” “the radical left” and “wokeness.”

But this is a flat, stereotypical picture of the country’s political and social life. Polls and other research consistently show that, from healthcare to the economy, rural and urban Americans actually agree on a wide range of public policy issues.

Conflict entrepreneurs and extremists like Donald Trump have little incentive to unify the American people in service to the common good, which makes the task of healing the nation’s dysfunctional politics and successfully navigating its democracy crisis especially challenging. It will require convincing urban and rural Americans alike that they have more in common than what divides them.

The Washington Post’s Casey Parks recently profiled a small group of activists in Oregon doing this work by hosting informal town halls and small gatherings where they model respectful conversation, civility, shared problem-solving and a healthy civic life. The effort is led by Steve Radcliffe who, after being moved to action by the 2016 presidential election, signed up to volunteer for Braver Angels, a nonprofit advocating political civility, and became co-chair of the organization’s Oregon Rural-Urban Project, establishing a kind of exchange program where rural and urban residents visit each other’s communities. Radcliffe hoped they would formulate a set of bipartisan recommendations to the state legislature.

At a recent meeting in rural Wasco, population 417, Radcliffe and the five volunteers joining him met with eight townspeople, including one woman who blamed the state’s “urban liberal supermajority in the legislature” for ignoring the will of rural voters. Democrats, she said, could “pass any bill [they] like without every garnering support from the other side.”

“That’s why we don’t feel listened to,” she concluded, “because they don’t have to listen to us.”

Radcliffe responded that “It shouldn’t be this hard.” More Americans need to “listen respectfully, speak politely. If we all did that, we might be able to get some place.”

What Radcliffe described to the small group is what political scientists and philosophers call “deliberative” and “communicative” democracy — the notion that legitimate political outcomes and consensus can come from conversation and structures that facilitate the participation of more people in decision-making.

Those sentiments are widely shared. Polls and other research show that the American people want the nation’s leaders to turn down the political temperature. Politicians on both sides of the partisan divide fight with each other too much, many believe, and have lost touch with “regular Americans” like them.

The road to the Age of Trump and American fascism goes straight through the divide between rural and urban America.

In 2024, Trump won 94% of rural counties. Republicans and the MAGA coalition have used gerrymandering, voter suppression and other tools to maintain de facto one-party rule over red states and rural America. This imperils American democracy because there is no check or moderating influence on right-wing extremism. The Constitution and other structural features of American politics amplify this dynamic by giving a disproportionate amount of power to rural states; with 39.6 million residents, California has the same representation in the Senate as Nebraska, which has just over two million people.

For decades, the Republican Party and the right-wing have weaponized “culture war” issues such as “guns, god and abortion” in combination with racism and white racial resentment — and hostility to non-white immigrants — and economic anxiety. The result has been an “us versus them” narrative of “takers”, “welfare queens,” “invaders” and “out of control criminals” in racially diverse urban centers and Democratic-led states, while rural parts of the country, which are majority white, are portrayed as being filled with patriots and “hard-working real Americans.”

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is what Radcliffe and his group of volunteers are up against. On a practical level, organizing in rural red-state America is difficult and potentially dangerous. Democrats risk alienating their family and friends, or losing their jobs and other community support. There is also a fear of being harassed or targeted for violence.

The need to come together across the political divide to find common solutions to shared concerns depends primarily on a sincere desire for real dialogue. But what if that mutual desire and respect — and the infrastructure to facilitate it — do not exist? Moreover, what if the political divides and echo chambers are so strong that loyalty to Trump, MAGA, White Christian Nationalism and the Republican Party are now such a core part of a person’s identity that they reject reality, facts and norms of basic civility toward their fellow Americans who are outside of their political tribe?

There is hope that Trump’s MAGA followers and others who support today’s Republican Party will eventually survey the destruction and have an epiphany — a moment of revelation and moral reckoning that returns them to normal politics. But for a variety of psychological and emotional reasons, this is unlikely to happen on a large scale.

In terms of realpolitik, the Democratic Party will need to do the work of going to rural America and presenting an alternative vision for the country. They may not be able to convert MAGA diehards, but they can at least compete for fence sitters and other persuadable Republicans and independents — and sow a populist message that might one day yield an electoral harvest.

Rural America was not always owned by the right-wing. From Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to Jimmy Carter’s winning campaign in 1976, Democratic Party built a durable coalition by making rural voters feel seen and heard with policies that responded to their needs and demands. As Howard Dean did with his 50-state strategy — which paid political dividends in 2008 when Barack Obama won more rural votes than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton — the white rural vote needs to be contested and not just surrendered to Trump’s fake authoritarian populism.

But just talking to each other in town halls and other more personal gatherings across the rural and urban divide will not be a panacea for the country’s democracy crisis in the Age of Trump. As seen on Jan. 6 and beyond, a significant portion of the current Republican base and the MAGA movement rejects the basic premise that their political opponents are fellow citizens worth respecting and talking to at all as equals.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary of independence, the country feels more divided –– and more exhausted and broken — than at any point in recent memory. Worse, there are several generations of Americans who do not even know what a healthy civic and political life looks like in this country. Donald Trump’s two non-consecutive presidencies, and the years of dysfunction that preceded them, is the whole of their formative political experience. 

Steve Radcliffe and his associates have it right. America needs a national reunion to move forward, and it needs to begin locally.

The post Can rural-urban dialogue fix America’s broken democracy? appeared first on Salon.com.

In late April, the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais ushered in the worst-case scenario for Democrats in the midterms, as well as for minority voters in the South, who could see their representation wiped out in 2026.

The decision paved the way for states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina to redraw their congressional districts to be more favorable for Republicans, potentially wiping out every Democratic leaning seat in these states and delivering Republicans as many as six new seats before the midterms.

