Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Featured Stories
President's Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The National Parks Conservation Association issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
President's Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is once again raising concerns over a new round of devastating proposed budget cuts for our national parks. The Trump Administration today released its 2027 budget proposal, which like last year's, would gut the National Park Service, threatening the protection, maintenance and operation of more than 430 national parks
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The National Parks Conservation Association issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
President's Budget Proposal Slashes National Park Service Funding Amid Ongoing Attacks on National Parks
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is once again raising concerns over a new round of devastating proposed budget cuts for our national parks. The Trump Administration today released its 2027 budget proposal, which like last year's, would gut the National Park Service, threatening the protection, maintenance and operation of more than 430 national parksnationwide. The proposal makes sweeping cuts across the Park Service budget, including a $736 million reduction (over 25%) to park operations, likely eliminating thousands more park staff after a year of severe losses.
The administration's plan to slash park funding comes as millions of people are flocking to national parks and planning their summer trips. The latest Park Service visitation report confirmed 26 parks set record attendance last year alone, highlighting just how much people cherish these places. Yet as demand and pressure on parks grow, funding and staffing continue to shrink. Since January 2025, the Park Service has lost nearly 25% of its workforce - over 4,000 staff - due to pressured resignations and early retirements and an ongoing barriers to hiring. This follows a 13% decline in park staff since 2011, even as visitation has risen 19%, topping 323 million visits in 2025. These cuts have already led to fewer ranger-led programs, weakened resource protection, delayed maintenance and diminished visitor experiences.
Alongside these cuts, the administration continues to recognize the importance of addressing deferred maintenance needs in our national parks by asking Congress to extend the Legacy Restoration Fund that was established by the Great American Outdoors Act but expired last year. Our national parks face more than $23 billion in needed repairs across the system. Addressing these needs is essential to ensure future generations can experience these places as we have. NPCA is encouraged that the budget proposal recognizes this reality.
A recent national poll (https://www.npca.org/resources/4301-nobody-wants-this-new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-oppose-attacks-on) shows Americans are united on national parks. They want parks protected, funded and staffed. In fact, more than two-thirds of Americans reject the drastic cuts to park budgets this administration has pursued.
With Congress now set to review the proposal, NPCA and park advocates are calling on lawmakers to reject these harmful cuts and instead uphold their responsibility to protect our nation's public lands.
Specific National Park Service-related budget proposals include:
* Establishes a $10 billion "Presidential Capital Stewardship Program" within NPS to "coordinate, plan, and execute targeted, priority construction and beautification projects in and around Washington, D.C." Current budget documents don't clarify how much would address D.C.'s $1.5 billion deferred maintenance backlog, cover routine upkeep across NPS sites, or fund new construction. This $10 billion represents nearly half of the Park System's total deferred maintenance backlog, yet it's unclear why new construction is prioritized, especially without a plan for maintaining new infrastructure.
* Cuts the annual National Park Service Construction budget to less than $50 million, leaving it with 72% less funding to address repairs compared to 2025.
* Supports reauthorization of the Legacy Restoration Fund established by the Great American Outdoors Act to repair and reconstruct infrastructure in national parks and other federal public lands.
* Cuts $4.6 billion (52%) from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency responsible for enforcing vital laws like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. Slashing these programs would increase pollution, harm air and water quality in our national parks, and endanger the health of visitors and nearby communities.
* Cuts the National Heritage Area program by approximately 87%, undermining the bipartisan investment Congress just made to this critical program that supports community driven efforts to protect historic resources.
* Slashes funding for federal land acquisition projects under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, undermining bipartisan support to protect national parks from incompatible development.
* Slashes the Historic Preservation Fund by 95%, eliminating opportunities for communities and tribes to protect historically and culturally irreplaceable resources throughout the country.
Statement by John Garder, Senior Director of Budget and Appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA):
"A cut this massive would be catastrophic. After a year of deep staffing cuts, dwindling resources, and attacks on history and science, park staff are already at the brink. Park maintenance needs are growing, protections are eroding, and visitor experience is declining. This proposal would only accelerate the damage, putting our national parks at even greater risk and further cutting the park staff needed to care for our national treasures.
"At the same time, the administration appears to be prioritizing a vague set of new construction projects across Washington, DC, proposing $10 billion for this program alone, which is more than three times the annual budget of the National Park Service. We support efforts to modernize and repair park infrastructure but not when it's paired with massive cuts to Park Service operations.
