The Long Cut

Category: politics

  • Space Mirrors?!

    For tens of thousands of years, humanity has looked up at the stars not for illumination, but for guidance. Before compasses and charts, the stars led the way for countless generations of explorers. From Phoenicians sailing beneath the Pleiades to Odysseus following the Great Bear home, and from Polynesian navigators crossing the Pacific to caravans trading across great deserts, we have relied on the cosmos to provide direction and order to our world.

    Then, suddenly, in 1957, the cosmos changed forever. Sputnik left humanity’s mark in the night sky, collapsing the distance of the heavens from the stars’ light-years to mere light-milliseconds above us. Since then, there has always been an artificial satellite in orbit. For more than a quarter-century, there has also been a continuous human presence aboard the International Space Station, bringing humanity itself into the heavens.

    Space debris as of January 1, 2019. Photo: NASA Orbital Debris Program Office (ODPO)

    But humanity’s presence in orbit has developed from exploration into chaos. As of July 2026, more than 16,000 active satellites are orbiting Earth, accompanied by thousands of defunct payloads, rocket bodies, and pieces of catalogued debris. Since 2024, SpaceX alone has more than doubled its Starlink constellation from 5,000 satellites to over 10,300, and they are now applying to launch up to 100,000 more. Space debris increasingly threatens operating spacecraft and is an especially serious concern for crewed missions.

    This was evident while camping a few weeks ago. Where the night sky once appeared static—an eternal reminder of our insignificance—it now appeared in constant motion, populated with our own artifacts. It’s a fundamental shift in human perspective, our impact on the universe impossible to ignore—if we remember to look.

    … and then there are the space mirrors.

    Photo: Reflect Orbital

    On July 9, 2026, the FCC authorized the radio communications needed to deploy and operate Reflect Orbital’s Eärendil-1 demonstration satellite, along with its orbital debris mitigation plan. Upon launch, the satellite will deploy a 60-foot-by-60-foot “space mirror” to direct reflected sunlight onto a ground footprint approximately 5 kilometers in diameter. The company envisions using such technology to extend solar-energy production, support agriculture and emergency operations, and potentially replace some conventional streetlighting.

    The proposal, however, raises substantial environmental and scientific concerns. Artificial light at night is known to disrupt circadian and seasonal timing across a wide range of species. It can alter broader ecosystem processes, including migration, reproduction, pollination, and predator–prey relations. Astronomers warn that even a single reflector could interfere significantly with ground-based astronomy by saturating sensitive detectors, contaminating exposures, increasing localized sky brightness, and disrupting time-sensitive observations. A large constellation would make avoidance increasingly impractical.

    The FCC concluded that its authority in this proceeding extended principally to radiofrequency operations and orbital-debris mitigation, not to the reflector’s broader environmental effects. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducts environmental reviews associated with commercial launch and reentry licenses, but those reviews do not necessarily encompass the in-orbit environmental effects of a payload. Compounding the oversight challenges, Executive Order 14335 (Enabling Competition in Commercial Spaceflight) directed federal agencies to expedite environmental reviews, identify activities that are not subject to NEPA, and expand the use of categorical exclusions. Taken together, these limitations reveal a potential regulatory gap for novel activities, such as space-based illumination.

    International law offers only limited recourse. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes states internationally responsible for their national space activities and requires the authorization and continuing supervision of private operators. It also permits states to request consultations concerning activities that may cause harmful interference with the peaceful exploration and use of outer space. The treaty, however, establishes no international regulator or direct environmental review mechanism for evaluating effects on Earth from a project such as this.

    How do we respond? The available options are limited, but they are not exhausted. Congressional action offers the clearest path toward a lasting solution. Contact your representatives and senators and ask them to investigate this regulatory gap for environmental impacts of space activities and establish enforceable protections for the night sky, biodiversity, and astronomy. DarkSky International, Earthjustice, and other coalition partners are currently evaluating available legal and policy options to oppose a broader constellation of space mirrors. Supporting those efforts, sharing accurate scientific information, and building sustained public pressure are crucial to ensure this demonstration doesn’t act as a precedent for a much larger constellation.