On April 21, Virginia voters approved a proposed redistricting plan. But last Friday, a decision from the Virginia Supreme Court overrode voters and wiped that decision out, siding four to three with Republicans who sued to block the maps, making the scenario even worse for Democrats.

The combination of the Callais decision and the Virginia Supreme Court ruling have, in the course of a few weeks, dramatically darkened the midterm picture for Democrats, who are aiming to retake the House and Senate in November.

Prior to these two decisions, Democrats had more or less fought Republicans to a draw in the mid-decade redistricting battle, which was kicked off by President Donald Trump last August after his numbers began to slip in the polls near the beginning of his term. Between last August and the beginning of May, Republicans have already delivered gerrymanders in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. Republicans in Louisiana and Alabama have already suspended their ongoing primary elections, so they can redraw the maps in their favor. Tennessee and South Carolina are expected to follow.

In response, Democrats have redrawn maps in California, and likely gained a seat in Utah, after the state redrew its maps following a court ruling that its previous map was unlawfully gerrymandered. Virginia was set to deliver Democrats as many as four seats before the court order.

While there is still a long-shot scheme to redraw the maps in Virginia despite the court order, election analysts largely expect the current maps — except for those states in the Deep South taking advantage of looser racial gerrymandering laws — to be the maps that the midterms play out on. That’s because in many states, elections are already underway, and most state governments aren’t as ready to suspend elections as the governments in Louisiana and Alabama.

Geoffrey Skelley, the chief elections analyst at Decision Desk HQ, told Salon that under more normal circumstances, it would’ve been too late to redraw maps, even when the Callais decision came down at the end of April.

“There have been situations where states have delayed their primaries after initially starting them,” Skelley said. “But to do it so close, and even when early voting has begun in some places — or even the idea of redoing primaries because you change the lines — is something that there’s not really any recent precedent for.”

Even considering the new maps, however, Skelley said that in his estimation, Democrats are still favored to retake control of the House in November. What Republicans have managed to do with their redistricting push was to raise their baseline of seats they can be expected to control, which will likely chip away at any incoming Democratic majority, but isn’t likely to prevent it, at least if current trends continue.

“I do think Republicans, in the wake of all this, are in a better position to potentially hold on, but because the national environment is just pretty bad for the GOP,” Skelley said. “But in midterm years, in conditions like this, we would tend to see a sort of swing toward Democrats that’s large enough to overcome this.”

For reference, DecisionDesk HQ’s polling average for the generic congressional ballot, which measures whether voters prefer one party or the other for congressional races without attaching a specific candidate’s name, has Democrats up 5.9 points over Republicans, more than enough to usher in a Democratic House. This average has also improved by about 0.6 points over the past month.

Logan Phillips, the founder of Race to the WH, told Salon in an interview that he estimates that Democrats need to maintain, at the very least, about a 3.5 point advantage to stand a good chance of winning the House. He credits this relatively low requisite advantage to a candidate recruitment advantage for Democrats, and points to 2024 as an example of Democrats overperforming generic ballot preference in actual election results.

In 2024, Phillips explained, Democrats lost the popular vote in the House by about 2.6 points, but were only five seats away from a House majority, with five seats making up about 1.1% of all House seats. This was due to overperformance in specific races and in Phillips’s estimation, this could happen again in 2026.

“They’ve been getting people that are more experienced at winning elections, that are doing a better job at fundraising, and that don’t have to pass the loyalty test to Trump to be able to get that nomination,” Phillips said. “This isn’t true for all races, but on average, more Democrat primary voters are focusing a little bit more on which candidate can win, and so I think as a result, they’re probably going to overperform whatever their performance is nationally.”

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

This means that Democrats could win the House in 2026, which would buy them time to redraw district maps in other states ahead of the 2028 election. This would mean that Democrats could respond in kind to GOP gerrymandering in states like Virginia, Illinois, New York and potentially California again.

Miles Coleman, the associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said that this is the sort of scenario he expects to see play out ahead of 2028, but that this could also basically be the end of the line for partisan gerrymandering, if only because there are no states left for parties to squeeze favorable seats from.

“One of the things the Callais decision basically did is it guaranteed that this redistricting arms race is going to continue into 2028. Democrats have some states, like Colorado, where they could probably gain three or four seats, but they just didn’t,” Coleman explained.

In states like Colorado, where the government has empowered an independent commission to redraw the state’s maps, leaders in state government didn’t move fast enough to redraw lines ahead of the 2026 cycle. But as the race to the bottom in redistricting continues, Coleman expects them to revisit their state’s lines. With that being said, there’s not an obvious avenue for Democrats to respond to the Republican redistricting wave ahead of the midterms. Coleman advised against ruling anything out just yet, especially when looking ahead to the 2028 maps.

“Where there’s a political will, there’s frequently a way. At the start of this, it looked like Indiana could redraw its lines, but that Virginia and California would not be able to respond the way that they did,” Coleman said.

The post Gerrymandering can’t fix the GOP’s voter problem appeared first on Salon.com.

On Dec. 24, 2025, Angela Lipps, a Tennessee grandmother, was released after spending five months in jail because facial recognition software had incorrectly connected her to fraud crimes in North Dakota, a state she had never visited. Police had arrested her at gunpoint while she was babysitting her four grandchildren.

These are unfortunate examples of how AI can lead to mistreatment of people because of technical flaws as well as misplaced human faith in the technology’s supposed objectivity. These cases involve different tools, but the underlying issue is the same. AI systems produce probabilities, and people treat them as certainties.

We are researchers who study the intersection of technology, law and public administration. In researching how police departments use AI and how digital technologies operate in a democratic society, we have seen how quickly the shift from probabilistic prediction to operational certainty happens in practice.

