The looming red wave: how a crowded Democratic field might hand California’s governorship to a Republican

California gubernatorial candidate debate Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in San Francisco. Photo Credit: Laure Andrillon/AP

When I was little, my parents always voted blue in any given election. When the ballot offered one Democrat versus one Republican, for most people it was an easy pick between one side or the other. I always viewed California as an impenetrable fortress of blue politics. With our heavily populated progressive cities, it seemed practically impossible for a Republican to hold the Governor position. However, as the June 2nd primary approaches, an overcrowded field of Democratic candidates is threatening to turn that assumption completely upside down.

According to recent polling by UC Berkeley IGS Poll (who is sponsored by The Los Angeles Times), conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco are leading the gubernatorial race as of March 18th. Hilton captures roughly 17% of the vote, while Bianco is close behind at 16%, leaving prominent Democrats like Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter trailing in the low teens. Follow the latest polling updates posted by The New York Times. Because California utilizes a top-two primary system where all candidates are listed on the same ballot, the sheer abundance of Democratic candidates is severely fracturing the liberal vote.

The California Democratic Party is actively panicking about the very real possibility of a general election without a single Democrat on the ballot. On March 3rd, party chair Rusty Hicks issued an open letter pleading with unviable candidates to assess their paths to victory and suspend their campaigns.

If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the General Election for Governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November. The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats' chances to retake the House.

Despite these dire warnings, the majority of the eight Democratic hopefuls have stubbornly refused to step aside. Meanwhile, the conservative surge is being heavily fueled by voters in California’s rural and inland regions, who are expressing deep dissatisfaction with the state’s current trajectory. A recent survey from the Public Policy Institute of California revealed that 54% of Californians believe the state is headed in the wrong direction, driven largely by anxiety over the cost of living and inflation.

Candidates like Bianco are successfully capitalizing on this widespread frustration. Polling data shows the Republican sheriff is absolutely dominating the race in rural, historically red areas like the Inland Empire and the North Coast/Sierras. While Democratic candidates fight each other for urban votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, Republican candidates are unifying the rural base.

Despite needing to split the conservative vote evenly to advance to the general election, Republican candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are not cooperating and are instead aggressively attacking one another to consolidate their base. Both candidates are utilizing similar platform strategies centered on heavy deregulation, reversing prison closures, boosting oil production, and slashing taxes. A critical element of their campaign strategy involves courting voters in California's rural, agricultural, and inland regions where conservative momentum is currently the strongest. For instance, both men recently campaigned directly to these demographics by participating in a gubernatorial forum at Fresno State hosted by Western Growers. Bianco, the current Riverside County Sheriff, has been particularly successful at rallying these rural and inland voters by leaning heavily into his outsider status and harshly criticizing the environmental regulations that many inland residents blame for the high cost of living.

While the media fixates on the fractured Democratic field, they are completely ignoring the socialist candidates running in this election, such as Ramsey Robinson of the Peace and Freedom Party or Butch Ware. It is frustrating that candidates who are actually running on working-class platforms receive absolutely no press coverage and are continuously shut out of major platforms, like the highly criticized (and ultimately canceled) gubernatorial debate co-sponsored by USC and the Los Angeles TV station KABC.

Comparison to the last Governor Race

2019 California Governor Election Results. Credit: The New York Times

While outgoing Governor Gavin Newsom practically coasted through his past elections, the 2026 primary is shaping up to be an entirely different beast. In his 2018 race, Newsom secured a landslide victory against Republican John Cox, winning by a massive 24 percentage points (the worst defeat for a GOP gubernatorial candidate in California since 1950). Newsom enjoyed such strong, unified party backing that his races were defined by inevitability, a stark contrast to the absolute chaos and uncertainty of this year's crowded primary. Today, the Democratic field is severely fractured among eight established candidates who stubbornly refuse to drop out, creating a messy, unpredictable contest heavily focused on intra-party squabbling. Unlike Newsom's clear march to the governor position, this current division is threatening to split the liberal vote so thinly that two Republicans could actually advance from the top-two primary, potentially shutting Democrats out of the November general election entirely.

My Final Thoughts 

It is wild to think that in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, we might see two Republicans facing off this November. This situation highlights a massive disconnect between urban liberals and the rural conservatives who are successfully mobilizing behind their preferred candidates. If the Democratic party cannot figure out how to consolidate their base and appeal to the varying wants and needs of all Californians, they will only have themselves to blame for handing over the governor position.

Tax in rural communities

My old boss, an accountant (CPA) who represented taxpayers in their appeals processes, lived on a small farm in the highlands between Orange and Riverside Counties. Most accountants, however, are unlikely to trade the pen for the plowshare. According to this Vishal CPA Prep, some counties have no licensed CPAs at all.