"Communities across the country rely on national parks for jobs, education and cultural preservation. Investing in national parks is investing in America, which is why a majority of Americans across the political spectrum reject these kinds of cuts. They want parks protected, fully staffed, and accessible for future generations, not hollowed out by senseless budgets.
"As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, the administration is undermining the very places that safeguard our history and heritage. Congress must reject this terrible budget and instead stand up and act for our most treasured places, just as they did last year with strong bipartisan support for our parks. Our national parks are not political pawns. They are part of who we are, and they must be protected now and for generations to come."
* * *
About the National Parks Conservation Association: Since 1919, the nonpartisan National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading voice in safeguarding our national parks. NPCA and its more than 1.9 million members and supporters work together to protect and preserve our nation's most iconic and inspirational places for future generations. For more information, visit www.npca.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.npca.org/articles/11371-president-s-budget-proposal-slashes-national-park-service-funding-amid
[Category: Environment]
Pharmaceutical Tariffs Will Drive Up Costs for Small Businesses
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- Small Business Majority issued the following statement on April 3, 2026:
* * *
Pharmaceutical Tariffs Will Drive Up Costs for Small Businesses
Statement from Alexis D'Amato Falvey, Small Business Majority Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, on the impact taxing imported drugs will have on America's entrepreneurs
"The latest pharmaceutical tariffs announced yesterday by executive order are likely to increase affordability challenges for small businesses. We know that healthcare expenses are already the biggest cost for most small business owners after payroll,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- Small Business Majority issued the following statement on April 3, 2026:
* * *
Pharmaceutical Tariffs Will Drive Up Costs for Small Businesses
Statement from Alexis D'Amato Falvey, Small Business Majority Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs, on the impact taxing imported drugs will have on America's entrepreneurs
"The latest pharmaceutical tariffs announced yesterday by executive order are likely to increase affordability challenges for small businesses. We know that healthcare expenses are already the biggest cost for most small business owners after payroll,and prescription drugs are a major contributor to those costs. In fact, Small Business Majority's research found 60% of small businesses that offer health coverage to their employees reported that the cost of prescription drug copays has increased in recent years.
What's more, there is no evidence to suggest that tariffs could ever be a substitute for policies that are proven to reduce healthcare costs for Main Street businesses. In fact, a separate Small Business Majority poll taken after pharmaceutical tariffs were announced in September 2025 found 78% of entrepreneurs said lawmakers had not been effective at all in their efforts to lower healthcare costs for small businesses.
Instead of pursuing policies that come with a high cost for America's small firms and offer unknown returns or benefits, lawmakers should be focusing their attention on making healthcare more affordable through laws that would increase hospital price transparency, increase tax credits that lower health insurance premiums and increase the power of oversight boards that review and negotiate the price of prescription drugs."
* * *
About Small Business Majority
Small Business Majority is a national small business organization that empowers America's diverse entrepreneurs to build a thriving and equitable economy. We engage our network of more than 85,000 small businesses and 1,500 business and community organizations to advocate for public policy solutions and deliver resources to entrepreneurs that promote equitable small business growth. Our deep connections with the small business community along with our scientific research enable us to educate the public about key issues impacting America's entrepreneurs, with a special focus on advancing the smallest businesses and those facing systemic inequalities. Learn more about us on our website and follow us on Twitter(X), Facebook and Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://smallbusinessmajority.org/press-release/pharmaceutical-tariffs-will-drive-costs-small-businesses
[Category: Business]
National WIC Association Denounces Trump's Proposed Cuts to WIC's Fruit and Vegetable Benefits
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The National WIC Association, a non-profit advocacy voice of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program, issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
National WIC Association Denounces Trump's Proposed Cuts to WIC's Fruit and Vegetable Benefits
The Trump Administration's proposed budget for WIC would harm millions of American families who are most at risk for nutritional deficiencies. If enacted, these cuts would mean a significant reduction in monthly fruit and vegetable benefits, from $54 to $13 for breastfeeding mothers
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The National WIC Association, a non-profit advocacy voice of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children Program, issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
National WIC Association Denounces Trump's Proposed Cuts to WIC's Fruit and Vegetable Benefits
The Trump Administration's proposed budget for WIC would harm millions of American families who are most at risk for nutritional deficiencies. If enacted, these cuts would mean a significant reduction in monthly fruit and vegetable benefits, from $54 to $13 for breastfeeding mothersand from $27 to $10 for young children.
