Election Day is here, and at long last, the time has come for the voter to vote.

Of course, politics is complicated. Personalities, headlines, local concerns, and the national mood all shape elections. History matters, too. As Right Good News discussed in our look at the “midterm curse,” a president’s party has frequently lost congressional ground in a midterm cycle, regardless of which party holds the White House. Human psychology apparently has a few political traditions of its own.

We won’t attempt to explain the human brain, and we’re not predicting today’s results.

Instead, let’s consider something more concrete: what Americans actually believe about the issues.

The fact is, public polling shows considerable support for Republican-backed positions on a wide range of issues that matter to American families. To illustrate that point, consider the following six examples, drawn from major policy debates, including several of the issues Americans identify as most important to their votes.

These are hardly the only examples, nor are they intended to represent the full extent of Republican legislative accomplishments. Instead, they offer a revealing snapshot of public opinion, alongside concrete examples of how Republicans have worked to advance many of these priorities.

Together, these examples connect measurable public preferences with identifiable Republican policies, legislative proposals, and government actions, seemingly demonstrating that if they want leaders who share their views, American voters should be punching the names with “R” next to them.

1. Tax relief for working Americans

A 2025 YouGov survey found 71 percent of Americans supported eliminating federal taxes on tips, while 66 percent backed doing the same for overtime pay.

Republican lawmakers delivered a narrower version of both ideas in their 2025 tax law: deductions for qualifying tips and the premium portion of qualifying overtime, subject to limits, through 2028.

Together, the polling and legislation demonstrate a clear overlap between tax relief supported by large majorities of Americans and policies Republicans have enacted into law.

2. Immigration and border security

In a September 2026 Marquette Law School national poll, 42 percent of adults said Republicans would do a better job handling immigration and border security, compared with 31 percent who chose Democrats.

On one specific enforcement question, a January YouGov survey found 87 percent supported deporting immigrants living in the country illegally who had committed violent crimes.

President Trump has made border enforcement a central administration priority, signing an executive order on his first day in office directing expanded border barriers and stricter detention policies. According to preliminary data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, southwest border apprehensions fell to 98,708 in fiscal 2026, approximately 95 percent below the annual average recorded during the Biden administration.

3. National defense

The September Marquette survey also found a 41-to-26-percent Republican advantage on national defense, one of the party’s largest advantages among the issues surveyed.

Congress plays a central role in determining defense spending, military readiness, and oversight of national-security priorities. In December 2025, the Republican-led Congress passed the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which President Trump signed into law. The legislation authorized approximately $890.6 billion for national defense, including weapons procurement and military research and development.

4. Crime and public safety

In the same Marquette survey, Republicans held a 38-to-23-percent advantage over Democrats on which party would better handle crime.

That 15-point lead represents a substantial difference in public confidence on an issue that reaches well beyond Washington politics. From neighborhood safety to violent crime, protecting Americans is one of the government’s most fundamental responsibilities.

Republicans have also advanced legislation addressing drug trafficking. In July 2025, President Trump signed the HALT Fentanyl Act, a law that permanently classifies certain fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I controlled substances, strengthening the legal framework for combating illicit synthetic opioids.

5. Voter identification

Pew Research Center found that 83 percent of American adults favored requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, including 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.

Of course, the divide in Congress appears to be a little different. In August 2026, a Republican-backed Senate bill requiring voter photo ID, S. 5271, received 52 votes to advance and 46 against, falling short of the 60 needed to proceed. All 52 supporting votes came from Republicans, while all 46 opposing votes came from Democrats and independents.

The PRC poll tested photo ID specifically, not every election-law proposal, but it’s clear that public support for that particular requirement is unmistakable.

6. Women’s sports

In a 2025 Gallup survey, 69 percent of Americans said transgender athletes should compete on teams corresponding to their sex at birth.

The GOP-led House has taken clear legislative action, with the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act passing the House in January 2025. A total of 216 Republicans and two Democrats voted in favor, while 206 Democrats opposed the bill.

The polling and congressional record illustrate a substantial difference between public preferences on sports eligibility and the positions taken by most Democratic lawmakers.

The bigger picture

Elections are more complicated than any one issue, or any six, for that matter. Still, these debates involve real decisions about Americans’ taxes, public safety, and national security, as well as how the country is governed.

Whatever happens on Election Day, the polling makes one thing clear: on a number of consequential issues, Republican-backed positions align with the views of substantial portions of the American public, including many beyond the party’s own base.

The campaign noise will soon fade. But what Americans want from their government, and what Congress does about it, will matter long after Election Day.

Here’s to many happy returns!

And no, not the kind of power that kingdoms fought over in Game of Thrones.

We’re talking about electricity. Specifically, how the U.S. needs more of it to keep pace with growing demand.

And as it turns out, more electricity may already be hiding inside nuclear power plants built decades ago.