Rural communities, on average, tend to be less wealthy than metro communities. The tax code is structured, in part, to remedy inequalities between poorer and affluent Americans. However, many of the intended benefits and tax expenditures can only be accessed if the filer knows about the benefits. As noted in this 2018 article by the Internal Revenue Service, rural Americans would disproportionately benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit. However, they often choose not to apply because of reasonably held misconceptions about their eligibility. The IRS article explains that qualifying taxpayers can claim the EITC by filing electronically "through a qualified tax professional," "using free community tax help sites," or filing "themselves, with IRS Free File." The mention of Free File shows that the article is outdated, as the IRS Free File program has been eliminated for the 2026 filing season. The other two solutions require the use of either internet services or the services of a tax professional, neither of which are consistently available in rural locations. 

For low-income or elderly taxpayers, the IRS also offers services from the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) and Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) programs. The IRS provides a geographic site locator tool to find volunteers. However, these too have their geographic limits. Searching from the zip code of 96101, which is the county seat of Modoc County (Alturas, CA) in California, there are only three sites within 100 miles. UWNC, the Lassen Salvation Army, is the closest at 76.15 miles away. When relying upon volunteer accountants, rural communities may be underserved. Likewise, professional accountants seem few and far between in rural areas.

Accountants located near Altura, CA

Credit: Google Maps

Even where volunteers exist, the supply of professional tax help is dwindling nationwide. The United States is experiencing a shortage of new accountants. With hundreds of thousands of professionals of the Baby Boomer age cohort retiring, recent trends indicate that those positions will remain unfilled.

Credit: Preston Fore, AICPA 2023 Trends Report

Some smaller accounting firms have rejected potential clients. Beyond shortages, some tax experts caution that potential clients need to be cautious when choosing a tax preparer due to the current low bar to qualify. Firms turn away clients while bad actors fill the gaps.

In addition to a shortage of labor for tax preparation services, President Trump's 2025 hiring freeze exacerbated labor shortages within the IRS. As a consequence, tax filing and processing have become more difficult on both ends of the process. For low-income taxpayers, the shortages mean refund claims, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, will take longer to reach taxpayers. IRS response times when called for information have also become slower than ever. For taxpayers with no days off of work and only an hour for lunch, they might be out of luck when it comes to getting a live response.

Nonetheless, the IRS continues to publish helpful materials for rural-coded sectors of the economy. With a shortage of professional tax help, taxpayers may need to rely upon the publications themselves to stay informed and know which credits and deductions to apply for.

The 2025 tax year's Farmer's Tax Guide (Publication 225) provides an encyclopedic level of information for farmers, from general concepts of the cash or accrual method of accounting to more trade-specific concepts like Elective Farm Income. The publication also specifies farm-related deductible expenses like "Breeding Fees," "Fertilizer and Lime," and other "Prepaid Farm Supplies." 

More importantly, the Farmer's Tax Guide keeps tax filers up-to-date on expiring tax policies, like the temporary 100% deductibility of food or beverages provided by a restaurant. From personal experience working with small business owners, taxpayers often miss changes to tax policy, which can result in staggeringly large tax assessments for deficient payments, audits, and lengthy appeals proceedings during which interest ticks up.  

While helpful, IRS publications like Publication 225 may be difficult for many small business owners to comprehend. The length and depth of the publication makes it equally helpful and difficult to parse. Nestled within the publication is perhaps the most important detail, the rule surrounding whether farm-expenses can be listed at all on a tax return. As a long-standing principle, "Hobby Farming," or "Not-for-Profit Farming" doesn't qualify. Unfortunately for less-established farmers, one major factor in the consideration of a farm as a hobby farm is whether "taxpayer was successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past." More than most businesses, many crops need years to mature to profitability, leading to a horizontal equity issue between more established farmers and newer farmers. 

Business owners still have options with the IRS publication information, even with a lack of close CPAs. Kaizen CPA's accounting site recommends that business owners use QuickBooks if they net less than $500,000 each year. If above, Kaizen recommends a live CPA. Rural businesses might not have the option between a live CPA and QuickBooks. While QuickBooks does not have the functionality to facilitate the filing of income tax returns, it can organize financial information in a way to make the workload digestible for a live CPA during tax season. From there, the hypothetical rural business owner would need to take fewer trips to a CPA's office or may even merely contact them by email with their information ready. Now, with the shortage of CPAs nationwide, it might make a business owner a more palatable client to have their books in order.