    The Milky Way, Aurora Borealis, and Andromeda Galaxy over Telluride, Colorado. A function of our dark skies. Photo: Exploring the Frontier

    Our night skies seem permanent, but the ancient order of the cosmos can quickly become chaos. We must fight the space mirror project for the sake of our planet and the stars that have always guided us home.

  • The Living Experiment: America at 250

    An annual reflection as a Jefferson Fellow.

    On our 250th birthday, the ideals of our nation can endure within each of us. Nowhere is that more evident than in revisiting our founding document:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    It is easy to let cynicism take root, especially when considering our past and present contexts, but the challenge of rising to our better angels is one that we must embrace. At 250, The United States is the longest continuous constitutional democracy in the world, launching a revolution that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. As enshrined in our Constitution, “We the people” are the ones that “form a more perfect Union.” Being a part of this country demands our citizenship, our recognition that “consent of the governed” means that we engage enough to even be able to consent.

    “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” — but only to the extent that we participate. It took the action of many brave patriots to achieve the milestones that were to be commemorated in our coinage this year: the Declaration (1776), the Constitution (1787-89), abolition (1863-65), women’s suffrage (1920), and the civil rights movement (1957-65). It is disheartening, then, that some of these achievements—the very expansions of the American experiment—have been excluded from current celebrations.

    How do we proceed in the face of such a narrow understanding of American success?  We try. We exercise our unalienable rights, including the freedom of speech I exercise here. The erosion of our democratic norms is alarming, but it is not a conclusion: it is a challenge. The American story relies on our capacity to improve, individually and collectively. Loving our nation does not mean ignoring our wrongs; it means doing something about them. It means striving for a more perfect union, lifting our voices in dialogue, and rising above soundbites and polarization to actively engage in our democracy.

    That spirit of reconciliation echoes through our history. Two hundred years ago, on our nation’s 50th birthday, Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson  passed within hours of each other. They had fierce disagreements about our young republic, campaigning against each other in 1796 and 1800. Then, in 1812, the two statesmen reconciled at the request of Abigail Adams, spending their final years writing letters that reflected on their shared hopes for the nation. Adams’s last words were “Jefferson still lives,” being unaware that Jefferson had passed hours earlier. It is inspiring that despite their disagreements, their friendship and national brotherhood took priority. 

    The original plans for America 250 held former Presidents Bush and Obama as co-chairs, echoing our Founders’ quest for unity. The Declaration began with “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Today, we face fierce debates over what it means to be an American. Yet beneath the noise, there is a profound, enduring agreement on what makes this nation remarkable: our public lands, our scientific innovations, our cultural contributions, and our relentless pursuit of opportunity. While we have many questions we must answer to ensure the next 250 years, the American Dream remains worth celebrating—not as a finished promise, but as a living experiment.

  • Reflections on Patriotism

    249 years ago the Declaration of Independence enshrined the ideals of this nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal … with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    This country is imperfect, yet our home and worth celebrating. Loving something means fighting for it. Last month, I joined the defense of our public lands. Not once, but twice, a grassroots coalition emerged to protect our common spaces: hunters, anglers, ATVers, hikers, campers, conservationists, environmentalists—all rising for the same cause: “keep public lands in public hands.” 

    This culminated in the “We Love Public Lands Rally” outside the Western Governors Association meeting in Santa Fe, where Trump cabinet members were gathered. 2,000 people showed up at 3:30pm on a Monday to speak truth to power. Many, like me, took off work to make sure our heritage was protected. The next morning, the provisions were scraped.

    Make no mistake: the enactment of the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill will set our nation back decades environmentally, let alone the moral cost of abandoning the least among us. It is hard to take joy from the present moment. But not all hope is lost. We can still fight for what is right and just. That is the American story.