On Tuesday, October 27, the Trump administration announced a conditional loan commitment of up to $5 billion that could help Constellation Energy increase production at eight existing nuclear facilities in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the goal being to strengthen the grid and lower energy costs in these regions.

As planned, the upgrades are expected to add nearly 1.1 gigawatts of generating capacity, roughly the output of a large nuclear reactor. According to the Energy Department, that’s enough electricity to serve the equivalent of more than 930,000 homes.

No new nuclear plant required.

More power from existing plants

The idea is called a power uprate, an engineering term for increasing the amount of electricity an existing reactor can produce. Depending on the facility, that can mean improvements to turbines and generators, changes in fuel, or upgrades to other equipment.

Power uprates have a proven track record. For decades, American utilities have used them to generate more electricity from existing reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved numerous uprates, subject to safety reviews, that have collectively added the equivalent of several reactors to the nation’s generating capacity.

But there’s new urgency today.

The Trump administration’s initiative builds on the method’s prior success, bringing renewed attention and federal support to an established way of expanding America’s electricity supply at a time when demand is accelerating.

For years, the national conversation about energy revolved around what kinds of electricity America should produce. Now a more immediate question is asserting itself: Can the U.S. produce enough of it?

This conditional loan commitment was announced by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing, a unit that seems appropriately titled and tasked for our time.

Artificial intelligence requires data centers, which in turn require electricity. Manufacturers need dependable power. American households expect the lights, heating, and air conditioning to work regardless of the weather.

So a division of the DOE focused on facilitating “energy dominance” makes sense.

Especially when you consider that the Energy Information Administration expects U.S. electricity generation to reach a record this year and rise again in 2027.

A new approach to an old challenge

Meeting that demand will require new infrastructure, and building it is rarely quick or inexpensive. Nuclear power is particularly challenging, with new plants involving huge capital investments, long construction timelines, and extensive oversight.

That makes the administration’s emphasis on existing reactors a practical and creative complement to its ambitions for new ones.

Earlier this year, the Energy Department launched the Utility Power Reactor Incremental Scaling Effort, or UPRISE, with the goal of helping unlock additional nuclear capacity. The department says it has now identified projects representing roughly 4.7 gigawatts toward a five-gigawatt target that includes reactor upgrades and restarts.

In other words, Washington has found a way to pursue an energy objective that doesn’t depend entirely on starting from scratch. The approach also builds on private-sector momentum. Long-term agreements with companies including Google and Amazon have already encouraged billions of dollars in investments in additional nuclear output, according to a news release from Constellation.

Building on what America already has

The administration deserves credit for recognizing that expanding America’s energy supply is not solely a contest to invent the next technology or build the next giant facility; it is also an exercise in getting more value from infrastructure that utilities and investors have already spent decades developing.

Ambitious new reactors no doubt have their place, but it makes a lot of sense to confirm whether existing reactors can do more.

Sometimes the next big thing in American energy isn’t new at all.

Share Right Good News

But for millions of Americans, that dream has become an increasingly difficult financial proposition. Mortgage rates rose sharply beginning in 2022 during the Biden administration, exacerbating longstanding obstacles that had accumulated over decades, such as inadequate housing construction in many communities, restrictive zoning rules, and rising construction costs.

And for those fortunate enough to scrape together a down payment and qualify for a mortgage, the sale price is only part of the equation, and suddenly, they find themselves facing unexpected additional costs.

These are the less obvious expenses associated with buying and owning a home: mortgage insurance premiums, refinancing fees, appraisals, title insurance, and other costs that can add hundreds or even thousands of dollars to the price of homeownership.

President Donald Trump’s latest executive order, signed Thursday, October 22, takes aim at several of these expenses.

While housing affordability issues represent a broad and complicated challenge, the order is targeted, geared specifically toward reducing some of the overlooked fees, insurance costs, and regulatory hurdles that add to the expense of buying and owning a home.

It’s a narrow undertaking that could make a meaningful difference for borrowers.

Addressing mortgage insurance

Consider private mortgage insurance, commonly known as PMI.

Homebuyers who make down payments of less than 20 percent are often required to purchase this insurance, which protects the lender if the borrower defaults.

Under existing federal rules, qualifying borrowers can generally request cancellation when their mortgage balance reaches 80 percent of the property’s original value. Automatic cancellation generally occurs when the scheduled balance reaches 78 percent, provided certain conditions are met.

But what happens when a home’s value increases significantly before those milestones?

Some borrowers can already qualify for early cancellation based on appreciation, but navigating the process may require paperwork, property valuations, and requests to their mortgage servicers.

Trump’s order seeks to make that process easier.

The order calls on the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), subject to financial and legal safeguards, to establish a pilot program through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would periodically assess borrowers’ equity using automated property valuations and other available information.

The pilot would apply to newly originated mortgages after the program begins. When borrowers meet the applicable requirements, their mortgage insurance could be canceled proactively, without requiring them to initiate the process.

