progressive

Zohran Mamdani, the progressive standard-bearer who could become New York City’s next mayor after Tuesday’s election, faces a public-safety trap that has entangled progressives nationwide: Voters want less cruelty, not less accountability. Confuse the two, and even progressives will vote you out.

Even before he has taken office, Mamdani is already fending off attacks from opponents, including former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other political adversaries. They seek to brand him as a radical by tying him to the national Democratic Socialists of America’s most controversial criminal justice planks, such as declining to prosecute misdemeanor offenses.

Yet, in distancing himself from those specific policies, Mamdani is cleverly navigating a political minefield that has doomed other reformers. His strategy demonstrates a crucial lesson for the broader progressive movement: voters want a less inhumane justice system, not one that is unenforced. If progressives are perceived as abandoning accountability for offenses like shoplifting and public drug usage, they invite a political backlash that will not only cost them elections (or reelections) but also set back the cause of reform nationwide.

Americans across the political spectrum support reducing extremely harsh punishments. They want shorter sentences, alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation over punishment. The moral case against excessive punishment resonates with voters who see our system as unnecessarily cruel. The evidence is overwhelming: 81% of Americans believe the U.S. criminal justice system needs reform, and 85% agree the main goal of our criminal justice system should be rehabilitation.

But when it comes to deciding which behaviors deserve prosecution, the politics shift dramatically. Mamdani has previously aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that calls for ending the enforcement of some misdemeanor offenses.

This is precisely the kind of stance that can trigger backlash. The 2022 recall of San Francisco’s progressive district attorney shows why. About 1 in 3 “progressive” voters cast a ballot to remove the progressive DA from office. It wasn’t because they disagreed with his policies; in fact, these same voters supported his specific reforms when his name wasn’t attached to them. Their opposition was rooted in a fear that declining to prosecute low-level crimes would create a deterrence vacuum and incentivize lawlessness.

In Los Angeles, George Gascón’s trajectory offers a cautionary tale. As Los Angeles County district attorney, he survived two recall attempts before losing his 2024 reelection bid by 23 points. L.A. voters hadn’t abandoned reform — they’d supported it just four years earlier. But Gascón’s categorical bans on seeking certain harsher sentences or charging juveniles as adults triggered a revolt from his own rank-and-file prosecutors, creating the perception that entire categories of misconduct would go unaddressed. When prosecutors publicly sued him, arguing his directives violated state law, the deterrence vacuum became tangible. By the time Gascón walked back some policies, voters’ trust had evaporated.

This pattern repeats across the country. In Boston, DA Kevin Hayden has distanced himself so forcefully from predecessor Rachael Rollins’ “do not prosecute” list that he bristles at reporters even mentioning it. Yet Hayden’s office is still diverting first-time shoplifters to treatment programs — the same approach Rollins advocated. The difference? Hayden emphasizes prosecution of repeat offenders while offering alternatives to first-timers. The policy is nearly identical; the politics couldn’t be more different.

Critics are right to argue that the old model of misdemeanor prosecution was a failure. It criminalized poverty and addiction, clogged our courts and did little to stop the revolving door. But the answer to a broken system is not to create a vacuum of enforcement; it is to build a new system that pairs accountability with effective intervention.

Mamdani has already shown political wisdom by declaring, “I am not defunding the police.” But the issue isn’t just about police funding — it’s about what behaviors the criminal justice system will address. As mayor, Mamdani would not control whether the prosecutors abandon prosecution of misdemeanors, but what matters are his stances and voters’ perception. He should be vocal about how we thinks prosecutors should respond to low-level offenses:

• First-time shoplifters: Restitution or community service.
• Drug possession: Treatment enrollment, not incarceration.
• Quality-of-life violations: Social service interventions for housing and health.
• DUI offenders: Intensive supervision and treatment.

To be clear, this isn’t about ignoring these offenses; it’s about transforming the response. For this to work, the justice system must use its inherent leverage. Instead of compelling jail time, a pending criminal case becomes the tool to ensure a person completes a treatment program, pays restitution to the store they stole from, or connects with housing services. This is the essence of diversion: Accountability is met, the underlying problem is addressed, and upon successful completion, the case is often dismissed, allowing the person to move forward without the lifelong burden of a criminal record.

Mamdani’s proposed Department of Community Safety is a step in the right direction. But it must work alongside, not instead of, prosecution for lower-level offenses, and Mamdani must frame it as a partner to prosecution. If voters perceive it as a substitute for accountability, his opponents will use it as a political weapon the moment crime rates fluctuate.

New York deserves bold criminal justice reform. But boldness without pragmatism leads to backlash that sets the entire movement back. The future of the criminal justice progressive movement in America will not be determined by its ideals, but by its ability to deliver pragmatic safety. For the aspiring mayor, and for prosecutors in California and beyond, this means understanding that residents want both order and compassionate justice.

Dvir Yogev is a postdoctoral researcher at the Criminal Law & Justice Center at UC Berkeley, where he studies the politics of criminal justice reform and prosecutor elections.