    During the BLM protests, my dad flew a BLM flag and an American flag on his porch. I asked why and he told me “if we aren’t fighting to make this country better, what are we even doing it for?” That stuck with me. Patriotism is recognizing what the authors of the Constitution set out: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…”

    Before the protests, viral reels talked about getting burner phones and covering yourself head-to-toe, deterring participation. For most of us, these were peaceful events. When you feel hesitancy—hesitancy to post, to speak up, to show up—ask yourself “Is this fear real?” Name it and take your power back.

    For 249 years, this nation has rested on the ideal that “Governments … [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Democracy lives—and for that I have hope.

  • Choosing Action Over Cynicism

    As a plurality of Americans voted for Trump to return to office, I have struggled with the implications for myself and our nation. For me, the election was a simple character judgment: Trump, in my opinion, is not fit for the office. Apparently, a plurality of Americans feel otherwise.

    This divergence has forced me to confront my own blind spots and consider how to build a positive future. I see two responses: 1) to turn to cynicism and say “nothing matters, might as well get mine,” discarding our virtues and joining the culture of greed or 2) to grow the world we want to see through our own example. To me, the only plausible option is the second — to show kindness, to advocate for the vulnerable, and to work hard to preserve that which we hold most dear. I believe this applies to most Americans; the malice being wrought on our nation is not the malice with which the majority voted, including many who voted for Trump.

    One constant is that Americans desire a change in the status quo. We have alternated parties every election for 12 years now by the slimmest of margins because so many people say “both sides are the same – they’re all bought.” Since the Citizen’s United ruling, the increasing influence of capital is a rot at the core of the American Dream. There are two tiers of justice in this country – one for the rich and privileged and another for the rest of us. The words “Equal Justice under Law” are engraved above the Supreme Court — a cosmic joke in the wake of blanket pardons and presidential immunity. With few exceptions, we have not been able to address that fundamental inequality on the national stage.

    However, both sides are not the same. One of the things that will be under assault these next 4 years is the very notion of a “public good” – whether there are services that benefit us all, despite the cost, or whether the only metric of success is profit. Do we embrace the opportunity cost of having a society? Will our public lands be sold at auction? Will health care in this country be further eroded? Will we continue to ignore the cry of the hungry and downtrodden?

    Another insight is the necessity of accepting that individuals can and do change. Our politics have become increasingly polarized, leaving little room for evolving views. Biden’s long public service record included several shifts in perspective, a liability in his campaigns. On the right, JD Vance once called his President “Hitler”. However, if only the right accepts epiphany, our culture can only move in one direction – towards the side that welcomes changed hearts. If the left is caught in demonizing everyone for past support or the rigid demands of purity tests, we do not give grace for change or meeting people where they are. When you are the minority party, you have to accept that while past support would’ve been great, the next best thing is earning support in the present.

    This is especially important when building coalitions to address particular concerns. Issue-based advocacy cannot be compromised by holistic philosophies. For example, when building a coalition to protect our public lands – something 80% of Americans support – there will be differences of opinion on  other issues, such as Gaza, LGBTQ+ rights, and settler colonialism. As a complexity scientist, I understand that everything is connected, but forcing too many intersections only shrinks the movement. By concentrating on tangible goals, such as reinstating probationary employees at National Parks, we create opportunities for incremental, measurable progress, like rehiring seasonal workers.

    This has become a blueprint for my own approach with Exploring the Frontier. When every outrage demands our full attention, we risk diluting our impact. Narrowing our focus allows us to concentrate our energy and achieve sustainable results. My creative efforts depend on public goods, such as protected lands and scientific agencies like NASA, NOAA, and USGS. Recent disruptions to these institutions threaten both my pursuits and the broader public’s access. In response, I am pivoting my platform to principled advocacy to ensure their survival. 

    However, flooding my audience with too much doom and gloom can deter engagement, while mere awareness without action leads nowhere. Therefore, I’ve decided on three ground rules for my advocacy:

    1. Address one issue a day.
    2. Limit focus to conservation, public lands, and climate change.
    3. Ensure each issue includes a call to direct action—be it support for legislation or backing an organization.