*
On Friday morning, the White House released President Trump's budget request for fiscal year 2027 (FY27). The plan calls for deep cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), putting the health and food security of millions of low-income families at risk.
The following is a statement from Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, on the President's Budget Request for FY27.
"We are stunned to see another attempt by the Trump administration to cut access to healthy foods through WIC. Just last year, the President proposed slashing WIC's fruit and vegetable benefits by nearly two-thirds. This budget makes that same damaging cut.
"Additionally, the funding proposed in this budget may not be sufficient to cover the food costs for all eligible participants, as food costs are expected to continue to rise due to tariffs, inflation, and the ongoing war in Iran. It will be important for Congress to continue to monitor food price projections as a final FY27 funding level for WIC is determined.
"These cuts break with the Trump Administration's support for WIC during the 2025 government shutdown and directly contradict the administration's stated goal to 'Make America Healthy Again.' WIC is a proven public health investment during the most critical developmental stages: pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood. By slashing the fruit and vegetable benefits and not ensuring sufficient program funding, this administration is taking healthy foods away from children and mothers most at risk for nutritional deficiencies. The proposed reductions would roll back WIC's fruit and vegetable benefits to levels not seen since before the previous science-based increase in 2021, undermining a proven investment in child and maternal health. This plan is short-sighted, hypocritical, and, if passed by Congress, will harm American families.
"The science-based increase to WIC's fruit and vegetable benefits has led to meaningful improvements in how families eat. Young children now consume an additional 1/4 cup of fruits and vegetables per day, and parents report being better able to afford a healthier, more varied diet. The proposed cuts would reverse that progress, reducing benefits to levels that would meet just 19% of the recommended intake for children and 12% for breastfeeding mothers, short of what families need to support healthy growth and development.
"The proposed budget also fails to address the critical need for Congress to permanently authorize flexible services in WIC, ensuring that families can continue to access care virtually while still receiving in-person health assessments through WIC or a healthcare provider.
"The only bright spot in the proposal is the recommended $500 million boost to the WIC contingency fund, which would better position USDA to respond to future government shutdowns or other emergencies.
"We are grateful that Congress rejected these proposed cuts in the FY 2026 funding agreement, continuing its 30-year bipartisan history of fully funding WIC. We look forward to working with Congress again to ensure no benefit cuts, full funding for all eligible families seeking WIC services, and permanent access to flexible WIC services."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nwica.org/press-releases/national-wic-association-denounces-trumps-proposed-cuts-to-wics-fruit-and-vegetable-benefits
[Category: Sociological]
LULAC CALLS THE REMOVAL OF U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI THE END OF A DARK PERIOD IN AMERICAS JUSTICE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:
* * *
LULAC CALLS THE REMOVAL OF U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI THE END OF A DARK PERIOD IN AMERICAS JUSTICE SYSTEM
Nation's Oldest and Largest Latino Civil Rights Organization Calls for a Return to Fair Judicial Oversight and Non-Partisan Enforcement of Our Country's Laws
*
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) acknowledges the removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General of the United States by President Trump and views this moment as an opportunity
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, issued the following news release on April 2, 2026:
* * *
LULAC CALLS THE REMOVAL OF U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI THE END OF A DARK PERIOD IN AMERICAS JUSTICE SYSTEM
Nation's Oldest and Largest Latino Civil Rights Organization Calls for a Return to Fair Judicial Oversight and Non-Partisan Enforcement of Our Country's Laws
*
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) acknowledges the removal of Pam Bondi as Attorney General of the United States by President Trump and views this moment as an opportunityto restore integrity, independence, and public trust in the Department of Justice.
"The Department of Justice must never be used as a tool for political retribution or selective enforcement," said Roman Palomares, LULAC national president and chairman of the board. "The American people deserve an attorney general who understands that justice is not personal, not political, and not optional. It is foundational. For too long, our communities have felt the weight of enforcement without the protection of fairness. This transition must mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to impartial justice and respect for the rule of law."
The role of attorney general carries a profound responsibility to uphold the Constitution, ensure equal protection under the law, and administer justice without bias or political influence. LULAC has long expressed concern that these standards were not consistently met during Bondi's tenure, particularly in matters affecting Latino communities, immigrants, and other communities of color.