There's a reason the CPA licensing process is difficult: taxes are oftentimes too complex for taxpayers to handle on their own. With a shortage of live CPAs and IRS employees, taxpayers will need to increasingly rely upon accounting software, which might miss niche credits that the taxpayer qualifies for. Rural taxpayers may need to embrace a new type of self-reliance in terms of financial literacy. 

Left to burn: how federal cuts are abandoning rural America's wildfire defenses

My memory of leaving Sonoma County for San Francisco includes a period of about four years where California wildfires progressively escalated in severity, oftentimes blanketing the city in smoke. In 2017, that included ducking inside to avoid breathing in the ashes of the town where I went to high school. It culminated in 2020 with the North Complex Fire causing the orange, alien sky that enveloped San Francisco. That fire was caused by a freak "lightning siege" attributable to climate change.  

My friend took this photo outside her apartment in September, 2020. Source: Rose Barry, 2020.

 The Palisades Fire early last year should have emphasized the apocalyptic urgency of addressing wildfire dangers in California and beyond. But in the name of limiting "waste and abuse" the Trump administration ignored this urgency and instead proceeded to cut federal funding to fight fires in rural America. 

The Cuts 

Like the rest of the Trump administration's 2025 efforts, these cuts are as chaotic as they are dramatic, attacking wildfire prevention and response from multiple angles. 

First, the administration cut 10% of workers at the Forest Service. The Forest Service manages Federal land, and many of their responsibilities include fire prevention and firefighting. Fewer workers means fewer people clearing the brush and fewer people trained to fight fires. This puts California in a precarious position, with the Federal government managing 57% of forests in the state. Nevada is arguably in even worse shape, with 86% of their land being federally managed. 

Critics of the policy include members of the previous Trump administration. Former Forest Service chief Vickie Christiansen posits that the policies amount to "$40 million saved now for $4 billion in wildfire expense" later. Ryan Zinke, Trump's former Secretary of the Interior, says that the cuts shift the question of hiring from "'are we paying them enough” (to) “are we even going to have the bodies?'"

Firefighters from Stockton, CA putting out a fire off Hidden Valley Road. Source: Creative Commons, 2013.

The administration has also merged disparate firefighting groups from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior into a single U.S. Wildlife Fire Service. While there have been proposals to this effect in the past, they were previously rejected due to a 2008 Congressional report finding this consolidation had significant drawbacks. The consolidation shifts the focus away from fire prevention and towards suppression. The Forest Service ideally fights fire through its land management duties, and separating the two functions increases the risk of catastrophic fires that cannot be adequately suppressed. 

Despite some of the most high stakes firefighting occurring in rural spaces (especially in California), rural firefighters are often volunteers. As a previous post on this blog puts it, "volunteer firefighting is a rural issue." California has 200 volunteer fire departments, with many rural spaces completely lacking professional firefighters. Communities often fund these departments partially through local fundraisers. As people leave these communities, staffing these departments becomes even more difficult. Willow Creek in Humboldt County finds their department shrinking as calls increase.  Cuts to the Forest Service means these towns already lacking in resources have even less ability to serve their community even as the fire season grows ever larger. 

Volunteer Fire Station in Occidental, CA. Source: Lisa Pruitt, 2025.

 States and localities have also suffered from the suspension of FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants in 2025, with a lawsuit forcing the resumption of grants only last year. A massive backlog has resulted, with two years worth of applicants applying for one year of grant funding. This affects infrastructure for fire prevention as well as other disasters. 

This backlog disproportionately affects rural towns. Larger municipalities frequently have full-time grant-writers, where small towns often rely on a thin secretarial support staff, if that. These towns have no ability to fund their own improvements, with necessary infrastructure often costing several times the town's budget. 

The Response 

California moved relatively swiftly to counter the Forest Service cuts, deploying $72 million in Cal FIRE grants to "rake the forest" and fast track critical fire prevention projects. While certainly helpful, the State can only work with the 3% of forest land it manages directly and must work with private landowners who own the other 40% of the land. With a majority of the land in California under Federal management, this effort is limited. 

Utah also increased their wildfire funding by $150 million and joined the Great Plains Interstate Fire Compact. The compact enables coordination and resource sharing with other western states to fight wildfires and prevent wildfires. While this likely won't make up for the gap left by the federal government, this more coordinated local effort is cause for optimism. 

The Department of the Interior also announced a $20 million grant to equip "small, remote emergency response agencies with practical, deployable tools," i.e. modern water tanker trucks. While not unwelcome, this targeted funding does not make up for the larger structural damage done by the Trump administration. 

Notably, none of these responses make efforts to alleviate the specific burdens on rural communities. They simply attempt to fill in the gaps left by the federal government's retreat, failing to address the prior inequities. 