    Choosing our battles is challenging, and I recognize my privilege as a straight white man whose identity has never been under existential threat— a privilege that allows me to choose my battles. With this awareness comes the responsibility to use my voice and platform to advocate for others, including on these issues.

    Finally, the recent executive actions regarding the federal workforce have resurfaced many hard memories for me. During the first Trump administration, my son’s mom and I moved to DC during the federal hiring freeze in 2017. Rather than entering the federal hiring process as a highly-qualified candidate, I spent 4 months trying to stay afloat with DC’s high cost-of-living while the largest employer was closed. I eventually found a position in the non-profit world. Then, my son’s mom was laid off at 7 months pregnant due to furloughs at the National Academies, which prompted our move to New Mexico. 

    Having personally experienced the disruption of government funding freezes, I understand the real, day-to-day consequences of these actions. Even if legal proceedings are ongoing, it offers little solace when bills have to be paid. While cynicism is a tempting rejoinder, it won’t build a better future. All I can do is encourage you to stay engaged—not in online outrage, but through meaningful advocacy and community development.

  • On Cynicism

    “It’s a lot easier to be cynical; to accept that change is not possible, and politics is hopeless, and the problem is all the folks who are elected don’t care, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter.

    But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. And then, as frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into our respective tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.

    We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want. It will not produce the security we want. But most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world. 

    So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, whether you supported my agenda or fought as hard as you could against it — our collective futures depends on your willingness to uphold your duties as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us.

    We need every American to stay active in our public life — and not just during election time — so that our public life reflects the goodness and the decency that I see in the American people every single day.”

    — President Barack Obama, Final State of the Union, January 13, 2016

    The day after the election, I went to DC for a work trip and added a few extra days to wander the monuments and explore the Smithsonian museums. I hadn’t been back since leaving in 2018, so it was nice to have time to enjoy the treasure that it is and dwell on the future of our country.

    I’m still clarifying my thoughts, but one thing is clear to me: cynicism will not serve us in the years to come. It is merely a manifestation of anxiety that serves only to extinguish hope. In times of change, life can feel overwhelming – that we are not in control. I’d encourage us all to look for the joy in our own lives, the kindness we can show to others, and the difference our decisions can make each day. We still have freedom to make the world a brighter place through our own actions.

  • This is not a Normal Post (On Abortion)

    This is not a Normal Post (On Abortion)

    I want to share three immensely personal stories about several deeply wanted children in my family and reproductive healthcare in America. These stories are increasingly common and I tell them to show the consequences of anti-abortion laws on routine healthcare. As a man, I hope these stories demonstrate that “women’s issues” affect ALL of us in life-changing ways.

    In 1995, I was 5 years old and my middle brother was 2. We were too young to know at the time, but our mother experienced a miscarriage requiring medical attention. Miscarriages occur in an estimated 20% of all pregnancies. Many of the medical procedures for treating a miscarriage are the same as those used in an abortion and outlawed by several state abortion bans.

    In Wisconsin, where we lived, state law has now reverted to a total abortion ban written in 1849 that could have prevented her prompt medical treatment. Had my mom been forced to go into sepsis to enable treatment as a “life-threatening” situation, I could have lost my mother at 5 and my two youngest siblings would not exist. Cases of this scenario have been documented in Texas and Georgia.

    In 2017, my wife and I had a successful in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, resulting in the birth of our healthy son in 2018. We were fortunate that health insurance in Maryland covers IVF by law. However, we feared the Republican Congress would eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions, such as infertility. This fear is ongoing: on September 17, Senate Republicans voted 44-2 against even debating the “Right to IVF Act”, which would guarantee for others the medical options we enjoyed to create our family. 

    Furthermore, under new “fetal personhood” laws, stored embryos are in legal limbo. In Alabama, these laws drove IVF clinics to fear the routine handling and disposal of embryos could result in criminal charges, requiring further legislation. These laws also impact several forms of birth control, including IUDs and Plan B, which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg – the “murder” of a so-called “fetal person”.