But for LULAC and Latino communities, her legacy runs deeper and darker. Under Bondi, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, which protects the constitutional rights of all Americans, experienced a mass exodus of career attorneys who say it was turned into an enforcement arm of the White House. Bondi removed the leadership of the Voting Section and ordered the dismissal of all its active cases, gutting decades of hard-won protections for communities of color. Voting rights cases were thrown out and replaced with investigations into alleged voter fraud, while consent decrees holding police accountable for discriminatory misconduct were terminated in cities across the country.
"The attorney general serves not the interests of any one administration, but the Constitution and the people of the United States," said Gloria Leal, LULAC general counsel. "This role requires independence, adherence to established legal norms, and respect for due process. Ensuring that every individual, regardless of status, has access to fair treatment under the law is not discretionary; it is a constitutional mandate."
LULAC calls on federal leadership to appoint an attorney general who will restore confidence in the Department of Justice by reaffirming its independence, strengthening its professional ranks, and recommitting to equal justice for all.
"This is a moment for reset and renewal," Palomares added. "The next attorney general must be guided not by politics, but by principle, ensuring that the scales of justice remain balanced, fair, and untampered."
* * *
About LULAC
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is the nation's oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization. Founded in 1929, LULAC is committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of Latino Americans through advocacy, community building, and education. With a growing network of councils nationwide, LULAC remains steadfast in its mission to protect and empower millions of Latinos, contributing daily to America's prosperity. For more information about LULAC and its initiatives, please visit www.lulac.org/.
* * *
Original text here: https://lulac.org/news/pr/LULAC_CALLS_THE_REMOVAL_OF_U_S_ATTORNEY_GENERAL_PAM_BONDI_THE_END_OF_A_DARK_PERIOD_IN_AMERICAS_JUSTICE_SYSTEM/
[Category: Political]
KFF: Preview of the Role Health Care May Play in the 2026 Election
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 4 -- KFF, an organization that says it focuses on health policy, issued the following news release:
* * *
A Preview of the Role Health Care May Play in the 2026 Election
KFF has long examined the role of health care in U.S. elections, tracking how the issue ranks among voters' top concerns, which political party or candidate voters' trust, and how health care issues might motivate voter turnout. This issue brief summarizes the role health care has historically played in elections using KFF polls, exit polls, and other data to show how health care, especially
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 4 -- KFF, an organization that says it focuses on health policy, issued the following news release:
* * *
A Preview of the Role Health Care May Play in the 2026 Election
KFF has long examined the role of health care in U.S. elections, tracking how the issue ranks among voters' top concerns, which political party or candidate voters' trust, and how health care issues might motivate voter turnout. This issue brief summarizes the role health care has historically played in elections using KFF polls, exit polls, and other data to show how health care, especiallythe issue of health care costs, may play a role in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.
Key Takeaways
* Historically, health care has often been among the most important issues to voters: In most presidential and midterm election year polling since 1992, health care ranked among voters' top concerns, with "the economy" taking the top spot in most elections. While these polls usually ask voters to choose between health care and the economy as separate issues, KFF polling has long shown how health care costs are an important factor in people's economic concerns. On its own, health care rose to the top spot in the 2018 midterm exit poll, immediately after the failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In almost all recent elections, Democratic voters have consistently been more likely than Republican voters to say that health care is a top electoral issue.
* Partisan advantages on health care and the economy: Historically, Democrats have held an advantage over Republicans on who voters trust to handle health care issues, while Republicans have usually been seen as stronger on the economy. Health care costs sit at the intersection of these issues, raising questions about which party voters will trust more to address the affordability of health care. Recent KFF polling data suggests that heading into the 2026 election, the Democratic Party has the advantage on health care costs, but notably, about a quarter of voters, rising to four in ten independent voters, say they trust neither party on this issue.
* Implications for the 2026 Midterms: Looking ahead to the 2026 midterm elections, the issue of health care affordability may help candidates motivate their bases. As of March 2026, Democrats maintain an advantage over Republicans in voter trust to address the cost of health care and prescription drugs, and majorities say health care costs are important to their vote. Who voters will ultimately trust to handle the affordability of health care, and whether the issue will be enough to translate into turnout and votes, remains an open question.