AI policing tools are used in dozens of U.S. cities, although no public registry tracks the full footprint. The tools ingest historical crime data and score neighborhoods on predicted risk so officers can be routed toward the resulting hot spots. The mechanism is straightforward, but its consequence is not. Once a system signals a possible threat, the question is no longer how certain the prediction is but what to do about it. A statistical output turns into a deployment decision, and the uncertainty that produced it gets lost on the way.

A matter of probabilities

When generative AI models such as ChatGPT or Claude respond to human requests, they are not searching a database and pulling out facts. They are predicting the most likely answer based on patterns in data they have been trained on. When asked, “Who invented the light bulb?” the models do not go to a source or fact-check a finding. They generate a statistically probable answer which is “Thomas Edison.” The reply might be right, but it might not capture the full story – such as Joseph Swan’s parallel invention at the same time as Edison’s. The danger arises when people believe that the model is retrieving truth rather than generating likelihoods.

This distinction matters. The most probable response is not the same as a factually verified answer, complete with context.

This reality can be highly problematic for policing and law. For example, when law enforcement agencies use AI systems trained on geographical data to estimate where criminal activity is likely to occur, the algorithms analyze historical crime data and geographic patterns. These systems generate statistical risk scores or heat maps for locations based on prior incidents. But such predictions may have little bearing on who was involved in a new crime in the area, even if an algorithm generates information that sounds authoritative.

Some researchers have argued that predictive policing systems do not increase the likelihood that racial minorities will be arrested more often relative to traditional policing practices. The broader concern, however, is not limited to measurable disparities in arrest outcomes alone. It is about how probabilistic predictions can become standardized operational decisions absent further verification.

Artificial intelligence researchers caution against using these models in isolation for crime and legal proceedings or decision-making. Research at the University of Virginia’s Digital Technology for Democracy Lab with police chiefs shows that some law enforcement groups follow strict policies that dictate when technology is used in tandem with, or in place of, human discretion, while others have no such policy.

What most users do not realize is that AI systems rarely produce binary answers: yes or no, a positive identification or a negative one. They generate probabilities. Some systems assign scores that assess the system’s confidence in a prediction. In those cases, engineers set a confidence threshold, a level of certainty that determines when the system should trigger an alert about a possible threat. You can think of this threshold as settings on a control knob. A 95% confidence level, for example, indicates that the model considers its interpretation to be highly likely.

A low threshold catches more potential threats but increases false alarms. A high threshold reduces mistakes but risks missing real dangers. Either way, these algorithmic thresholds are often invisible to the public and are set quietly by vendors or agencies, even though they shape when police action begins.

Where to draw the line

In medicine, these kinds of trade-offs are explicit. Diagnostic tools are calibrated on the relative harm of different errors. In infectious disease settings, for instance, systems that detect infections are often designed to accept more false positives to avoid missing contagious individuals. Then medical professionals look into the human cases. And the algorithm-based decisions are subject to professional standards, ethics reviews and regulatory oversight.

In policing, an AI system must balance false positives, where the system flags a threat that does not exist, and false negatives, where it fails to detect a real danger. The trade-off carries significant consequences. A lower threshold may generate more alerts and allow officers to intervene earlier, but it also increases the risk of mistaken identifications, which happened to Angela Lipps, or escalated encounters like the one Taki Allen experienced. A higher threshold may reduce wrongful interventions but could allow legitimate threats to go undetected.

Some law enforcement agencies argue that acting on imperfect signals is preferable to missing serious risks. But lowering the bar for algorithmic alerts based on probabilistic estimates effectively expands the number of people subjected to police attention. It is important to realize that these thresholds are not neutral features of the technology; they are choices embedded by the creators in the model’s code. Decisions about where to draw the line determine when an algorithmic suspicion becomes a real-world police action, even though the public rarely sees or debates how those thresholds are set.

Limits of optimization

Developers often use several methods to determine where to set a confidence threshold. Techniques such as “receiver operating characteristic curve analysis” examine how changing the threshold for an alert alters the balance between correctly identifying real events and mistakenly flagging harmless ones. Precision–recall analysis examines a similar trade-off, asking how accurate the system’s alerts are relative to the number of incidents it successfully detects.

These approaches could help calibrate systems more responsibly by testing how often an algorithm wrongly flags people or locations. Fine-tuning can improve system performance. But the techniques cannot resolve the underlying question of how much algorithmic uncertainty society is willing to tolerate.

In law, legal standards of proof determine how convincing evidence must be before a judge or jury can rule in favor of a plaintiff or defendant. Courts use formal standards of proof depending on the stakes, such as probable cause, preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. These standards reflect a societal judgment about how much uncertainty is acceptable before exercising legal authority. A court does not accept a guess or a prediction; it follows a process to weigh evidence. Unlike humans, an AI model does not usually say, “I’m not sure.” A model typically has confidence in its reply, even when the answer is incorrect.

Stakes are rising as AI enters the courtroom, law enforcement, the classroom, the doctor’s office and the public sector. It is important for people to understand that AI does not know things the way many assume it does. It does not distinguish between “maybe” and “definitely.” That is up to us. We believe that technologists should design systems that admit uncertainty and need to educate users about how to interpret AI outputs responsibly.

Maria Lungu, Postdoctoral Researcher of Law and Public Administration, University of Virginia and Steven L. Johnson, Associate Professor of Commerce, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post AI can lead to false arrests and wrongful convictions appeared first on Salon.com.

Welcome to my second legislative session as CNA’s executive director. We have just wrapped up another Nurses Day at the Capitol, and yes that means it takes over two months from article submission to print magazine, but I digress.