Conclusion  

On our current trajectory I find it difficult to be optimistic about anything involving climate change. As a Californian, there are few things that seem more immediately pressing than addressing the increasing severity of wildfires. The current administration's efforts harm everyone by failing to address these systemic issues, and rural communities will bear the brunt of the impact. 

The carcinogenic classification of glyphosate faces new pressure

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is a controversial product in agriculture due to its potential carcinogenic effects. In 2015, the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” However, in February 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim registration review decision (ID) finding glyphosate poses “no risks of concern to human health when used in accordance with its current label.”

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On March 20, 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the EPA’s ID in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In May 2021, the EPA requested—and the court granted--a partial voluntary remand without vacatur of the ecological portion. The EPA later withdrew the entire ID, and the status of glyphosate remains under reconsideration.

As of 2026, the EPA maintains that there is no evidence glyphosate causes cancer in humans; there is no indication glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor; that residue on food items are safe for consumption; and that ecological risks are low, with the exception of potential harm to bees.

Despite these conclusions, public skepticism remains high. The widely publicized Monsanto Roundup litigation—through which Monsanto has paid nearly $11 billion to tens of thousands of plaintiffs alleging cancer caused by Roundup—has intensified doubts about the EPA’s classification. Additionally, organizations such as the Environmental Sciences Europe and the World Health Organization have criticized the EPA for failing to adequately consider individuals with heightened exposure, such as farmworkers and nearby residents. The Center for Food Safety has also cited emails between an EPA scientist and a Monsanto officer that suggest “coordinated efforts to undermine the legitimacy of IARC’s… determination.”

White House Easter celebration 2023.

© Kristy Ardalan 2024.

On February 18, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides.” A related fact sheet states that the order is intended to “protect domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides” which are “essential to military readiness and America’s agricultural strength.” The fact sheet emphasizes that currently only one domestic company produces elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. It also notes that the demand in the U.S. far exceeds current output, which “gravely endangers national security and defense” including food-supply security.

A particularly controversial provision of the order grants immunity to domestic producers that comply with federal law.

The famously polluted Potomac River in Washington, D.C.

© Kristy Ardalan 2023.

Environmental groups, such as the Waterkeeper Alliance, have strongly criticized the order arguing that “it puts chemical industry profits above public health and clean water.” Granting immunity for industrial chemical producers that follow federal directives makes it harder to hold them accountable for harm to human and environmental health. As discussed in this prior blog post, critics also point to broader legislative trends—such as provisions in the recent farm bill—that may weaken environmental protections, including removing dozens of pesticides from health and environmental safety reviews, granting the USDA power to block EPA health and environmental safeguards, removing Clean Water Act protections that limit pesticide pollution, etc.

However, there are signs of legislative pushback. On February 20, 2026, Representatives Thomas Massie (KY) and Chellie Pingree (ME) introduced the bipartisan “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to Congress in effort to undo the February 18 executive order. Representative Pingree stated “If there was ever any doubt about whose side this Administration is on, this Executive Order makes it crystal clear: Big Chemical comes first, and the health of Americans comes last.” Representative Massie similarly argued that “If the goal is to 'Make America Healthy Again,' the federal government should not be using its authority to promote or protect the production of glyphosate.”

© Iowa Environmental Council and The Harkin Institute, Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis, p. 9. Data from the National Cancer Institute state cancer profiles.

The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act was introduced to Congress shortly before a disruptive report from the Iowa Environmental Council and the Harkin Institute for Public Policy and Citizen Engagement titled “Environmental Risk Factors and Iowa’s Cancer Crisis” was released on March 25, 2026. The report focuses on pesticides, PFAS, Nitrate, Radon, and other industrial contaminants in Iowa. The Executive Director of the Iowa Environmental Council stated that the report “demonstrates clear links between environmental pollution and our health and well-being.” As found in the 2020 census, the majority of Iowans live in rural areas and the rural areas are surrounded by endless fields of corn all likely sprayed with glyphosate. The graph below shows that rural residents in Iowa experience and live around the most dense pesticide application areas in the United States and the cancer rates reflect that.

A map of counties depicting high and low cancer rates

© Investigate Midwest, National Cancer Institute, and the CDC

Iowa’s cancer rate exceeds the national average by more than 10%, with a particularly elevated rates among individuals under 50. The state has the highest number of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the country, a number more than 2.5 times as many CAFOs than the next highest state. With emerging research linking glyphosate and other environmental contaminants to adverse health outcomes, pressure is mounting for legislative action—and soon.

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (“SAVE Act”) has returned to Congress and sits before the Senate after passing the House. This bill would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring every eligible voter to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or updating a registration.

