tim frye

America is here: President fires statisticians because he does not like the data. Trump has followed the authoritarian roadmap to a tee.
open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...

Mellon Foundation The Mellon Foundation makes grants to actively unlock the power in the arts and humanities that helps connect us all.

“American Academy of Arts&Sciences reports 96.3% of humanities grads age 23-32 fully employed. Earnings in humanitiess comparable to social/life sciences, job satisfaction levels too. A serious mismatch bw actual employment for hum grads +general perception."
www.mellon.org/voices/human...

We conclude by drawing implications of the work for autocratic politics, political economy, and democratic theory. Along the way, we have many colorful anecdotes from interviews and focus groups, as well as some priceless posters and text messages encouraging workers to vote. Hope you enjoy it.

Workplace mobilization also raises normative questions. On one hand, it can increase turnout, but on the other hand it may restrict voter autonomy. We discuss the conditions under which workplace mobilization of voters may be consistent with democratic theory with a focus on the US case.

We identify an intriguing tradeoff: Politicians and employers can use coercion to mobilize workers in some sectors, but voters outside those sectors overwhelmingly disapprove of the tactic. So free media can help reduce the most coercive forms of workplace mobilization.

Data from Argentina, Indonesia, Georgia, Nigeria, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, and the US indicates that workplace mobilization is common, often coercive, and very unpopular with voters. We also find that it is mostly likely to occur in sectors dependent on the state and in slack labor markets.

Workplace Politics: How Politicians and Employers Subvert Elections Abstract. In many countries politicians rely on employers to influence the voting behavior of their employees, but this type of voter mobilization is remar

Very happy to announce the publication of Workplace Politics, with @szakonyi.bsky.social and Ora John Reuter. Drawing on data from 8 countries with a deep-dive on Russia, we examine when, why, and how politicians and employers pressure their workers to vote in elections. academic.oup.com/book/60445

I mean, you could cancel Paramount and support @pbs.org instead.

Reading Rick Perlstein on the 1960s and hearing many familiar stories echoes.

Gallup has new polling on immigration. Topline findings:
-Americans hate Trump's immigration policy (35% approve, 62% disapprove)
-Share who say immigration is a "good thing" for the country just hit an all-time high (79%)

news.gallup.com/poll/692522/...

Infographic titled “One Court, Two Standards” compares how the Supreme Court used emergency powers to rule on lower-court injunctions against the Biden and Trump administrations. Two panels show: • Biden Administration: Lower courts blocked policies in 21 cases. 2 cases saw injunctions/TROs were lifted by SCOTUS. • Trump Administration: Lower courts blocked policies in 86 cases. 66 green squares and 20 red squares show that 77% of injunctions/TROs were lifted by SCOTUS. Key takeaway box below reads: “Using its ‘shadow docket,’ the Supreme Court granted emergency relief to lift 77% of lower-court injunctions against the Trump administration. It lifted 0% of those against the Biden administration.” Sources and notes below include: CourtListener data through July 7, 2025; analysis by Adam Bonica.

Apologies, the previous chart was incorrect. I missed that SCOTUS granted emergency relief in Murthy v. Missouri after the appellate court's stay. I also missed FDA v. Alliance.

The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.

Infographic titled “One Court, Two Standards” compares how the Supreme Court used emergency powers to rule on lower-court injunctions against the Biden and Trump administrations. Two panels show: • Biden Administration: Lower courts blocked policies in 21 cases. All 21 cases are represented by red squares, indicating that 0% of injunctions/TROs were lifted by SCOTUS. • Trump Administration: Lower courts blocked policies in 86 cases. 66 green squares and 20 red squares show that 77% of injunctions/TROs were lifted by SCOTUS. Key takeaway box below reads: “Using its ‘shadow docket,’ the Supreme Court granted emergency relief to lift 77% of lower-court injunctions against the Trump administration. It lifted 0% of those against the Biden administration.” Sources and notes below include: CourtListener data through July 7, 2025; analysis by Adam Bonica.

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has cast very different shadows depending on which party holds the White House.

When lower courts blocked Trump admin policies, SCOTUS intervened on an emergency basis to lift those orders in 77% of cases.