The Colorado Nurses Association represents all nurses in Colorado, and through ANA, all nurses across the United States. Over the past year, CNA has increased conversations and collaboration with groups like CCBN, ENA, AWOHHN, public health nurses, and CONL. We hope to make connections with long term care nurses. Those connection inform, guide, and improve CNA’s advocacy work by bringing in the expertise of these other groups.

As I often tell groups when invited to speak, representation often means telling legislators “please include nurses” as we did for HB26-1102 and SB26-008. Another bill that stands out was HB26-1107 which started out as a transparency bill for families looking at dementia centers and turned into a bill allowing CNAs to give injections, allowing the Board of Nursing to figure out what injections meant, what education these CNAs should have, and how the nurse might be held responsible even if not present. Working with a number of other legislators, we were able to get that part of the bill removed. We also work on bills that impact our patients, like SB26-041 which would have required notification to the attorney general of certain mergers among healthcare providers. While research finds such mergers reduce access and increase costs, we also heard from nurses who lost their job or had to work in increasingly difficult situations after mergers. Notably, we are just passed halfway through this session so I am certain other bills will come up. You should receive this issue of the Colorado Nurse right about the same time we hold our wrap-up Town Hall to go over all the bills CNA has taken action on. We hope you can join us for that look back.

Finally, I ask you to consider your goals. Do you want to network with other nurses, making connections and discussing how nursing can get better? Do you want to be more active in health policy – from your employer up to running for office? Do you want to learn, demonstrate, and hone your leadership skills? The Colorado Nurses Association can help. We have several groups working on the Nurse Practice Act and other legislation. You can make nursing better by being part of those discussions or just responding to our surveys when we ask “what problems are you experiencing?” We are always looking for nurses to provide testimony to the legislature, Board of Nursing, or other groups. (I look forward to the day we have as many nurses testifying in support of a bill as there were therapists testifying in support of an AI bill.) For leadership, nominations for our Board positions will open in a couple of weeks. We are excited about our updated strategic plan and where it will take CNA and nursing through the work of the CNA Board and staff and we need leaders to chart that path.

Last issue had telephone triage and this month has post-operative pain as examples of nurse implemented change making a difference. I look to each of you to keep doing great things while making sure you share your ideas and lead change in nursing.

In today’s complex healthcare landscape, nurses are called not only to provide expert clinical care but also to lead change, inspire others, and build resilient teams. At the heart of these transformative efforts lies the power of vision, a clear sense of purpose and direction that unites individuals and propels the nursing profession forward.

Why Vision Matters in Nursing

Vision is more than a grand statement; it is the guiding force that shapes our daily actions, long-term goals and generates our hope for the future of health care. We each are called to cultivate individual compelling visions that enhance our ability to navigate the daily unpredictable challenges in our quest to meet patients’ needs. In our daily practice, we adapt to the evolving patient needs and remain steadfast in our commitment to excellence. Vision helps us persevere through disappointments and setbacks that we have no control over. When nurses and organizations articulate a shared vision, they create a sense of belonging and motivation, fostering innovation and continuous improvement. Thus, the improvement in our patient outcomes aligns with Colorado Nurses Association’s position statement on the social determinants of health: “Politics, policies, and health outcomes are innately linked. Nurses in the United States are in a pivotal position to influence these cycles to reduce disparities and improve population health”. SDOH. No matter where you are in your career, no matter how old or how young you are, you can reassess your career strategies and focus on fulfilling your purpose. One may ask; how can I know what my vision is? What if I have multiple interests that seem like a far reach? How can I set the right priorities for my career? How can I make my vision a concrete reality? Those are all great questions to ponder. Your vision influences your priorities and pursuit of purpose. We all can recognize and appreciate Michelangelo more than five hundred years after he lived, due to his compelling passion for art.

Vision as a Catalyst for Growth

Throughout my career as a clinician, educator, and leader, I have witnessed the transformative impact of vision. Nurses who connect their work to a larger purpose, whether it is promoting health equity, advancing evidence-based practice, or mentoring the next generation, are more likely to experience fulfillment and resilience despite the challenges we are facing today in our communities. Vision empowers us to see beyond obstacles, seek solutions, and inspire others to join us on the journey.

Cultivating Vision in Practice

Start by reflecting on your personal purpose statement and setting clear goals. Ask yourself what you are inspired to do? What aligns with where you are in your career? Are you in a job that is a good fit for what you are passionate about? Don’t put limitations on yourself just because you don’t have all the tools or connections that you need in the moment. We know that a written personal statement coupled by a vision fuels passion. Write out your personal mission statement. Ask yourself where you want to be one, five and ten years from now. The power of vision influences the creation of a framework for one’s preferences and unites us as nurses in pursuit of a brighter future. By embracing and sharing a clear vision, we inspire ourselves and those around us to reach new heights, drive meaningful change, and uphold the highest standards of care. Let us continue to lead with vision and purpose together, we can shape the future of nursing in Colorado.

Nurses can take action to protect patients to the extent possible, while adhering to legal requirements. Although finding this balance can be challenging, it is important for nurses to avoid becoming victims of legal action themselves. 

Effects of ICE enforcement

One of the most problematic effects of ICE enforcement in general is fear—patients may avoid seeking healthcare because of deportation concerns, which can lead to worsening of chronic healthcare conditions and delayed treatment of new ones. 

In the healthcare setting, ICE agents can disrupt care and increase stress for all patients, even those who aren’t targeted by the agents. Stress isn’t limited to patients: Healthcare staff who are noncitizen immigrants may worry about deportation. 

Rights and requirements

Nurses need to understand their patients’ rights. A guide for healthcare providers from the Physicians for Human Rights and National Immigration Law Center (NILC) notes that all patients, regardless of immigration status, have the right to emergency care (under the Emergency Medical and Labor Act); the right to privacy (under HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996]; and the right to equal protection (under the Constitution). 