The bill would require individuals to appear in person at an election and present approved documentation even for routine updates. These updates can include address changes, name changes, or party affiliation adjustments. Each federal election cycle, approximately 80 million people either register to vote for the first time or update their voter registration information. This bill would impose new logistical hurdles on all of them. Acceptable documentation would include a valid U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID, or a naturalization certificate. If a person’s legal name does not match their birth certificate, they must also provide additional legal documents to prove the change.

Supporters of the bill, including many Republican lawmakers, argue that stricter verification requirements will prevent non-citizen voting. Arguing that Joe Biden’s “reckless open-border policies” necessitate this bill as without it we can’t be sure that Americans are the only ones voting in federal elections.

What does the White House say about the SAVE Act? The official White House website refers to it as a “common sense, bipartisan bill,” emphasizing that all it “simply” requires is a valid ID to register to vote in a federal election, proof of citizenship, and no mail-in ballots. The website then goes on to list other countries that enforce stricter voter identification laws.

The SAVE Act is not new. Last year it passed the House but failed to advance in the Senate due to nationwide public opposition. It was reintroduced this January. Critics, previously and this time, argue that the SAVE Act solves nothing. Numerous studies and audits have shown that non-citizen voting occurs at extremely low rates. In fact, many view this bill as a way for Republicans to hammer Trump’s narrative of widespread election fraud.

Additionally, the act will determinately impact rural America, which particularly relies on mail-in and online methods for voter registration. Rural Americans already face long travel distances and fewer government service offices. A Center for American Progress analysis found that in some cases rural Americans would need to drive hours to an election office in order to meet the requirements of the act. In states like Alaska, the burden will be even more pronounced. Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski is one of the only Republicans to join in opposition of this bill arguing that it will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskans and their ability to vote.

Credit: Center for American Progress, 2025

Furthermore, while the act imposes no direct fee to vote it requires Americans to provide documentation that can only be obtained by paying a fee. Obtaining documentation that requires payment will discourage low-income rural residents from even participating. Under this act, rural voters will face longer travel time, higher costs, and fewer alternatives. These barriers will not just inconvenience voters but will prevent participation in the voting process.

Broad nosed faces

My Grandfather and I in Castro Valley, California, 1996

Photo Credit: Veija Kusama

“広い鼻” (hiroi hana) he would tell me, tapping the slope of my nose with the calloused pad of his forefinger.

“アイヌ” (Ainu).

His tone was always reticent. Rooted in the belly of history, in the timbre of family and tradition. Laced with something bitter, a tinge darker. Not quite manifested as shame, never quite asserted as pride. I did not know what Ainu was. What it meant for me and my broad nose. Nor did I ask. Somehow, I knew not to.

Ainu Chieftan

Photo Credit: Midnight Believer

A human being

The name Ainu literally translates to ‘a human being’, traditionally contrasted with kamuy, or ‘divine beings'. Historically residing primarily in the Hokkaidō, Sakhalin, and Kuril Islands, the Ainu are believed to be descendants of the ancient Jōmon culture, which dates back over 10,000 years. Beginning in the 9th Century, Ainu communities began to fall to Japanese subjugation and by the 18th Century they were the target of concerted forced assimilation policies.

Throughout the Meiji Restoration of the 19th Century, Emperor Mutsuhito forced the Ainu peoples off their land, disrupting their relationships with their spiritual heartlands, and terminating their traditional ways of life. As Bri Lambright of Ursinus University notes:

"Ainu land was stolen, and small plots were returned with the express purpose of farming. With traditional hunting practices banned in order to allow Japanese manufacturers to capitalize on exporting deer meat and hides to the mainland, the Ainu were left with little option but to adhere to the government’s plans, lest they face starvation and burial beneath the waves of Japanese settlers who could readily take the community’s place."

Faced with an impossible choice, the Ainu were blamed for the predicament in which they found themselves, as evidenced by letters exchanged between the Nemuro and Naimushō Prefectures dated November of 1882:

“They have brought this difficulty upon themselves since they lack the spirit of activity and progress. In their society in the past there was nothing they needed to record through writing, no stimulus to develop their knowledge through learning; when thirsty they drank, when hungry they ate. They are a purely primitive people.”

Google Translation Screenshot - Ainu

Barbarian, savage, vandal

As the hallowed halls of Edo were devising the extinction of the living, a rising consortium of scientists began to covet the currency of the dead. As Noah Oskaw writes in his piece for Unseen Japan:

"The impetus for the veritable grave plundering of Ainu bones was ostensibly scientific: the desire by Japanese researchers to learn more about the physical and, later, genetic make-up of the indigenous ethnic minorities native to Japan’s northern borders… In both 1864 and 1865, mere years before the fall of the Tokugawa dynasty, the British consul in Hakodate led a group of foreigners interested in uncovering the mystery of the Ainu’s 'Caucasian' features to secretly raid Ainu gravesites… Most infamous of the grave robbers was Hokkaido University Professor Kodama Sakuzaemon, who led various state-sanctioned raids into local boneyards throughout the 1920s to 1970s – all against Ainu protests - sometimes police were called in to help hold off Ainu from physically preventing the unearthing of their ancestors."