Seems like a no-brainer.

Making refinancing less expensive

The order also targets a frequently overlooked expense associated with refinancing: lender’s title insurance.

This insurance protects a lender against certain problems with a property’s ownership history. Homeowners who refinance may be required to pay for a new lender’s policy, even though the property’s title was already examined when they originally purchased the home.

The administration wants to expand an existing federal pilot program that allows certain refinancing transactions to use automated title assessments instead of traditional lender’s title insurance.

The FHFA estimated in 2024 that its original pilot could save eligible refinancing borrowers between $500 and $1,500 in closing costs.

Trump’s order calls for expanding that approach nationwide through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while considering additional ways to reduce unnecessary appraisals, documentation requirements, and financing fees.

Crucially, it also calls for the resulting savings to be passed along to borrowers.

The order also seeks to lower borrowing costs through reductions in interest rates on certain housing loans issued directly by the departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs.

Building homes without unnecessary barriers (figuratively)

Perhaps the order’s most consequential long-term provision concerns manufactured and factory-built housing.

The administration is establishing a task force to identify ways to streamline inspections, certifications, permitting practices, and other requirements that can complicate the production of these homes.

Within 180 days, the task force must recommend reforms intended to encourage modern construction methods and eliminate duplicative federal requirements.

The potential benefits extend beyond paperwork.

Factory-built housing offers opportunities to standardize construction, reduce delays, and expand the supply of lower-cost homes. Yet complicated or overlapping requirements can undermine some of those advantages.

The larger regulatory burden is substantial.

A June 2026 analysis by the National Association of Home Builders estimates that regulatory costs add roughly $131,700 to the price of a new single-family home, representing more than a quarter of its average sales price.

Not all those regulations are unnecessary, and no executive order can eliminate every state or local obstacle to construction. But the figures illustrate how consequential the regulatory environment can be.

The latest initiative also builds on the administration’s March executive order directing federal agencies to reduce unnecessary barriers to residential development.

Taken together, the measures suggest an approach that recognizes housing affordability as both a financing problem and a construction problem.

A practical approach to affordability

America’s housing affordability challenges are complicated, but the administration’s latest initiative offers a targeted approach that could deliver meaningful savings for homeowners and help reduce barriers for prospective buyers.

By addressing unnecessary expenses, streamlining complicated processes, and encouraging more efficient home construction, the administration is pursuing reforms that could make homeownership more attainable and less costly.

And if these efforts deliver on their promise, they could do more than simplify paperwork and save Americans money. They could help more families achieve one of the most enduring aspirations of the American Dream: owning a place to call their own.

Share Right Good News

Pyongyang announced on Thursday, October 15 that it had successfully tested two types of submarine-launched cruise missiles, another step in its effort to develop a more formidable nuclear deterrent.

The tests underscore a challenge that has occupied American defense planners for decades: How do you defend against weapons launched from platforms that are designed to remain hidden?

The development also provides timely context for the Trump administration’s efforts to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal and develop robust new missile defenses.

An old challenge with new implications

According to the Associated Press, North Korean state media reported that the October 14 tests were intended to evaluate the reliability of the country’s naval deterrent and its ability to conduct strategic missions via underwater combat systems.

The launches follow years of work by Kim Jong Un’s government to develop submarines capable of deploying increasingly sophisticated weapons.

The underlying military concept is hardly new.

During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union invested heavily in submarine-launched nuclear weapons because submarines offered something land-based missile installations could not: mobility and concealment.

While a fixed missile silo can be located and monitored, a submarine operating beneath the ocean’s surface is considerably more difficult to track, potentially allowing it to survive an initial attack and retaliate.

That survivability became a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence, strengthening the calculation that launching a nuclear attack would invite devastating consequences.

North Korea has been attempting to develop its own version of that capability for many years.

There are important limitations, however. Analysts have questioned the reliability and operational readiness of Pyongyang’s submarine force, and the latest tests do not establish that North Korea possesses a fully capable sea-based nuclear deterrent.

Cruise missiles also differ from the submarine-launched ballistic missiles traditionally associated with strategic nuclear submarines. Their flight characteristics, ranges, and interception challenges are not identical.

Nevertheless, the direction of North Korea’s military ambitions is clear.

Washington’s response

The development comes as the United States pursues several major initiatives intended to strengthen its strategic deterrent.

One significant example is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, signed into law by President Donald J. Trump in December 2025.

The legislation amended federal missile defense policy to emphasize a next-generation defensive shield capable of addressing ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial threats.

The NDAA also reinforced the importance of maintaining a credible American nuclear response capability.

According to the House Armed Services Committee’s summary, the legislation supported modernization of all three components of America’s nuclear triad: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines.

Among its provisions were support for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program and continued development of a nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile.