In the case of HIPAA, patient information is protected and can only be disclosed with the patient’s consent or a valid court order. (HIPAA protections also cover those in ICE custody.)

The National Immigration Law Center notes another patient protection: The Fourth Amendment prohibits illegal searches or seizures. Legality is based on whether someone has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, such as in a hospital room.

However, nurses should be aware that ICE agents can review any information that is in “plain view” (such as a computer screen with a patient’s record visible to someone standing in front of a desk). This concept extends to anything within “plain hearing” (such as two clinicians discussing a patient in a public hallway). 

Finally, the Physicians for Human Rights/NILC guide notes that although some states now have legal requirements to ask about immigration status, patients are not required to answer.

Advance preparation

Organizations need to establish policies for handling visits by ICE agents. Nicole Exeni McAmis, MD, suggests including these elements:

• designated point of contact, such as an administrator or legal counsel
• a detailed protocol as to how initial interactions with ICE should be handled, including verifying the warrant
• the need for HIPAA compliance (not disclosing information without a valid warrant or patient consent)
• not documenting immigration status in the medical record unless it’s medically relevant
• informing patients of their rights 
• training and education of staff, including HIPAA compliance, de-escalation techniques, and how to recognize a valid warrant (see sidebar #1). (Organizations should document education provided.)
• Documentation requirements for ICE interactions.
• The NILC notes that agents can enter public areas such as lobbies and waiting areas but can be barred from private areas such as the OR unless they have a valid warrant. This makes it essential for hospitals to clearly label public and private areas.
• At the individual level, the Physicians for Human Rights/NILC guide notes that nurses and other clinicians can
• Reassure patients that their immigration status does not affect the care they receive. Explain HIPAA and other privacy requirements.
• Avoid asking patients about their immigration status. If the information is needed, keep it separate from the medical record. If state law requires asking a patient about immigration status, let them know they are not required to answer.
• Address misinformation. For example, dispel rumors about hospitals reporting immigrants, which can inhibit people from seeking the care they need.
• Share information about patients’ rights in languages spoken by those served by the organization. 
• Keep records secure and be careful that computers and patient information are not visible (in “plain view”).

Nurses in leadership and educational roles should ensure that staff receive training on how to respond to an ICE agent (see sidebar #2). 

Protecting patients, following the law

It can be difficult for nurses, who are committed to caring for patients, to remain calm when ICE agents arrive in the healthcare setting seeking to detain a patient. Having a policy in place and providing education before this situation occurs can ease anxiety and also facilitate patients’ understanding of their rights. Ultimately, nurses have a responsibility to protect patients while adhering to the law. In fulfilling this responsibility, nurses can help patients, while protecting themselves from legal action.

Cynthia Saver, MS, RN, is a medical writer in Columbia, Md.

References

Hatfield G. CNOs, here’s how to prepare for ICE agents in hospitals. Health Leaders. 2025. https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/cno/cnos-heres-how-prepare-ice-agents-hospitals

McAmis NE. Responding to ICE in emergency departments: protecting patients and navigating legal obligations. EMResident. 2025. https://www.emra.org/emresident/article/ice-in-the-ed

National Immigration Law Center. Warrants and subpoenas: what to look out for and how to respond. 2025. https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Subpoenas-Warrants_.pdf

National Immigration Law Center. Health care providers and immigration enforcement: know your rights, know your patients’ rights. 2025. https://www.nilc.org/resources/healthcare-provider-and-patients-rights-imm-enf/

Physicians for Human Rights, National Immigration Law Center. Health care and U.S. immigration enforcement: what providers need to know. 2025.

Reprinted with permission from NSO.

About warrants

The National Immigration Law Center notes the differences between two types of warrants: judicial and administrative.

A judicial warrant is issued by a judicial court and is signed by a judge or magistrate judge. It formally authorizes a law enforcement officer to make an arrest, seize property, or conduct a search. Judicial warrants must be complied with. Note, however, that a warrant signed by an immigration judge is not a judicial warrant. 

To be valid, a judicial warrant must be issued by a judicial court, signed by a state or federal judge or magistrate, state the address of the premises to be searched, and be executed within the time period specified on the warrant. 

Clinicians should check the scope of the search area. For example, in a hospital setting, it might state the emergency department, which means the agents cannot search other areas of the hospital.

An administrative warrant authorizes a law enforcement officer from a designated federal agency, such as ICE agent, to make an arrest or seizure. It can be signed by an “immigration judge” or “immigration officer.” It does not authorize a search, but in certain circumstances, it may authorize a civil arrest or seizure. 

In addition to these, ICE agents may present an arrest warrant. If it meets the requirements noted in the judicial warrant section above, do not interfere with the arrest of the person. However, you may document or record the interaction in case excessive force or violation of civil rights occurs. 

Sources: National Immigration Law Center. Warrants and subpoenas: what to look out for and how to respond. 2025. https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Subpoenas-Warrants_.pdf; Physicians for Human Rights, National Immigration Law Center. Health care and U.S. immigration enforcement: what providers need to know. 2025.

What if…

Here are some recommendations on what to do if ICE agents enter the clinical setting.