For the Biden administration, that number was 0%.

Several right-leaning pollsters are releasing enough polls with highly skewed results that they can meaningfully change Trump's approval average. And if your aggregation model isn't designed well, that'll happen.

Big piece on house effects and methodology in Trump approval averages:

🧵

Thanks. Very useful.

What did the US get in return? Why now? What did Kremlin do to earn this? So many questions.

The budget is a statement of values. The budget is policy. This budget is awful.

Justice Roberts may say he is just calling “balls and strikes,” but when a Republican president is pitching,
his strike zone is huge.

If elected it’s much more likely that Mamdani will change his policies than Cuomo will change his character.

If you’ve read Michael Pollan (or not), you should try this book.

Bar chart titled “The Supreme Court vs. The Lower Courts: Rulings on the Trump Administration” showing three horizontal bar charts for May 1-June 23, 2025. Federal District Courts: large red bar (82 cases, 94.3% against) with tiny green bar (5 cases, 5.7% for). Circuit Courts of Appeal: medium red bar (15 cases, 68.2% against) with smaller green bar (7 cases, 31.8% for). Supreme Court: tiny red bar (1 case, 6.3% against) with large green bar (15 cases, 93.7% for). Shows dramatic reversal from lower courts ruling against Trump administration to Supreme Court ruling for it.

Since May:

Federal district courts have ruled against Trump admin 94% of the time.

Supreme Court has sided with the Trump admin 94% of the time.

A judiciary at war with itself.

Early Edition: June 24, 2025 A curated guide to major news and developments over the past 24 hours.

The virtues of the jury system include an ability to cut through disinformation

Federal jury awards "$500,000 to the widow and estate of a police officer who took his own life nine days after he helped defend the Capitol from rioters on Jan. 6. ... punitive and compensatory damages for assault."

How My Reporting on the Columbia Protests Led to My Deportation As an Australian who wrote about the demonstrations while on campus, I gave my phone a superficial clean before flying to the U.S. I underestimated what I was up against.

This is shocking. Pure totalitarianism from DHS, and also blatantly unconstitutional.

www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

"No Kings Day" protests turn out millions Our unofficial estimate is that around 4 million people attended a protest event yesterday. Anti-Trump resistance is outpacing 2017.

Based on crowd-sourced records of No Kings Day event turnout, and extrapolating for the cities where we don't have data yet, it looks like roughly 4-6 million people protested Trump across the U.S. yesterday. That's nearly 2% of the U.S. pop!

Mobilized anti-Trump resistance is exceeding 2017 levels

Waiting for White House to blame Biden for the parade planning.

Any ideas why the US Dept of Defense has two small Russian flags in their celebration of US Flag day?

👇

T-Mellon Events is looking for seat fillers and extras to provide their time for space maximization and attendance perception for an event taking place in Washington DC on June 14th. Extras and Seat fillers will check in on the morning of June 14th at 9:00 a.m. Extras are required to wear Red, White and Blue clothing and will be provided a RED hat to wear. GOLD accessories are acceptable as well. The team will advise the extras where to stand or sit according to the line of sight from a VIP viewing platform area. Extras and Seat fillers will be paid a flat daily fee and will be provided a lunch of fast food and soda. We encourage people of color and ethnic groups to sign up for maximum perception control and these individuals will be prominently displayed on the televised broadcast and local viewing screens to be seen by the VIP platform. compensation: Flat Fee of $1,000, paid in cryptocurrency - Provided by FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT LLC

It sure looks like Trump is trying to pay people $1,000 in crypto to attend his fascist birthday party in DC.

Bonus if you’re “people of color and ethnic groups.” washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/tlg/d/wa...

Utica New York is on the job

Just call me Alex! Why dropping the ‘professor’ could boost students’ confidence When students are allowed to address teachers by their first name, it can calm nerves and encourage even the quietest voices to join the conversation

Since I started teaching in 2008, now across five institutions, there has never been a time when anyone I know called anyone else by anything other than first names. (Apart from graduation ceremonies) www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/just-...

Alternatively, “Thousands of Americans expected to take to the streets in defense of their neighbors and their democracy” www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06...