These investments address different elements of deterrence, including the ability to survive an attack and maintain a credible capacity to respond.

The administration has also made missile defense a prominent priority through its Golden Dome initiative, an ambitious effort to develop a multilayered defense system capable of detecting, tracking, and intercepting missiles launched against the United States.

Inspired in part by Israel’s Iron Dome, Golden Dome envisions a much larger and more technologically complex system combining ground-based interceptors, advanced radar and sensors, and potentially space-based weapons capable of defeating missiles at different stages of flight.

The Pentagon’s FY2026 budget presentation outlined an initial $25 billion investment in the initiative, which is intended to strengthen American defenses against ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, and cruise missiles.

To be sure, Golden Dome remains an ambitious undertaking with significant technical and financial challenges. Its effectiveness against different types of threats, including submarine-launched missiles, has yet to be demonstrated.

But the initiative, alongside broader investments in nuclear modernization, illustrates the substantial resources Washington is directing toward an evolving threat.

Deterrence is more than missile defense

There is a distinction worth noting.

Missile defense seeks to detect, intercept, or otherwise defeat an incoming attack. Nuclear deterrence seeks to convince an adversary that launching such an attack would carry unacceptable consequences.

Both concepts play roles in American defense strategy, but they are not interchangeable.

And neither eliminates the importance of diplomacy, alliances, intelligence gathering, or conventional military readiness.

North Korea’s latest tests are particularly relevant to the United States’ relationships with South Korea and Japan, which face more immediate regional threats from Pyongyang’s expanding missile arsenal.

For Washington, maintaining credible deterrence means considering not only the defense of the American homeland but also the security commitments that underpin stability in the Pacific.

The lesson from Pyongyang

North Korea’s submarine program remains far less capable than the sophisticated undersea forces maintained by the United States and other major military powers.

Yet the October tests illustrate how technologies once associated primarily with Cold War superpower competition continue to shape international security, in addition to offering a useful perspective on America’s current defense investments.

The United States cannot assume that the strategic advantages it developed decades ago will remain sufficient indefinitely, nor can it assume that adversaries will limit themselves to familiar weapons or launch platforms.

For all the changes in warfare since the Cold War, one principle remains remarkably consistent: Effective deterrence depends on convincing potential adversaries that aggression will fail or create repercussions they are unwilling to accept.

North Korea’s latest tests underscore why maintaining that deterrent requires constant vigilance, continued investment, and a willingness to adapt to emerging threats.

Share Right Good News

But when it comes to ballot measures, Americans get an opportunity to speak for themselves.

This November, voters across the country will consider ballot measures addressing some of the nation’s most divisive cultural and political questions. Unlike a vote for a candidate, which can be influenced by everything from personality to party loyalty, ballot measures ask voters to consider particular policies.

The results won’t provide definitive answers to every political disagreement, of course. But they could offer a revealing look at public opinion on issues that have generated considerable attention in Washington and state capitals.

Here are some particularly interesting ballot measures worth watching in 13 states on November 3.

What’s on the ballot?

1. Alabama: School Prayer and Patriotism. Two proposed constitutional amendments address patriotic and religious activities in public schools. Amendment 3 would require schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance daily and adopt policies allowing student-initiated, student-led prayer, with participation voluntary for both the Pledge and prayer. Amendment 4 would require schools to broadcast or arrange an approved performance of the national anthem’s first stanza at least weekly.

2. Arizona: Girls’ Sports and Locker Rooms. Proposition 318 would expand existing sex-based athletic eligibility restrictions to additional schools and athletic organizations. It would also require certain restrooms, locker rooms, and other private athletic facilities to be used according to biological sex as recorded at birth, in addition to allowing athletes to sue for knowing violations.

3. Colorado: School Athletics and Medical Procedures. Voters will consider two separate measures involving transgender minors, with Proposition 134 establishing sex-based eligibility requirements for school and collegiate athletics, and Proposition 135 prohibiting certain surgeries performed on minors in response to their perception of sex or gender, with specified medical exceptions. The fact that these are separate votes could reveal whether voters distinguish between the sports and surgery questions.

4. Nebraska: A Constitutional Sports Restriction. Initiative 442 would amend the state constitution to require covered school athletic teams to be designated male, female, or coeducational, and prohibit students classified as male from competing on female teams. The proposal covers certain K-12, collegiate, and intramural athletics.

5. Washington: Parental Rights and Women’s Sports. Two initiatives would revisit contentious education policies. IL26-001 would restore provisions of a 2024 parental-rights law addressing access to school records, instructional materials, and certain notifications. IL26-638 would restrict biological males from participating in female-only K-12 athletic competitions and require health care provider verification of biological sex for students participating in those competitions.