• Stay calm and speak professionally. Avoid escalating tensions. 
• Notify the organization’s designated point of contact.
• Request identification and ask the agents for their purpose. If it is to detain someone, ask to see a judicial warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. Administrative warrants or subpoenas issued by ICE or the Department of Homeland Security do not automatically grant permission, but the hospital may choose to comply.
• Inform the agents that you are not authorized to provide information or access to private areas but have contacted the designated representative per protocol. (For example, you could say: “I’m not authorized to provide that information. Let me notify the appropriate person to help you.” Direct the agents to a non-patient care area and have authorized personnel stay with them. 
• Protect patient care. Ensure that medical care is not interrupted or delayed for all patients. If the patient ICE is seeking is critically ill, notify the agents that medical care must take priority over enforcement actions. 
• Advocate for patients. Inform them of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the option to decline speaking to ICE agents without an attorney present. Advise patients not to run from or confront the agents. You might offer contact information for local immigration legal aid organizations. 
• If agents remove a patient (or employee), ask the agents where they are being taken.
• Document the incident. Record agent names, departments, badge numbers, times, purpose of the visit, warrant details, how agents were dressed, actions taken and/or outcomes, and any deviations from the scope of the warrant or other possible misconduct by agents.

It’s important to prioritize patient safety while adhering to organizational policy and the law. 

Sources: McAmis NE. Responding to ICE in emergency departments: protecting patients and navigating legal obligations. EMResident. 2025; Physicians for Human Rights, National Immigration Law Center. Health care and U.S. immigration enforcement: what providers need to know. 2025

Falls can be costly. One economic analysis from Dykes, Curtin-Bowen, and colleagues showed that non-injurious and injurious falls were associated with cost increases of $35,365 and $36,776, respectively. 

More important than cost, however, is the potential harm to patients and nurses. In the CNA/NSO Nurse Professional Liability Claim Report: 5th Edition report, many of the closed claims in the patients’ rights/abuse/professional conduct category involved falls that occurred because the nurse failed to follow the organization’s fall-prevention policies and procedures. This failure violates the patient’s right to a safe environment. In one case, a patient for whom proper fall precautions were not taken died from an intracranial hemorrhage suffered after a fall. The initial nursing assessment listed the patient as low fall risk, even though the patient met many of the organization’s high-risk criteria. Of these fall-related closed claims, 38.6% resulted in death. 

Fortunately, nurses can take several steps to reduce fall risk, starting with understanding contributing factors.

Fall Factors

Based on an analysis of several articles, Huntington and Kuhn identified four reasons why patients file Hospitalized patients are at a higher risk for falls compared with those in ambulatory settings. The CNA/NSO report notes that the locations with the highest frequency of falls include hospital-inpatient medical and surgical services, patients’ home, and aging services. 

ECRI and Schoberer and colleagues note several risk factors to consider, including a history of a fall in the past 6 months, age older than 70 years, male gender, certain disease states (e.g., dementia, COPD, atrial fibrillation), disease-related changes (e.g., movement restriction, vertigo, sleep disorder, cognitive impairment), and some medications (e.g., sedatives, antipsychotics). The Joint Commission notes that most sentinel event falls occur when the patient is ambulating, followed by falling from bed and toileting.

ECRI and The Joint Commission list items that can contribute to falls with injury, including communication (e.g., inadequate staff-to-staff communication during handoffs or transitions of care, lack of shared understanding of the plan of care) and staff performance (e.g., not following preventive procedures).

Awareness of contributing factors isn’t enough to protect patients from falls. It takes a team effort to prevent falls and to reduce the degree of injury should a fall occur.

Preventing falls: Organizations

Any fall prevention effort requires a significant organizational investment of time and money to support clinicians in their work. ECRI lists several strategies organizations can take to help reduce falls, including the following: 

• Have an executive sponsor who is accountable for fall prevention for the organization. Accountability should include appropriate staffing and adoption of fall prevention technology as appropriate. 
• Promote a just culture environment when reviewing safety events related to patient falls.
• Analyze culture of safety surveys to identify ways to improve communication and teamwork related to falls.
• Provide education on prevention and encourage staff to speak up and report risks that may lead to falls.
• Use tiered safety huddles to address concerns that may put patients at higher risk of falling. (Tiered huddles are multiple daily meetings that occur across multiple levels or tiers of leadership. Meetings are used to identify problems before they escalate. Because some leaders span adjacent tiers, communication is facilitated.)
• Create a multidisciplinary team to implement prevention programs that include risk assessment, data monitoring, and continuous improvement.

Organizations can promote a culture of safety, but each nurse has a role to play as well.

Preventing falls: nurses

Nurses can utilize several tools to prevent patient falls. 

Education. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Morris and colleagues note that educating both patients and clinicians reduces hospital fall rates. Such education can raise awareness of risk factors and strategies for prevention. 

Engagement. In addition to educating patients and families, involving them in developing a prevention plan is likely to yield greater success than one unilaterally developed by the nurse. Any information provided for patients and families should be in their preferred language, at an appropriate reading level, and in a format they can absorb. For instance, printed material should be of sufficient font size for easy reading. 

Communication. As noted earlier, inadequate communication during handoffs or transitions of care can result in falls. Clear signage, checklists, and verifying receipt of information can be used to promote understanding. In addition, the fall prevention plan should be communicated to all members of the healthcare team, not just nurses. Certified nursing assistants, transport staff, and other clinicians such as therapists all have a role to play in prevention. Both written and verbal communication are essential. 

Guidelines. Following prevention guidelines developed by the organization not only helps patients but also reduces the nurse’s risk of legal action should a patient incur an injury after a fall. 

The guidelines will note that the prevention plan should be documented in the patient’s electronic health record. 

It’s best to use multiple interventions tailored to individual patients as part of the overall prevention plan.

Preventing plan steps

Steps typically include assessing, creating, communicating, and evaluating. 

Assessing. The Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) toolkit is a resource for reducing falls. It notes that areas to assess include fall history, medication side effects, walking aid, IV presence, unsteady gait, and whether the patient may forget or choose not to call for help.

Possible assessment tools include Morse Fall Scale, Schmid Fall Risk Assessment Tool, and STRATIFY Fall Risk Assessment Tool.