William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural address in history, nearly two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first sitting president to die in office, just 31 days into his term.

Oh, there is one more bit of trivia about the man who gave us the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the next one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson managed that before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win way down the road. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again.)

Everyone else since Harrison’s era who lost on the first try and ran again in the next election lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran on three different party tickets). Voters, it seems, don’t like losers.

These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week she will not be running for governor in California, sparking speculation that she wants another go at the White House.

But history isn’t what she should worry about. It’s the here and now. The Democratic Party is wildly unpopular. It’s net favorability ( 30 points) is nearly triple the GOP’s (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump’s unpopularity with Democrats should be having the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party.

Why? Because Democrats are mad at their own party — both for losing to Trump and for failing to provide much of an obstacle to him now that he’s in office. As my Dispatch colleague Nick Cattogio puts it, “Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.”

It’s not all Harris’ fault. Indeed, the lion’s share of the blame goes to Joe Biden and the coterie of enablers who encouraged him to run again.

Harris’ dilemma is that she symbolizes Democratic discontent with the party. That discontent isn’t monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough. For the more centrist wing of the party, the problem is the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lurched too far left on culture war and identity politics. Uniting both factions is visceral desire to win. That’s awkward for a politician best known for losing.

Almost the only reason Harris was positioned to be the nominee in 2024 was that she was a diversity pick. Biden was explicit that he would pick a woman and, later, an African American running mate. And the same dynamic made it impossible to sideline her when Biden withdrew.

Of course, most Democrats don’t see her race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they shouldn’t. Indeed, every VP pick is a diversity pick, including the white guys. Running mates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition.

So Harris’ problem isn’t her race or sex; it’s her inability to appeal to voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can flip Trump voters. She didn’t lose because of low Democratic turnout, she lost because she’s uncompelling to a changing electorate.

Her gauzy, often gaseous, rhetoric made her sound like a dean of students at a small liberal arts college. With the exception of reproductive rights, her convictions sounded like they were crafted by focus groups, at a time when voters craved authenticity. Worse, Harris acquiesced to Biden’s insistence she not distance herself from him.

Such clubby deference to the establishment combined with boilerplate pandering to progressive constituencies — learned from years of San Francisco and California politics — makes her the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Her choice to appear on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” for her first interview since leaving office was telling. CBS recently announced it was terminating both Colbert and the show, insisting it was purely a business decision. But the reason for the broadcast network’s decision stemmed in part from the fact that Colbert narrow-casts his expensive show to a very small, very anti-Trump slice of the electorate.

“I don’t want to go back into the system. I think it’s broken,” Harris lamented to Colbert, decrying the “naïve” and “feckless” lack of “leadership” and the “capitulation” of those who “consider themselves to be guardians of our system and our democracy.”

That’s all catnip to Colbert’s ideologically committed audience. But that’s not the audience Democrats need to win. And that’s why, if Democrats nominate her again, she’ll probably go down in history as an answer to a trivia question. And it won’t be “Who was the 48th president of the United States?”

@JonahDispatch

The specter of global food insecurity looms larger than ever, with 783 million people facing chronic hunger and 18 hunger hotspots—spanning Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and conflict zones like Sudan and Syria—teetering on the brink of famine. From a progressive perspective, acute food shortages are not merely logistical failures but symptoms of deep-seated inequities rooted in colonialism, neoliberal trade policies, and inadequate global governance. Diplomacy, when wielded with a commitment to justice and solidarity, can be a powerful tool to address these crises. By prioritizing multilateral cooperation, dismantling systemic barriers, and centering the needs of the Global South, progressive diplomacy can pave the way for sustainable solutions to food insecurity.

Hunger is not an isolated issue but a consequence of structural injustices. Decades of extractive economic policies, driven by wealthy nations and multinational corporations, have left low-income countries vulnerable to food crises. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, reliance on cash-crop exports, often mandated by IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs, has undermined local food sovereignty. Climate change, disproportionately caused by industrialized nations, exacerbates droughts and floods, devastating smallholder farmers who feed much of the world. Conflicts in regions like Sudan, where 12 million people are displaced, and Gaza, where 96% of the population faces acute food insecurity, are compounded by sanctions and blockades that restrict aid flows. These are interconnected crises requiring diplomacy that challenges power imbalances rather than perpetuating them.

Multinational efforts to improve the situation on the ground must prioritize multilateral frameworks to ensure food security is treated as a global public good. The United Nations, despite its imperfections, remains a critical platform for coordinating responses. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) must lead efforts to scale up emergency food aid, but they require robust funding and political support. Diplomats must push for increased contributions to the WFP, which faces a $4.5 billion funding gap for its humanitarian operations. Wealthy nations, particularly G7 members, should commit to doubling their pledges, redirecting funds from military budgets to humanitarian aid—a move aligned with progressive values of prioritizing human welfare over militarism.

