Heidi Pascual's web site

By Devon Ombres, Michael Sozan, and Greta Bedekovics


The Trump administration is reportedly considering a plan for the president to issue an executive order (EO) that would declare a national emergency based on alleged election interference from a foreign government in order to exert sweeping control over the 2026 midterm elections. President Donald Trump denied that he is considering such a plan. But make no mistake: Neither this president, nor any other federal executive branch official, has authority under the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or other means to unilaterally make or alter rules for federal elections. That power lies strictly with the states and Congress under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Just as importantly, media outlets have reported that the Trump administration has been working on this EO in consultation with outside, far-right, election-denying allies for nearly a year, belying the nature of any so-called emergency. A true emergency is just that: an unforeseeable event the country is underprepared to respond to and something that requires immediate action. And an emergency response is not something that percolates for almost one year and then is sprung on the nation to achieve explicitly political outcomes.

Rather, a leaked draft of the alleged prospective EO tracks directly with the Trump administration’s pattern of escalating attempts to seize powers outside its constitutional ambit. Federal courts have already declared unconstitutional the Trump administration’s March 2025 EO attempting to control election procedures. -- READ MORE

By Courtney Federico, Sophie Conroy, & Leo Banks

Since the Trump administration joined Israel in starting a war of choice with Iran on February 28, oil prices have skyrocketed. The metric for the global price of oil—Brent Crude—rose as high as $119.50 per barrel about a week after hostilities broke out, the highest level since July 2022 in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Gasoline prices have followed suit, rising 64 cents compared with a month ago—a 22 percent increase. At a time when polls show that only 29 percent of Americans can afford basics such as rent, gasoline, and groceries without worrying about the cost, this reckless, needless, and unpopular war is causing prices at the pump to soar.

The Trump administration is reportedly looking for ways to lower energy prices for Americans, yet it is not pursuing some of the most obvious and impactful solutions, chief among them ending the war in Iran. The second Trump administration has been marked by actions that benefit oil and gas executives while making Americans more vulnerable to volatile energy prices, including gutting clean energy policies, blocking new renewable energy projects, and further subsidizing the oil and gas industry. The clearest solutions would result in lower profits for Trump’s donors in the oil and gas industry, who contributed more than $75 million to his campaign and to super PACs during the 2024 election cycle.

In response to concerns about high energy costs, President Trump told Americans that raised prices are a “small price” to pay in service of a war that has vague and shifting goals and which has killed seven American servicemembers and more than 1,300 Iranian civilians. -- READ MORE

By H.A. Hellyer


The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets that began on February 28 have disrupted a fragile regional equilibrium between the United States, Israel, and Iran that Arab governments had spent years trying to preserve and makes the idea of pursuing a doctrine of strategic autonomy far more attractive. Across much of the Middle East, states had gradually moved toward limited deescalation with Tehran, not because they trusted Iran, but because they were trying to prevent their region from once again becoming the primary battlefield between Iran, Israel, and the United States and to protect their distinct interests with each of these countries.

At the same time, governments across the Arab world increasingly view Israel as a deeply destabilizing actor in the regional system. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which were pursuing closer ties to Tel Aviv, have pulled back in response to Israeli actions in recent years. Under its current leadership in particular, Israel is widely seen as pursuing military and strategic paramountcy in the Middle East. That approach places it in direct tension with the interests of most regional governments, which seek a balance of power that constrains both Iran and Israel rather than enabling either one to dominate.

The fact that Washington began this campaign in coordination with Israel therefore amplified regional concern. For many governments, the problem is not simply escalation with Iran. It is that the United States appears willing to align itself with a regional actor widely viewed as willing—if not eager—to escalate conflict in pursuit of its own strategic primacy without consideration for its neighbors’ interests. -- READ MORE

By Sara Estep and Kennedy Andara

Today’s employment report showed that unemployment edged up to 4.4 percent and the economy lost more than 90,000 jobs in February 2026—below expectations. Additionally, the prior two months of job growth were revised downward, pushing December negative as well. Population shifts may explain some of the suppressed growth, and February’s data give a better picture of these changes.

Today’s release also incorporates the annual population revisions into the household survey, which is used to calculate labor force statistics such as the unemployment rate and labor force participation. Adjusting the household survey weights using the updated population data highlights immigration trends that align with economists’ warnings under the Trump administration. The latest numbers show that net migration into the United States fell by more than half, and that reality is now reflected in the latest employment report. Moreover, new analysis from the Center for American Progress shows that despite President Donald Trump’s claims, native-born workers haven’t seen their wages or employment prospects rise under this new immigration approach.

Population changes in the household survey

--At the beginning of each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases its “vintage population estimates” for the past year. These estimates are used to adjust the monthly household survey for the coming year, but they are not retroactive. This can create sharp discontinuities in the data when looking at population levels. -- READ MORE

By Allie Preston


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers should be held to the same standards of transparent and accountable policing as state and local law enforcement, which require officers to have visible identification and allow face coverings only in limited circumstances. Deploying unidentifiable officers makes communities less safe by unnecessarily escalating tension in interactions between ICE, CBP, and community members emboldening dangerous impersonators and preventing accountability for misconduct.


What standards do state and local law enforcement agencies follow for identification and face coverings?


Across the country, most state and local officers are required to wear uniforms that include agency and/or personal identifiers and are restricted from wearing face coverings as part of police department policy.


For example: • South Dakota Highway Patrol: General Order 5.0301— “All uniformed members shall wear an approved insignia of the Highway Patrol on the Ike Jacket, winter and summer shirts, coat, and BDU’s.” o 0305—“Individual name bars, of an approved type, shall be always worn by each uniformed member while in uniform, unless instructed otherwise by a supervisor.” • Metropolitan Nashville Police Department in Tennessee: “The badge is a component part of the uniform, except for the utility uniform and lightweight jacket. -- READ MORE

From CAPAC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House Litigation Task Force, in partnership with Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng, led 216 House and Senate Democrats in filing a bicameral amicus brief standing up for the essential constitutional principle of birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, currently before the Supreme Court with oral arguments scheduled for April 1, 2026.

The Democratic lawmakers argue that President Donald Trump’s day-one executive order to strip the guarantee of citizenship provided to children born in America violates the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, as well as laws enacted by the Congress.

As the Trump administration’s cruel and reckless immigration policy continues to inflict chaos on communities across the country, the lawmakers affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with authority to enforce the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.

​“The Fourteenth Amendment sets out a constitutional minimum—a floor—for birthright citizenship. At a minimum, birthright citizenship must extend to all ‘persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the Fourteenth Amendment does not set out a ceiling. Congress is free to confer birthright citizenship more broadly, to people who do not have citizenship by virtue of the constitutional text,” wrote the amici curiae.

They also argued that the administration’s interpretation of birthright citizenship is legally incoherent, outlining how the order would affect the children of asylum seekers and warning that 1.8 million U.S. citizens born to two unauthorized parents could be at risk of retroactively losing their citizenship. -- READ MORE