6. Missouri: Reversing an Abortion Vote. In 2024, Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights, including abortion through fetal viability. Just two years later, Amendment 3 would repeal those protections, allowing lawmakers to restrict abortion to specified circumstances involving medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, or incest, while also prohibiting certain gender-transition procedures for minors. The contest is particularly interesting because voters would be reconsidering a policy they recently approved.

7. Virginia: Abortion, Marriage, and Voting Rights. Virginians will decide three constitutional amendments concerning abortion, marriage, and voting rights. The marriage proposal would remove the state’s existing constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage and establish protections for lawful marriages regardless of sex, gender, or race. (It’s worth noting that same-sex marriage has already been legal in Virginia since 2014.) The abortion measure would enshrine abortion rights in Virginia’s constitution, while allowing restrictions during the third trimester with exceptions for medical reasons. The voting measure would automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies upon their release from incarceration.

8. Nevada: Voter Identification. A voter ID amendment approved in 2024 returns for the second vote required under Nevada law. Question 7 would require specified photo identification for in-person voting and identifying information for mail ballots. Both must win again to become constitutional provisions.

9. Vermont: Equal Protection. Proposal 4 would amend Vermont’s constitution to explicitly prohibit the state from denying equal treatment based on characteristics including race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

10. Wisconsin: Religious Liberty and Affirmative Action. Two proposed constitutional amendments touch on different cultural debates. Question 2 would prohibit the government from closing places of worship or forbidding gatherings there in response to emergencies, including public health emergencies. Question 3 would prohibit governmental discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, contracting, and administration, subject to specified exceptions.

11. Massachusetts: Marijuana and Firearms. Two ballot questions would revisit existing laws. Question 8 would eliminate licensed recreational marijuana retail sales while preserving medical marijuana access and allowing limited adult possession, with tighter possession limits than current law. Question 9 asks whether to retain or repeal a 2024 firearms law addressing matters including untraceable guns, firearm licensing, and restrictions on certain weapons.

12. California: Taxing Billionaires. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5 percent on the covered wealth of California residents with net worth exceeding $1 billion as of January 1, 2026. Certain assets, including real estate and retirement accounts, would generally be excluded. A competing measure, Proposition 42, would prohibit new state taxes on financial assets and other personal property, as well as certain retroactive taxes. If both measures pass, Proposition 42 could potentially block the billionaire tax from taking effect if it receives more votes.

13. Alaska: Ranked-Choice Voting. Alaskans will decide whether to repeal the state’s top-four primary and ranked-choice general election system, adopted by voters in 2020. Ballot Measure 2 would restore partisan primaries, eliminate ranked-choice general elections, and make related changes to runoff elections and campaign-finance requirements. It offers another opportunity to see whether voters stand by a decision from the not-too-distant past.

What the voters might tell us

These contests offer more than a preview of which policies might become law; they provide an opportunity to assess how Americans feel about particular issues when those questions are considered separately from the politicians most closely associated with them.

For example, someone who typically votes for Democrats might also be fine with voter ID requirements. And a voter who generally supports abortion rights might nevertheless oppose a particular constitutional amendment based on the scope of its protections.

Of course, ballot measures have limitations as indicators of national opinion. States have different electorates, campaigns have different resources, and the wording of each proposal matters.

Still, the results should offer useful information for both parties, showing where voters seem to stand on some controversial issues.

And for anyone interested in understanding American politics beyond the fortunes of individual candidates, those results may be among the most revealing of election night.

Share Right Good News

So when a laboratory worker at a Russian facility dedicated to studying dangerous pathogens died under mysterious circumstances, speculation about just such an outbreak quickly spread online. The incident, which occurred in Siberia, prompted quarantines, international scrutiny, and questions about what exactly happened inside the lab.

To be clear, there is no confirmed plague outbreak, nor is there any publicly substantiated evidence that the facility was conducting gain-of-function experiments or engaged in unlawful research.

Nevertheless, speculation about a possible laboratory accident, coupled with lingering questions about the circumstances surrounding the worker’s death, has brought renewed attention to the risks associated with studying dangerous pathogens.

It also offers an opportunity to salute the Trump administration for its efforts to restrict taxpayer funding for dangerous gain-of-function research.

A mysterious death in Siberia

According to reporting by Reuters, Darya Shipilova, a 28-year-old employee of the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute, died October 2 after developing a severe respiratory illness. Her death prompted Russian authorities to quarantine or monitor approximately 200 people.

Reuters also described unconfirmed reports suggesting Shipilova may have been exposed to plague bacteria in a laboratory accident. Russian authorities have denied any connection between her death and her work, attributing her illness to pneumonia of undetermined origin.

On October 8, Reuters reported that Russian officials had completed their monitoring efforts and found no dangerous pathogens in nearly 5,000 samples. Nevertheless, public health officials and organizations worldwide continued seeking additional information about the circumstances of Shipilova’s death.