Health Care Has Been Among the Top Electoral Issues, Especially Following Periods of National Debate
National exit polls from elections over the past several decades show that voters ranked health care among their top concerns, but "the economy" was the number one issue in most elections. While exit polls usually ask voters to choose between health care and the economy as separate issues, KFF polling has long shown that health care costs are a key economic concern for the public. Analysis of exit poll data also show that health care has been more top-of-mind for voters immediately following periods of national debate on health care reform, such as in elections held during President Clinton's presidency (1992-1998) and later during President Obama's presidency (2008-2016) and the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. In these instances, health care costs were key health care issues, with political debate centering around affordability. But in the past three decades of exit polls, health care itself has only been ranked the number one issue by voters once, during the 2018 midterms after Republican attempts to repeal and replace the ACA failed dramatically in the Senate. Since 2020, health care has remained among the top issues, with the focus in some elections on specific health care issues such as COVID-19 or abortion access.
* * *
Figure 1: Health Care Is Often a Top Issue in Exit Polls
* * *
Democratic Voters Are More Likely to Say Health Care Is Important to Their Vote
Notably, Democratic voters have typically been more likely than Republican voters to cite health care issues as important in pre-election KFF Health Tracking Polls. For example, in 2018, when health care was the number one issue for all voters, about one third (34%) of Democratic voters said it was important for 2018 candidates to talk about health care, compared to one in five (20%) Republicans who said the same. In more recent elections when health care issues focused on specific topics like abortion rights and COVID-19, between a quarter and half of Democratic voters picked these issues, versus about one in ten, or fewer, Republican voters.
* * *
Figure 2: Democratic Voters Have Been More Likely Than Republican Voters To Say Health Care Is Important to Their Vote
* * *
Democrats Have Historically Had Advantage on Health Care, Republicans on the Economy
While "the economy" tends to almost always have the top billing in election poll issue rankings, KFF polls have consistently found that the cost of health care is an important part of people's economic concerns. Indeed, recent KFF polls have found that health care costs are a top economic worry, with many adults saying they have difficultly affording these costs, they are burdened by health care debt, or that they delay or skip care due to high costs. Given that health care costs sit at the intersection of both health care and the economy, who do voters say they trust on this issue?
When it comes to presidential elections, KFF Health Tracking Polls and other polls have found that voters often say the Democratic candidate is better suited to handle health care, while the Republican candidate is better suited to handle the economy. In the 2012 and 2016 elections, President Obama and Secretary Clinton had more than 10-percentage point leads over Governor Romney and President Trump respectively in the share of voters who said they trusted each on health care. When it comes to the economy, President Obama had a 7-percentage point advantage over Governor Romney in 2012, but in subsequent elections, President Trump has had an advantage over each of his Democratic opponents. These leads were narrow over Secretary Clinton in 2016 and President Biden in 2020, but widened to a 15-percentage point lead over Vice President Harris in 2024.1
* * *
Figure 3: Democrats Are More Trusted Than Republicans on Health Care; Opposite Is True on the Economy
* * *
In an era of hyper-partisan politics, KFF Health Tracking Polls conducted in the lead up to elections find that most voters tend to trust their own party to handle the direction of key issues. But among voters overall and among independent voters, the Democratic party has typically had an advantage over the Republican party when it comes to health care costs. For example, in surveys conducted in election years from 2012 to 2023, the Democrats had an advantage of thirteen percentage-points or less over Republicans on lowering health care costs. But in 2023, about six in ten voters said they trust the Democrats on the affordability of health care, compared to about four in ten who said they trust the Republicans.
* * *
Figure 4: Over Time, Voters Have Historically Trusted Democrats More To Address Health Care Costs
* * *
Implications for the 2026 Midterm Elections
While there are many months before the midterm elections and events such as the war in Iran may shift electoral concerns, recent KFF pre-election polls show the public remains concerned about the number one issue of the 2024 election: the economy. But recent polls also suggest that the role of health care costs among voters' economic concerns appears to be on the rise compared to previous election cycles. In 2024 polling from AP Votecast, when voters were specifically asked about which household costs they were "very concerned" about, the cost of food and groceries took the top spot across partisans (67% of total voters), and health care costs (54% of total voters) ranked second for Democratic and independent voters.
* * *
Figure 5: The Cost of Food and Groceries Were the Top Economic Concern in 2024, Health Care Costs Were Second
* * *
In more recent KFF polling from January 2026, health care costs are now voters' top economic concern (31% of total voters say they are "very worried"). This is the case across partisanship, with substantial shares of Democrats (33%), independents (36%) and Republicans (25%) saying they are "very worried" about being able to afford health care for themselves and their families.