Final resting places rendered temporary. Ancestors dragged to lay upon steel tables. Loved ones etched by the scalpels of foreign hands. For nearly one hundred years, the people of Ainu waited.

Interior of an Ainu Home in Yezo, 1906

Photo Credit: Snapshots of the Past

Homecoming

In 2012, a cohort of Ainu elders banded together to achieve the return of their ancestors. Banding together under the slogan, ‘Return the Ainu Remains to the Soil of the Ainu Kotan’, they brought suit against Hokkaidō University demanding repatriation. Mounting political pressures, further exacerbated by Japan’s recent ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes a provision requiring governments to work for the return of indigenous people's remains, resulted in a historic 2016 settlement. The case was the first legal domino of its kind, and a chain reaction of “small but significant” repatriations have followed.

In July of 2007 the Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie returned a skull stolen from an Ainu cemetery in Sapporo by a German tourist in 1879. In May of 2023, a set of four skulls were returned from Melbourne, following their 1911 exploitation by a pair of anthropological pen-pals: a prewar exchange by which the National Museum of Australia sent Aboriginal skeletal remains to the University of Tokyo in return for Ainu skeletal material. And next month, officials from the Japanese government will travel to Britain to receive the remains of five Ainu previously housed at the National History Museum in London and the University of Edinburgh’s Anatomical Museum.

Ainu Woman Playing the Mukkuri

Photo Credit: Midnight Believer

Locating the lost 

While the ten sets of returned remains mark a promising trend, the number of stolen Ainu is estimated to be in the thousands, and for a culture on the brink of extinction, preservation has begun to equate survival. Today, only a few isolated pockets of Ainu people remain scattered across rural Hokkaido, with most of the estimated 20,000 Ainu assimilating into cities and towns around the island. After decades of government proscription, the Hokkaido Ainu language is likely extinct, as there remain no known native speakers, and many individuals of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their ancestry or tradition. To state it quite starkly, the Ainu are disappearing.

My Grandfather and I in Hakodate, Hokkaido, 2025

Photo Credit: Veija Kusama

Good for breathing 

My grandfather is now 82 and his tone regarding our Ainu heritage has shifted in recent years. What was once coated in a glaze of indignity has come to be considered with a degree of quiet contentment. Now, when he regards the nose his genes placed upon my face, he adds a simple but emblematic qualifier. “広い鼻” (broad nose), “呼吸に良い” (good for breathing). Perhaps, the repatriation movement is not only about reclaiming the skulls of our ancestors, but rather about reclaiming the faces they gave us.

Public lands and rural economies

Over spring break, I took a short trip to Yosemite National Park and hiked the Upper Falls trail. As I made my way up the trail I was struck by the natural beauty of the park and also a sense of gratitude that our society has undertaken the difficult task of facilitating access to these places.

Half Dome and Yosemite Falls from Upper Falls Trail. Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

Something about a well maintained trail thousands of feet up the side of a cliff-face feels just as impressive as massive public works projects like dams and highways, and for good reason. Maintenance of the type of tourism economy generated by our National Parks is a staggering task that is largely undertaken by rural communities surrounding them.

The economic benefits of public lands

The National Park Service manages 17,000 miles of trails across the nation, along with 5,500 miles of paved road, and 25,000 buildings that are in need of constant maintenance and repair. This effort provides massive returns for the U.S. economy that have grown in recent years, as has interest in outdoor recreational activities. In 2024, outdoor recreation activities accounted for 2.4% of GDP. As a proportion of America’s GDP, outdoor recreation is now three times larger than air transport or auto manufacturing, twice as large as agriculture, and larger than oil and gas development. This revenue is especially important in rural states like Montana and Wyoming, where outdoor recreation accounts for at least 4.7% of GDP. In 2024, national parks alone accounted for $56.3 billion in output, 340,000 jobs, and $29 billion for local gateway regions.

The economic benefits of a National Park are nearly immediately apparent in local communities. One study estimated that designation of a National Park causes a 4% increase in employment and a 5% increase in income in communities near national parks within four years of a park being designated. Public lands attract high-wage job opportunities in areas like forestry management and infrastructure maintenance, while generating investment and revenue for local businesses.