History also illustrates why international health officials place such a premium on transparency during public-health scares. In an infamous case from 1979, Soviet authorities concealed the true cause of an anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk, initially blaming contaminated meat rather than an accidental release from a military biological facility. A 1994 study published in Science subsequently confirmed that the outbreak originated from an airborne release at the facility.

Of course, history alone cannot establish what happened in Irkutsk.

A sensible precaution

Whatever ultimately emerges from Siberia, the episode raises a larger question: How much risk should society tolerate in the pursuit of scientific knowledge?

The risks involved in studying naturally occurring pathogens are one thing. They become an entirely different consideration when scientists deliberately modify infectious agents to make them more dangerous.

Enter gain-of-function research.

The term encompasses a broad range of scientific experiments, but the most controversial involve increasing a pathogen’s transmissibility, virulence, or ability to evade existing defenses.

Although scientists have employed gain-of-function techniques for decades, some of the more controversial applications came under intense international scrutiny in 2011 and 2012, when researchers demonstrated that the H5N1 bird flu virus could be genetically modified to spread through the air between ferrets, animals commonly used to study influenza transmission in humans.

Supporters argue that certain experiments can help scientists anticipate emerging threats, understand disease transmission, and develop vaccines or treatments.

But the importance of those objectives hardly settles whether every potentially informative experiment is worth conducting, much less whether American taxpayers should finance it.

There is, after all, an obvious difference between studying a dangerous pathogen and deliberately making one more dangerous in hopes of learning how to defeat it.

And the consequences of getting it wrong could be catastrophic.

Kudos to the Trump administration

In May 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to suspend support for dangerous gain-of-function research and terminate certain high-risk projects overseas.

The administration went further in July 2026, announcing a new government-wide policy explicitly prohibiting federal support for research meeting its definition of dangerous gain-of-function experimentation, while strengthening oversight of other high-risk biological research.

Importantly, the policy preserves federal support for biomedical research, including the development of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tools, subject to appropriate safeguards.

On the whole, this was a recognition that the federal government has a responsibility to weigh the potential benefits of dangerous experimentation against the consequences of something going terribly wrong.

It also established a sensible boundary: American taxpayers should not be expected to underwrite experiments that could create extraordinary biological risks.

Whatever conclusion ultimately emerges from Siberia, the recent scare has brought questions about the risks of biological research back into the public conversation.

Scientific discovery matters enormously. So does ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge does not create more danger than it promises to eliminate. The Trump administration deserves credit for recognizing that distinction and acting on it.

The latest findings suggest that the alarming reports of a plague outbreak in Siberia were unfounded. For everyone’s sake, that’s welcome news.

But the broader lesson remains: When the consequences of a scientific mistake could extend far beyond laboratory walls, caution is not an obstacle to progress.

It is a prerequisite for responsible science.

Share Right Good News

Editor’s note:

Those interested in this topic more broadly should read Biological War: A Scenario, a timely book written by the journalist Annie Jacobsen. Full disclosure: It may cause you to lose a little sleep.

And in a time where economic matters are top of mind, Republicans are right to message on the bill’s many favorable provisions ahead of election day.

For example: the overtime deduction.

The policy

The 2025 law referred to by the administration as the Working Families Tax Cuts, and commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025.

Among many policies, the bill included a provision that’s already been utilized by millions of American taxpayers: a federal income-tax deduction for qualified overtime compensation.

The messaging is easy to understand: work extra hours, and keep more of the resulting pay.

In general, the deduction applies to the extra pay workers receive for federally qualifying overtime, subject to annual income and deduction limits.

The receipts

The U.S. Department of the Treasury reported in July that more than 29 million filers had claimed the overtime deduction. The average amount deducted exceeded $3,100, and Treasury said three-quarters of those claiming it reported incomes below $100,000.

There is also evidence that the provision is producing identifiable benefits.

The Associated Press recently reported on one concrete example in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, where House Speaker Mike Johnson lives. According to the AP, the sheriff’s office calculated that more than 180 deputies qualified for the provision, lowering their taxable income by roughly $1,100 on average.

That is the sort of example Republicans should ensure voters hear.

The message

Some Republican officials are rightfully touting the win.

In an October 2 statement, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith made the case in human terms, pointing to “the nurse picking up an extra shift” and “the truck driver working overtime” as beneficiaries of the tax law.

The White House did something similar ahead of the president’s recent visit to Nebraska, emphasizing the overtime and tip deductions while pointing specifically to workers in the state’s service, trucking, manufacturing, and hourly-wage sectors.

More of that messaging would be advantageous.

The bottom line

For Americans earning qualifying overtime, this provision has had a very real and very positive impact.

Millions of Americans claimed the new overtime deduction in its first year. The resulting tax savings are the product of a Republican-written tax provision allowing them to keep more of what they earned.

With economic matters top of mind for most voters, this major policy victory on behalf of working families is very much worth talking about.

The Trump administration has a legitimate case for revisiting the Roadless Rule.