* * *
Figure 6: Heading Into This Year's Midterm Elections, Health Care Costs Are Voters' Top Economic Concern
* * *
In January of this year, about one in four voters also said they feel their health care costs are increasing faster than other household expenses, such as food and utilities, and looking ahead, a majority (58%) said they expect health care costs for them and their families to become less affordable next year. In addition, in March, a majority (59% of the public; 57% of voters) say they are worried about affording prescription drugs for themselves and their families, the largest share since KFF first polled on this question in 2018.
The rising concern about health care costs has occurred at a time when health insurance premiums and cost-sharing for employer-sponsored insurance are on the rise, with the average annual premium for family health coverage rising 6% to nearly $27,000 in 2025. At the same time, the policy debate and government shutdown over the ACA enhanced tax credits have put a spotlight on increasing health care costs for ACA marketplace enrollees.
Amid this environment, there are signs that Democrats may now be viewed as more trustworthy than they were in 2024, when President Trump (the Republican candidate) won more votes than Vice President Harris (the Democratic candidate) among voters who said they were "very concerned" about health care costs (54% vs. 44%). Now, KFF polling from March 2026 finds Democrats have an advantage over Republicans for who voters trust to address the cost of health care (40% vs. 28%) and the cost of prescription drugs (38% vs. 28%), with about one in four voters saying they trust "neither party" on these issues.
Democrats maintain an advantage on health care and prescription drug costs among independent voters as well. But notably, the share saying they trust "neither party" rises to about four in ten among independent voters, larger than the shares who say they trust either the Democrats or the Republicans. The sizeable shares of independent voters, as well as voters overall, who say they trust neither party suggests that both parties may still be able to make inroads with voters on the issue of health care affordability before the midterm elections. But it also illustrates that there might be a lack of enthusiasm for candidates on this issue and may suggest that some voters may choose to stay home if they don't feel either party can address this core issue.
* * *
Figure 7: Among Voters Overall, Democrats Have an Edge Over Republicans on Most Health Issues but Large Shares of Independent Voters Trust Neither Party
* * *
While voter trust and the perceived importance of health care costs matter for the midterm election, a key factor is how strongly the issue motivates voters to turn out. The 2026 campaigns are just beginning, but health care costs seem to be motivating voters across party lines. As of January 2026, about two-thirds of Democratic voters and just less than half of independent voters said health care costs will have a "major impact" on both their decision to vote and which party's candidate they will support. On the other hand, about one in four Republican voters also said health care costs will have a "major impact" on their voting choices, and an additional third said it will have a "minor impact," suggesting the issue is motivating Republicans as well.
* * *
Figure 8: Majorities of Voters Across Partisanship Say the Cost of Health Care Will Impact Their Midterm Vote
* * *
1. In 2012, question wording was, "Which presidential candidate, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, do you trust to do a better job... lowering health costs for people like you?" and "...dealing with the economy and jobs?"
In 2016, question wording was, "Thinking about the candidates for president in 2016, regardless of political party or who you intend to vote for, which candidate do you trust to do a better job dealing with access and affordability of health care, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?" and "Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would better handle each of the following issues...The Economy."
In 2020, question wording was, "Thinking about the candidates for president in 2020, regardless of political party or who you intend to vote for, which candidate do you trust to do a better job... dealing with health care, Donald Trump or Joe Biden?" and "...the economy."
In 2024, question wording was, "Regardless of who you intend to vote for in the upcoming elections, which presidential candidate do you trust to do a better job dealing with each of the following?" "The economy and inflation" and "Health care costs, including prescription drug costs."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.kff.org/public-opinion/a-preview-of-the-role-health-care-may-play-in-the-2026-election/
[Category: Health Care]
Common Cause: Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump Order on Mail in Ballots
NEW YORK, April 4 -- Common Cause - New York issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump Order on Mail in Ballots
Four of the nation's leading civil and voting rights groups, Common Cause, Black Voters Matter, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and NAACP are suing to stop President Trump's attempt to nationalize elections and prevent 48 million voters from casting a ballot with his latest executive order on mail in ballots.