Snow, a resident of Priest, CA, relies on tourism to Yosemite for attention. Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

Another study by Headwaters Economics examined the effect of public lands (not limited to the National Park Service) on surrounding communities and found that it provided massive benefits. The study compared the population growth, employment, personal income, and per capita income in western non-metro counties with the top 25th and bottom 25th percentiles of proportion of federal land. Headwaters found that these economic indicators grew two times faster or more in non-metro counties with the highest share of federal lands, though there was a smaller increase in per capita income.

 

Graphic courtesy of Megan Lawson, Ph.D., at Headwater Economics (2017)

The Trump administration and national parks

Despite longstanding bipartisan support for the National Park system, the Trump administration has launched an attack on the Park Service in very classically Trump manner; by slashing funding while politicizing National Parks however possible.

The Trump administration recently cancelled free admission to national parks on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and on Juneteenth, while instead instituting free admission on his own birthday. As an additional insertion of “culture war” politics into national parks, the Trump administration has removed or censored exhibits discussing slavery, LGBTQ history, Native American expulsion from national narks, and climate change. Further, the Trump administration implemented a $100 per person additional fee for non-residents on top of existing fees for 11 popular national parks, including Yosemite.

Bridalveil Falls Source: Chris Hayward (2026)

In addition to these attacks on the inclusivity and historical accuracy of national parks, the Trump administration has made a series of more concrete attempts to gut the National Park System. In the first half of 2025 alone, 24% of National Park Service employees were fired, resigned, or otherwise departed the agency. The Trump administration has significantly increased logging, oil drilling, and coal mining on federal land, while ignoring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements.

Continued support for national parks

While national parks are under attack by the Trump administration, public support for the national parks remains strong. The National Park Service is the most popular agency in the federal government, with 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats viewing it favorably. There has even been bipartisan pushback on the Trump administration’s attempts to gut the National Park System.

In the summer of 2025, a Trump backed provision intended to sell off large portions of public land introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” was withdrawn after it drew strong backlash, even from other Republican members of Congress. Similarly, the Trump administration’s proposed 37% reduction in the National Park Service’s 2026 budget was rejected by the Senate.

Conclusions

While public support for our national parks remains strong, the Trump administration has still managed to do significant harm in 15 short months since he returned to office. Many are concerned that the extreme volatility of the administration may have irreversibly damaged the institutional knowledge of the National Park Service. Rebuilding the expertise of our federal agencies will be an extremely long and difficult task, but so was the effort to protect and maintain these places in the first place. Thankfully, even many Republicans see value in our parks, even if only for the benefits they provide to rural communities. 

Recent reports identify rural public health interventions, some with potential to mitigate Medicaid cuts

U.S. Department of Public Health Building.
Image courtesy of Boston Public Library. 

Healthcare in rural America finds itself a topic of much discussion lately, with mainstream media coverage of the crisis unfolding after Medicaid cuts by the Trump administration's 2025 budget reconciliation bill, which was signed into law July 2025. By some estimates, the new law will increase the number of uninsured people by 10 million in 2034. Other coverage concerns the fate of a $50 billion rural health slush fund that is yet to pay out in the communities who need it most and the recent slew of hospital closures in rural communities.

While the new restrictions on Medicaid eligibility and reduced federal spending will be felt across the nation, rural communities will be hit especially hard, due to the higher rates of people on Medicaid in nonmetropolitan areas. Sarah Jane Tribble, reporting for KFF Health News, writes: "[p]eople who live in the nation’s rural expanses have more chronic diseases, die younger, and make less money. Those compounding factors have financially pummeled rural health infrastructure, triggering hospital closures and widespread discontinuation of critical health services." 

Hospital closures (online tool showing a map of recent closures) exacerbate the present struggle to meet rural healthcare needs, where people are generally more vulnerable and less likely to utilize primary care services due to structural barriers like cost and provider shortages. "Rural adults are less likely to be insured, less likely to use healthcare, and more likely to delay seeking care than urban residents," Caldwell et al., 2016. To put it plainly, access to acute care is bleak in much of rural America right now, and reductions in Medicaid spending and eligibility are poised to make things worse. 

Rural hospital closures, 2005-2010 (in blue) and 2010-present (in yellow).
Graphic courtesy of Sheps Center for Health Services Research, UNC. 

There is, however, another dimension of the rural health conversation that is gaining traction in public discourse – rural public health. Where the trends in healthcare are alarming, improvement in public health feels tractable. This post focuses on insights from two recent reports – this one from the Aspen Institute (Feb. 2026) and this one from California's Department of Public Health (Feb. 2026) – to highlight opportunities for high-impact rural public health intervention amid the ongoing healthcare crisis. 