Moreover, diplomacy should reform global trade rules that disadvantage poorer nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) must address subsidies that allow Western agribusiness to flood markets with cheap imports, undercutting local farmers. A well-planned diplomatic agenda would advocate for trade agreements that protect smallholder agriculture, promote agroecology, and ensure fair pricing for producers in the Global South. For example, negotiations at the WTO’s 2026 ministerial conference could prioritize exemptions for food security programs, allowing countries like India to maintain public stockholding for staple crops without facing punitive measures.

Conflict is a primary driver of acute food shortages, and progressive diplomacy must focus on peacebuilding to ensure aid reaches those in need. In Syria, where sanctions have crippled food and medical supply chains post-Assad, diplomats should negotiate humanitarian exemptions to facilitate aid delivery. The U.S. and EU, often quick to impose sanctions, must adopt a human-centered approach, prioritizing civilian access to food over geopolitical leverage. Similarly, in Sudan, where 25.6 million people face acute hunger, regional diplomacy through the African Union can mediate ceasefires and establish safe corridors for aid distribution. Diplomats should amplify the voices of local civil society, ensuring that peace processes are inclusive and address root causes like resource inequity.

Climate change, a crisis disproportionately affecting the Global South, demands diplomatic efforts rooted in justice. At COP30 in Brazil, diplomats must advocate for a $300 billion climate finance package, with a significant portion allocated to adaptation for smallholder farmers. This includes funding for drought-resistant crops, irrigation systems, and community-led seed banks. Wealthy nations, responsible for 80% of historical emissions, owe a moral and financial debt to vulnerable countries. Diplomacy should also push for technology transfers, enabling poorer nations to adopt sustainable farming practices without reliance on corporate-controlled inputs like genetically modified seeds.

A decisive diplomatic approach centers the agency of food-insecure regions. Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offer opportunities to strengthen regional food systems, reducing dependence on volatile global markets. Diplomats should support capacity-building programs that empower local farmers, particularly women, who produce up to 80% of food in some African nations. By facilitating South-South cooperation, such as knowledge-sharing between Latin American and African cooperatives, diplomacy can foster resilient, self-sufficient food systems.

Acute food shortages are a moral and political failure, but coordination among nations offers a path forward. By reforming global trade, prioritizing humanitarian exemptions in conflict zones, securing climate finance, and empowering the Global South, diplomats are able to address the root causes of hunger. This requires a rejection of failed policies that prioritize profit over people and a commitment to equity, solidarity, and systemic change. In 2025, the world cannot afford half-measures—diplomacy must be bold, inclusive, and unwavering in its pursuit of a hunger-free future.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court signaled again this week that it believes the president has the full power to control federal agencies, including by sharply cutting their staffs and their spending.

It’s the latest example of the court’s conservative majority intervening to rule for President Trump and against federal district judges. They have done so in brief orders with no explanation, prompting further criticism from Democrats and progressives.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues have made clear over many years that they believe the president’s “executive power” includes controlling agencies and firing officials, even those who were deemed “independent” by Congress.

On Monday, the court issued a one-line order setting aside the decision of a federal judge in Boston who said the Education Department must rehire about 1,400 staffers who had been laid off.

Trump’s attorneys had appealed in early June, arguing the administration was “streamlining” the department while “acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate” it.

Democratic state attorneys had sued to stop the layoffs, arguing Trump was effectively “dismantling” the department, and the judge agreed the layoffs were illegal.

The week before, the conservative majority set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked Trump’s plans for laying off tens of thousands of employees at more than 20 departments and agencies.

Democrats and progressives condemned the decisions and the majority’s refusal to explain its reasons.

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, said the justices “have let Trump amass vast new power, and they have done so without putting their names on it. They are proving willing accomplices to a constitutional coup, all without leaving a trace.”

In May, Roberts and the court upheld Trump’s dismissal of Democratic appointees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of whom had fixed terms set by Congress.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said. “Both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.”

The three liberals dissented.

Peter M. Shane, a New York University law professor, has written extensively on the so-called “unitary executive theory” and said it explains why Trump has been winning since he returned to the White House.

“Trump’s use of executive power is not a distortion of the Roberts court’s theory of the presidency,” he said. “It is the court’s theory of the presidency come to life.”

Still pending before the court this week is an appeal from Trump’s lawyers that seeks the firing of three Democratic appointees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The commissioners have seven-year terms, but in May, the Trump White House told the three Democratic appointees they had been “terminated.”

They sued and won a reinstatement order from a federal judge in Baltimore.

The recent rulings from the court have come on emergency appeals at the early stage of a lawsuit. The court’s majority said Trump’s initiatives may go into effect while the litigation continues. But at some point, the justices will have to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the underlying legal issue.

In ruling for the three officials the CPSC, the judge in Baltimore pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision which protected the constitutionality of “traditional multi-member independent agencies.”

The court’s opinion in the case of Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and those who served on a board “with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions.”

But that precedent has been endangered in recent years.

Five years ago, Roberts spoke for the court and ruled the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau can be fired by the president, even though Congress had said otherwise.

But since that case did not involve a multi-member board or commission, it did not overrule the 1935 precedent.