The lawsuit was filed April 3 in federal court in Washington, D.C. This is one of the first legal attempts
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, April 4 -- Common Cause - New York issued the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
Civil Rights Groups Sue to Stop Trump Order on Mail in Ballots
Four of the nation's leading civil and voting rights groups, Common Cause, Black Voters Matter, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and NAACP are suing to stop President Trump's attempt to nationalize elections and prevent 48 million voters from casting a ballot with his latest executive order on mail in ballots.
The lawsuit was filed April 3 in federal court in Washington, D.C. This is one of the first legal attemptsto stop this executive order.
"Mail in voting is so safe that even the president uses it when he votes," said Virginia Kase Solomon, Common Cause President and CEO. "This is yet another attempt by President Trump to nationalize elections so he can pick and choose who gets to vote. Common Cause and our one million members firmly reject any president setting election law, especially as a last ditch effort to avoid being held accountable for his extremely unpopular agenda."
"This executive order targeting mail-in ballots is unlawful and usurps congressional authority in order to stop the midterm elections. This is another blatant attempt to undermine the people's power," said Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter. "We're joining this lawsuit to stop this administration from silencing the voices of millions of Americans. Black Voters Matter will continue to fight for free, fair, and accessible elections."
Shaylyn Cochran, deputy executive director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, "The executive order is unlawful, unconstitutional, and a clear overreach of executive power. It reflects yet another dangerous attempt by this administration to erect obstacles to the ballot and to intimidate voters. If left to stand, the executive order would upend state laws and procedures on voting, tread on the Constitution, and threaten to shut out a significant number of Black voters from the political process. In filing today's lawsuit, we are standing up for the rule of law and standing by the Lawyers' Committee's founding commitment to making the promises of our democracy real."
"Americans in every corner of our country, rural and urban, Black and white, rich and poor, healthy and infirm, civilian and servicemember, have participated in mail-in voting for decades without issue," said Derrick Johnson, NAACP President and CEO. "This executive order sows chaos and discourage voter participation in the midterm elections. The NAACP will continue to turn to the courts to ensure that everyone can have a voice in our elections."
The organizations are part of the largest nonpartisan election protection organization in the United States, 866-OUR-VOTE, a national hotline and text platform to help voters work through any voting issues.
Their participation in helping voters, and defending their members' right to vote, gives NAACP and Common Cause standing in fighting this executive order.
The lawsuit contends states and Congress set rules for elections, not presidents, and this executive order tying federal funding to election procedures is illegal.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump released an election-related executive order that Common Cause opposed. At least five different courts have struck down that executive order.
Common Cause is also currently fighting state-level anti-voter bills through legal battles in Florida and Indiana. Common Cause will continue to oppose any state-level legislation that threatens voting rights.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/civil-rights-groups-sue-to-stop-trump-order-on-mail-in-ballots/
[Category: Political]
CAIR Calls for Release of Wisconsin Journalist Shelly Kittleson Kidnapped in Iraq
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
CAIR Calls for Release of Wisconsin Journalist Shelly Kittleson Kidnapped in Iraq
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called for the immediate and safe release of freelance Wisconsin journalist Shelly Kittleson, who was reportedly kidnapped by a militia group in Iraq.
CAIR expressed deep concern for her safety and urged all parties involved to ensure her prompt release and humane treatment.
In
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, April 4 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on April 3, 2026:
* * *
CAIR Calls for Release of Wisconsin Journalist Shelly Kittleson Kidnapped in Iraq
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called for the immediate and safe release of freelance Wisconsin journalist Shelly Kittleson, who was reportedly kidnapped by a militia group in Iraq.
CAIR expressed deep concern for her safety and urged all parties involved to ensure her prompt release and humane treatment.
Ina statement, Washington, D.C., based CAIR said:
"We strongly condemn the kidnapping of journalist Shelly Kittleson and call for her immediate and unconditional release. Journalists play a vital role in documenting events and informing the global public, often at great personal risk. Targeting members of the media is a violation of fundamental human rights and undermines transparency and accountability. We urge those responsible to immediately release Ms. Kittleson without harm."
CAIR has previously called for the release of journalists kidnapped by Israel, or detained in other nations, including the United States.
In 2009, CAIR staff spoke directly to the Iranian President urging him to release journalist Roxana Saberi.
And in 2006, CAIR staff went to Baghdad to appeal for the release of a kidnapped American journalist Jill Carroll.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-calls-for-release-of-wisconsin-journalist-shelly-kittleson-kidnapped-in-iraq/
[Category: Sociological]