Public Health: Rurality in Focus

In general, the healthcare industry aims to treat people who are sick or injured, whereas public health seeks to keep people from getting sick or injured in the first place. Healthcare focuses on individualized care; public health focuses on entire populations. Because a key responsibility of public health is to collect, analyze, and interpret health data to inform timely public health interventions, policies, and resource planning, it is more likely to analyze and include the axes of identity and experience that inform vulnerability. In fact, rurality has been an axis of analysis in public health research for decades. "Place," meaning where people live, work, and play, is widely understood by experts in the field as a fundamental social determinant of health.

In February 2026, the Aspen Institute and the California Department of Public Health each published reports that examine, in significant detail, the state of rural public health. The Aspen Institute Report is titled "Meeting the Health Needs of Rural America," and represents the tenth installment in the Aspen Health Strategy Group's mission to tackle a single health issue annually through year-long, in-depth study. The California Department of Public Health Report, the State's second-ever "California State of Public Health Report," ("Cal. DPH Report") carves out tens of pages devoted to risks, trends, and interventions specific to rural children, adolescents, and adults.

All-Cause Mortality Rate by Race and Ethnicity in Urban/Rural
Areas, California 2022-2024 (Cal. DPH Rep., p. 32)

This post focuses on one paper from the Aspen Institute Report titled Population Health in Rural America: Changes, Challenges, and Opportunities, authored by rural demographer Shannon M. Monnat and sociologist Tim Slack. Their paper tees up several useful policy proposals, which provide a path to remedying the so-called "rural mortality penalty" – the name for a widening disparity where rural U.S. residents experience higher age-adjusted mortality rates than urban counterparts. The authors suggest that the relative recency of the rural mortality penalty, which emerged in the data only four decades ago, "provides reason to believe it can be reversed." (Aspen Inst. Rep., p. 5). 

Systemic Risks and Opportunities 

Each report does a thorough inventory of factors driving mortality rates across the lifespan, from infants to working-age adults to the elderly. Unsurprisingly, barriers like lack of access to healthcare, transportation, healthy food, broadband internet, and other social services are central to their findings. But each goes a step further to do some accounting of recent social and economic trends driving the numbers: substance abuse and misuse; growing gaps in educational attainment; and persistent economic disinvestment that has hollowed out local institutions and workforce pipelines. Environmental risks (including climate change) and exposures also explain recent losses in resilience and increases in mortality rates. These overlapping stressors compound, reinforcing cycles of poor health outcomes that are difficult to interrupt through healthcare access alone. 

Adult Mortality Rates in Nonmetropolitan (Rural) Counties,
2000-2022 (Aspen Inst. Rep.)

Writing for the Aspen Institute, Monnat & Slack characterize "rural economic and human health" as "intertwined." The data in both studies bears this out. Lower income, wealth, and levels of educational attainment correlate strongly with shorter lifespans and fewer years lived in good health. Importantly, both reports frame these outcomes not as inevitable features of rural life, but as the product of policy choices and disinvestment patterns that can be changed. The California report, in particular, emphasizes that upstream interventions–those that target education, early childhood development, and economic stability–offer some of the highest returns for improving long-term health outcomes (Cal. DPH Report). 

The reports identify education policy reform as a major inroad for uplifting rural communities struggling with economic disinvestment and population decline. 

Education, particularly possessing a bachelor’s degree, has become an increasingly important determinant of health and longevity in the United States. Higher education confers economic, social, and lifestyle advantages that manifest as a “personal firewall” that protects health, even in the face of external and unpredictable threats, such as pandemics, recessions, and natural disasters.

(Aspen Inst. Rep., p. 76). Investments in vocational programs, community colleges, and early childhood education programs like Head Start not only improve education and employment outcomes, but also provide measurable health benefits over time. Many health outcomes and disparities in adulthood are rooted in childhood conditions such as family and community health, neighborhood safety, policies, and systems" (Cal. DPH Report, p. 58). By strengthening local economies and expanding opportunities, these interventions address root causes of poor health, rather than treating symptoms as they occur. In this way, rural public health policy begins to function as a cross-sector strategy for community resilience. 

Conclusion 

The current crisis in rural healthcare access underscores the need for action, but it also highlights the limits of a healthcare-only response. As the reports analyzed in this post make clear, improving rural public health outcomes requires sustained investment in the social and economic conditions that shape health, long before a person ever becomes a patient. Public health offers a framework for identifying upstream opportunities and making interventions where they can have the greatest impact. In the face of hospital closures and shrinking coverage, this broader approach might provide a path forward: one that treats rural health not only as a medical issue but as a function of place, policy, and long-term community investment.