Creating. When creating the prevention plan, match interventions to assessment results. For example, if the Morris Fall Scale assessment reveals that gait is an area of risk, assist the patient out of bed and consider a physical therapy consult. Another example is the use of a toileting schedule for those with an IV or other equipment, urinary incontinence, or who may have medication side effects. 

Communicating. In addition to communicating the plan to the patient, patient’s family, and team and documenting it in the electronic health record, it’s also important to communicate the patient’s and family’s response to the plan during transitions such as shift handoff.

Evaluating. In addition to sharing patient responses to the plan throughout the day, the plan should be fully evaluated daily and revised as needed. Again, patients and families should be included in the evaluation and revision process. If a patient falls, nurses should take steps to reduce injury and immediately adjust the prevention plan. 

Call to action

Fall prevention has been taught in nursing schools and written and spoken about for decades yet falls remain a significant adverse event experienced by patients. Fortunately, preventing falls can be accomplished with the proper support of organizations and clinicians. This prevention will protect patients and reduce the potential for legal action against nurses whose patients are injured as a result of a fall. It takes everyone’s commitment (organizations, clinicians, patients, and families) to gain optimal outcomes. 

References

CNA/NSO. Nurse professional liability exposure claim report: 5th edition. 2025. https://www.nso.com/getmedia/9dcd580f-366e-4831-bb28-4d690f392732/CNA_CLS_NUR25_081825a_CF_PROD_SEC.pdf

Dykes PC, Burns Z, Adelman J, et al. Evaluation of a patient-centered fall-prevention tool kit to reduce falls and injuries. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2025889. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25889

Dykes PC, Curtin-Bowen M, Lipisitz S, et al. Cost of inpatient falls and cost-benefit analysis of implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(1):e225125. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5125

ECRI. Top 10 patient safety concerns 2024. 2024.

Massachusetts General Hospital. Patient-centered fall prevention toolkit. Fall TIPS instruction sheet for nurses. n.d. https://www.mghpcs.org/eed/Falls/Assets/documents/falls/toolbox/Fall-TIPS-Instruction-Sheet-for-Nurses.pdf

Morris ME, Webster K, Jones C, et al. Interventions to reduce falls in hospitals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2022;51(5):afac077. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afac077

Schoberer D, Breimaier HE, Zuschnegg J, Findling T, Schaffer S, Archan T. Fall prevention in hospitals in nursing homes: Clinical practice guidelines. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2022;19(2):86-93. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12571

SMART Toolkit. What are tiered huddles? n.d. https://smart.osu.edu/the-toolkit/tiered-huddles/

The Joint Commission. Sentinel event data 2023 annual review. 2024. https://www.jointcommission.org/media/tjc/documents/resources/patient-safety-topics/sentinel-event/2024/2024_sentinel-event-_annual-review_published-2024.pdf

Disclaimer: The information offered within this article reflects general principles only and does not constitute legal advice by Nurses Service Organization (NSO) or establish appropriate or acceptable standards of professional conduct. Readers should consult with an attorney if they have specific concerns. Neither Affinity Insurance Services, Inc. nor NSO assumes any liability for how this information is applied in practice or for the accuracy of this information. Please note that Internet hyperlinks cited herein are active as of the date of publication but may be subject to change or discontinuation.

This risk management information was provided by Nurses Service Organization (NSO), the nation’s largest provider of nurses’ professional liability insurance coverage for over 600,000 nurses since 1976. The individual professional liability insurance policy administered through NSO is underwritten by American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, a CNA company. Reproduction without permission of the publisher is prohibited. For questions, send an e-mail to service@nso.com or call 1-800-247-1500. www.nso.com.

Reprinted with permission from NSO.

Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety)

Toolkit is an example of an effective fall prevention resource. It emphasizes the need to incorporate the patient into the assessment as well as plan creation and implementation. The toolkit, which distills fall prevention into three steps, has reduced falls and saved significant money for multiple organizations.

1. Identify risk factors. This can be done by performing the Morse Fall Scale assessment.

2. Develop a prevention plan tailored to the patient-specific risk factors. Collaboration with patients and family members is an essential part of plan development. Document assessment results and plan in the electronic health record.

3. Consistently carry out the plan. This is accomplished via the Fall TIPS laminated poster, which is used to communicate the plan to other members of the care team, as well as the patient and family. The poster, which is available in multiple languages and updated daily, is color coded to match the findings of the assessment. 

Sources: Falls TIPS. https://www.falltips.org

What the Nurse Should Do If a Patient Falls 

Despite best efforts, patients may still fall.

• Assess the patient for injury before moving. Assessment parameters include vital signs, cognition, any signs of injury (such as cuts), and whether the patient is experiencing pain; 
• After the patient has been evaluated and no injury is found, carefully return the patient to the bed and use lifting devices as needed;
• Document what happened in the patient’s electronic health record. Include who was informed how the fall occurred, assessment results, and follow-up interventions (e.g., radiographs). Note any prevention interventions that were in place when the fall occurred. Thorough documentation of the situation can help protect the nurse if a legal case arises. For example, the documentation can confirm that no injuries were found on examination, and the patient denied any pain; 
• File a report according to organizational guidelines. The report will typically have spaces for details similar to what is in the patient’s electronic health record, such as the location of the incident. In addition, any relevant patient history (such as cognitive impairment) should be noted. Keep the information objective and fact-based. The report should not be used to cast blame, but rather to identify potential areas for quality improvement; and 
• Consider what could have been done to prevent the fall. Incidences such as these can prompt new insights that can protect current and future patients. 

But Gorsuch’s interviews have not been confined to “the stories of ordinary people willing to do extraordinary things,” as the book jacket reads. Throughout the tour, he has repeatedly insisted the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution. So there is something almost darkly ironic about watching Gorsuch embark on one of the friendliest media tours imaginable — one carefully routed through the movement that elevated him and celebrated his confirmation to the Supreme Court as one of the signal achievements of the modern conservative project — only to discover that even this is no longer enough for today’s right.