And a careful approach to the issue could produce a policy victory while maintaining the support of a key element of their broader coalition.

Republicans learned during the 2025 federal land-sale fight that hunters and anglers do not necessarily fall in line when public access and habitat are at stake. That fight drew opposition from conservation groups, hunters, veterans, and media personalities who otherwise share substantial overlap with the Republican coalition.

Of course, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not the same thing as selling public land. But to many in the outdoor community, it is within spittin’ distance.

The important distinction is that this debate increasingly offers more than a binary choice between keeping the 25-year-old rule untouched and eliminating it altogether.

What’s happening

Adopted in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule generally restricts new roads, road reconstruction, and most timber harvesting in designated portions of the National Forest System. The national rule currently applies to about 44.7 million acres, with Colorado and Idaho operating under separate state-specific rules.

USDA formally proposed rescinding the national rule on Aug. 20. Repeal would not itself authorize a logging project or road. Future activities would still be subject to forest plans, environmental review, and other federal laws. The administration argues, however, that the additional nationwide restrictions unnecessarily constrain local managers trying to address wildfire, forest health, and other conditions.

That argument has support among Republican officials, timber interests, and local governments.

Nothing is final. USDA extended the comment period earlier this month, and comments are now due Oct. 6.

The catch

The opposition is not coming solely from the Sierra Clubs of the world.

Groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Trout Unlimited, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership oppose full rescission and continue to advocate for continued national roadless protections.

Even despite that opposition, however, the hunting and angling community seems open to finding a solution.

For example, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has offered support for elements of a middle position. RMEF says the Roadless Rule has helped provide elk and other wildlife with security and space, while also arguing that it can impede active habitat management. The group is skeptical of “one-size-fits-all” management and says it supports several elements of USDA’s modified-rule alternative while raising concerns about others.

That makes this less a fight between “conservation” and “management” than an argument over how to balance the two.

Sound familiar?

Republicans received a preview during Sen. Mike Lee’s 2025 push to authorize sales of potentially millions of acres of federal land.

The backlash escaped the normal conservation-policy bubble.

The Shawn Ryan Show released material featuring veteran and public-lands advocate Braxton McCoy as the fight reached its climax, urging listeners to contact senators. Joe Rogan joined the opposition to the land sale. MeatEater personalities were heavily involved. The full Shawn Ryan-McCoy interview was released just after Lee withdrew the proposal.

The Roadless Rule itself has now entered that same media ecosystem, with prominent bowhunter Cameron Hanes bringing up the issue during a June appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, urging listeners to call their senators and ask that the Roadless Rule be kept intact.

The GOP divide

The Roadless Rule debate exposes a tension within the broader Republican and sportsmen’s coalitions.

One side emphasizes local control, timber production, wildfire mitigation, and active forest management. Another places greater emphasis on keeping large portions of public land relatively unfragmented and limiting permanent roads.

And many hunters land somewhere in between.

That tension became even more notable on Sept. 17, when President Trump signed an executive order explicitly aimed at expanding hunting opportunities and access to federal lands while describing hunters and anglers as central to conservation.

The middle ground

The administration does not have to choose between leaving the rule untouched and eliminating it wholesale, and the USDA’s own draft environmental impact statement now gives that middle ground a concrete form.

Alternative 1 keeps the existing rule. Alternative 2, the administration’s preferred approach, repeals it. Alternative 3 would retain a national rule but remove roughly 31.7 million acres from its protections, including all 9.3 million inventoried roadless acres in the Tongass National Forest, leaving approximately 13 million acres covered elsewhere.

BHA notes that Alternative 3 would still represent a major reduction in nationwide roadless protections but is evaluating the proposal. RMEF supports several of its management provisions but has questions about others.

TRCP highlights the roadless rules in Colorado and Idaho as potential models and is urging the Forest Service to preserve a national Roadless Rule while using the options in the agency’s environmental review to create more flexibility for wildfire mitigation, forest restoration, and habitat work.

In other words, there is a substantive policy space between full repeal and the status quo.

Why it matters

Hunters and anglers occupy an unusual place in public-lands politics. Their conservation arguments often center less on conventional environmental politics than on habitat, access, hunting and fishing opportunity, stewardship, and preserving places for future generations.

The 2025 land-sale fight showed that this constituency also has a media ecosystem capable of turning an obscure policy dispute into a national story.

But hunters and anglers are a conservation constituency Republicans should want to keep in their Grand Ole tent. And unlike many policy disagreements, this seems to have a palatable middle ground.

The 2026 Roadless Rule debate might be a prime opportunity to demonstrate that active forest management and conservation do not have to be at odds.

For Republicans looking toward November, the history is not comforting. The president’s party has lost House seats in 20 of the 22 midterms since 1938. The exceptions, Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002, came under circumstances unusual enough to prove the rule, or at least give it legitimacy.

So history offers Republicans a warning.

What it does not offer, however, is a particularly specific forecast.

The number that matters (or does it?)

Since 1982, presidents facing the first midterm after taking office have seen their parties lose an average of roughly 28 House seats.

That sounds ominous until one looks underneath the average.

Barack Obama’s Democrats lost 63 seats in 2010. Clinton lost 54 in 1994. Donald Trump’s Republicans lost 41 in 2018.

But Joe Biden’s Democrats lost only nine in 2022. George H.W. Bush’s Republicans lost eight in 1990. George W. Bush actually gained eight in 2002.

In other words, the historical rule predicts direction far better than magnitude.

Of course, House Republicans entered this cycle with only 220 House seats. They do not need anything resembling 1994, 2010, or 2018 to lose the majority. A relatively modest midterm correction could do it.

That makes the historical average both alarming and a bit beside the point.

Which Trump midterm is this?

There is another challenge in comparing the 2026 cycle with history: how to categorize this Trump administration.

This is the first midterm of a newly elected Republican administration. It is also the second midterm of Trump’s presidency. His two terms just happen to be separated by four years and another president.

Those categories historically produce different results.

In first-term presidential midterms since 1982, the party in the White House has lost about 28 House seats on average. In the four conventional second-term midterms during that period, the average loss was closer to 11.

Trump fits both descriptions, but not neatly.

There’s one true precedent for a president serving nonconsecutive terms: Grover Cleveland. It is not especially reassuring for the GOP. In 1894, during Cleveland’s second, nonconsecutive term, Cleveland’s Democrats suffered the largest House wipeout in American history, dropping from 218 seats to 93.

But given that the election was held amid the Panic of 1893, the Pullman Strike, and an entirely different party system, Cleveland’s example is more of a historical curiosity than a usable model.

The House has changed, too

The larger reason to be cautious with historical comparisons is that today’s House is simply less elastic, with fewer districts that routinely swing between the parties.

Partisan sorting has packed Democratic and Republican voters into increasingly predictable seats. And this year’s mid-decade redistricting fight has further altered the battlefield.

The Cook Political Report’s latest analysis estimates that Republicans could net around four seats from the mid-decade map changes alone. Cook currently rates 21 House races as Toss Ups, with 16 of them held by Republicans.

The playing field is also remarkably compact. Cook notes that 86 percent of Republican-held seats are in districts Trump carried by more than 10 points in 2024. Its September battleground poll found Democrats leading 49 percent to 47 percent across the 37 districts it considers competitive, even though Trump won those districts by an average of five points two years ago.

In other words, the GOP may be better insulated from a 40-seat wipeout than governing parties were in previous eras.

Unfortunately for House Republicans, they also have much less room for error.

The signal to watch

None of this means history should be ignored.

The underlying conditions still look considerably midterm-ish. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week put Trump’s job approval at 32 percent, while just 17 percent approved of his handling of the cost of living. Among registered voters, Democrats led Republicans 43 percent to 35 percent when asked how they planned to vote in the midterms, although national congressional polling cannot capture the district-by-district contests that determine control of the House.

That looks quite different from the circumstances surrounding the two modern exceptions to the midterm rule. Clinton’s approval stood around 65 percent shortly before the 1998 election, while George W. Bush was at 67 percent in late October 2002.

So by the traditional measures, 2026 looks much more like a conventional midterm environment than one of the rare exceptions.

The more interesting question is whether Republicans will suffer the kind of losses that have traditionally accompanied an unpopular president’s first midterm. A more polarized electorate, fewer competitive districts, and favorable redistricting could spare Republicans anything resembling the 63-seat Democratic rout of 2010 or the 41-seat Republican loss of 2018.

That may be a small comfort.

With such a narrow majority, Republicans could outperform the historical averages considerably and still lose control of the House. And they may yet claim a victory of sorts over the midterm curse.

It would be a decidedly Pyrrhic one.

Share

These famous words uttered by former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1910 endure because there’s much to celebrate about those who enter the “arena” and put everything on the line.

But for better or worse, the so-called “critic” counts more today than perhaps ever before.

Podcasts, newsletters, social media, and platforms like Substack have given independent journalists and commentators enormous reach, with the potential to graduate from simply commentating on politics to actually shaping the national debate.

Now, as Spider-Man once said, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

Which is to say, just because everyone can have a newsletter doesn’t mean everyone should.

Right Good News aims to stand out in this crowded landscape by offering interesting, useful, and concise analysis of American politics, public policy, and the forces shaping the Republican Party and conservative movement.

Learn more about us here.

Teddy Roosevelt was right to honor “the man who is actually in the arena.” But today, the line between those in the arena and those in the crowd is more blurred than it was a century ago.

We hope to make this a space that helps readers better understand what matters, what it means, and what may come next. In other words, a space that counts.

Please subscribe today.

Share Right Good News