Although Gorsuch’s insistence that disagreements on the Court stem merely from differing “interpretive methodologies” rather than ideology landed especially awkwardly just days after the Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act, the backlash currently consuming Gorsuch is not primarily coming from the left. It’s coming from the same right-wing world his book tour was designed to court.

It all stems from Gorsuch’s third book and his first for children, which was co-written with a former law clerk and released in early May ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday. In interview after interview, he has described the United States as a “creedal nation” rooted not on race, ancestry or religion but on the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence: equality, natural rights and self-government. “Our nation is not founded on a religion,” Gorsuch told Reason. “It’s not based on a common culture, even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas.” 

The response from his intended audience was instructive. Steve Cortes, a former adviser to Donald Trump and JD Vance, proclaimed on X that it is “amazing how wrong” Gorsuch is and that America is “clearly a Christian nation founded on the principles of Western Civilization, with the culture and mores of Europe.” Fox News’ Will Cain challenged the justice to a debate on the topic. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — an institution that has spent decades positioning itself as the intellectual backbone of American conservatism and birthed Project 2025 — wrote that Gorsuch’s view was “completely divorced from our founding.” Curtis Yarvin, the monarchist pro-Trump blogger — and vice presidential friend — whose ideas have traveled with alarming speed from dissident blog posts to White House adjacency, declared that Gorsuch’s comments gave off “cuck energy.” Jeremy Carl, the conservative commentator who had to withdraw from a State Department position this year after scrutiny over remarks about protecting “white identity,” called it “the broad intellectual failure of the conservative legal movement.” 

Here was a Republican-appointed justice appearing almost exclusively before sympathetic conservative audiences, promoting a children’s civics book steeped in reverence for the Founding Fathers, defending originalism — and still getting denounced as insufficiently nationalist by the movement he was effectively marketing himself to. “Give us the precise creed, and let us know the consequences citizenship-wise for rejecting it,” Sean Davis of The Federalist wrote on X. The Washington Examiner’s Timothy HJ Nerozzie concurred: “If we’re a creedal nation, show me the required creed and explain to me the consequences for someone who refuses to follow it.” 

Under Donald Trump, delivering an utterly conventional articulation of American civic nationalism is apparently akin to surrender.

Historically, this would not have been controversial within mainstream conservatism. Reagan said essentially the same thing for decades. George W. Bush framed American identity in similarly civic terms. Even many immigration hawks traditionally argued that newcomers could become fully American through assimilation into constitutional values and institutions. But a growing reality inside Trump-era conservatism is that for an increasingly vocal faction of the right, even traditional conservative constitutionalism is now too liberal.

The timing of all this is not incidental. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the administration’s long-shot attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order. Every federal court that had previously weighed in struck the order down, and after oral arguments in April, a majority of justices appeared likely to rule against the administration. Even the right-wing media apparatus understands the case is probably lost. And so when Gorsuch showed up on their favorite podcasts talking about America as a creedal nation, they heard it as a preview of the judicial betrayal they have been dreading — a justice warming up the audience for a ruling they won’t like. “Seems like he’s ‘prepping’ us for an absurd Birthright Citizenship ruling,” Cortes wrote on X. 

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Birthright citizenship is rooted in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. For generations, mainstream conservatives accepted this framework, even while arguing over immigration policy itself. But as the Republican Party has become increasingly consumed by demographic panic, constitutional arguments once considered fringe have moved toward the center of MAGA politics. 

That’s why Gorsuch’s remarks felt so threatening to these figures. His language implicitly reaffirmed a vision of citizenship based on civic membership rather than ethnic inheritance. During oral arguments, Gorsuch pointed out that the word “domicile” — the legal concept at the heart of the Trump administration”s entire theory — appears nowhere in the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. “The absence” of that word, he said, “is striking.”

The response to all of this on the right has been to conclude not that the Trump administration’s legal theory is bad — which it is, and which even many conservative legal scholars have acknowledged — but that Gorsuch, who was appointed to the Court by Trump in 2018, is a traitor. The president has said publicly that he regrets listening to the Federalist Society when making his first-term appointments, calling them “weak, stupid and bad” and “an embarrassment to their families.”

And that makes Gorsuch’s media strategy even more ironic. The entire structure of the tour appears designed to reinforce conservative trust in the Court and in Gorsuch himself. He repeatedly emphasized civic literacy, institutional legitimacy, judicial independence and America’s founding ideals. He promoted himself as a steward of constitutional continuity. He wrapped the project in nostalgia for the Founding era ahead of the country’s 250th anniversary.

But the conservative movement he is addressing increasingly does not trust institutions, constitutional restraints or even the Founders themselves — unless they can be weaponized toward present-day populist goals.

That’s why the backlash escalated so quickly from disagreement into accusations of betrayal. To much of the right, the problem is not that Gorsuch misread the Constitution but that he still appears to believe in liberal democracy at all.

Gorsuch made a bet that he could maintain credibility with the institutions and media properties of mainstream conservatism while the ground shifted beneath him. He went to the right outlets. He appeared before the right crowds. He spoke in the careful, optimistic language of civic nationalism that has animated American conservatism from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush — the shining city on a hill, the proposition nation, the idea that anyone who believes in the American creed can become an American. And he discovered, probably not for the first time, how far the modern right has drifted to a vision of America defined by blood and soil.

The post Neil Gorsuch’s right-wing book tour blows up in his face appeared first on Salon.com.

The influential advisory group is recommending policies to boost human oversight and visibility into how Medicaid plans are using the technology, in a bid to prevent risks like inaccuracies or data bias.