    In 2023, my brother chose to start a family with his partner in Idaho. After one appointment with their OBGYN, their local hospital shut down their labor and delivery services due to Idaho’s total abortion ban. Both the hospital and doctors acknowledged they could no longer provide an adequate standard of care under the restrictive laws. The nearest hospital for routine childbirth moved an hour away to Coure d’Alene or Spokane, where many former nurses at Bonner General relocated across state lines. Fortunately, my brother’s young family was able to move in with my dad in Portland, Oregon to access healthcare for my nephew and his mom.

    I share these 3 stories to show how these laws have impacted my family’s trajectory with several deeply wanted children. In this country, healthcare should not depend on where you live. Abortion is a part of routine and emergency care. The intended and unintended consequences of these laws force decisions no family should have to go through. 

    We should not tolerate our mothers, wives, partners, and daughters having more medical rights in 1995 than they do today. Fortunately, we still have the power to change this situation: With all 435 representatives and 33 senators up for election, your vote matters, no matter where you live. Both sides are not “the same” on this and many other issues. Enshrining abortion and other healthcare protections is the Democratic Party’s platform. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has refused to commit to veto a nationwide abortion ban. 

    Furthermore, Project 2025 outlines further restrictions to reproductive healthcare, including a plan to force states to share individual medical records with the federal government, which would allow interstate prosecution of abortions, even in emergency scenarios. In contrast to 2016, anti-abortion activists are empowered by a 6-3 Supreme Court majority and possible legislative majorities in both houses of Congress. This would leave the presidential veto as the only barrier between nationwide abortion restrictions. 

    Lives are at stake: after the SB8 abortion ban in Texas, maternal mortality is up 56%, with infant mortality also rising 13%. If we exercise our right to vote, we can change our course. It’s easy to find an excuse not to vote – no person or party is perfect – but politics is the art of the possible. A step towards a better future is better than doing nothing or wasting a vote on third parties with no viable path to the presidency. 

  • One Year Later

    With the state of the union address rapidly approaching, I want to highlight some excellent articles bringing Obama’s first year into perspective. Many people have become disheartened by the lack of swift action by the administration on many topics – health care, Iraq, the economy, etc. I’d encourage you to read Andrew Sullivan’s article: Obama’s Substantive First Year:

    Obama is a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency. Once you grasp this, his first year makes much more sense.

    The article highlights Obama’s strengths and shortcomings in a calm, collected manner. Further reading on the year’s accomplishments:

    All that is great – things have been getting done… so what’s our problem with Obama? The New Yorker addresses this succinctly – One Year: Storyteller-in-Chief:

    I’ve been an Obama man all the way. I voted for him in 2008 and I’ll vote for him again in 2012, with far less enthusiasm. But it would help me out so much if he could give me some kind of story to hang onto. At this stage, a scrap would suffice. A President can have all the vision in the world, be an extraordinary orator and a superb politician, have courage and foresight and a willingness to make painful choices, have a bold progressive plan for his nation—but none of these things will matter a wit if the President cannot couch his vision, his policies, his courage, his will, his plan in the idiom of story.

    People need stories to latch on to and remembering our personal narrative is vital to projecting our future. Obama would be wise to heed these words: after all, so much of his meteoric rise comes from his extraordinary storytelling (Dreams from My Father, anyone?).

    As for me, I remain optimistic about the future of the administration. A great deal of current frustrations have to do with participation. 2008 was a never-ending deluge of political news and activism. Working for the campaign and delivering Indiana was the highlight of my year. In 2009 our nation had to unwind and reconcile our own drive for action with the notion that legislating is a full-time job, requiring a ton of expertise. The government is huge and most people don’t have time to read every bill, to learn the details of every issue – that’s why we are a representative democracy. I think a large part of liberal frustration comes from a headstrong dislike of delegation. We have to let those we elected do their job; our role as citizens is to give them feedback through our communications and then our votes.

    From the inaugural address Obama knew he faced a myriad of difficult problems:

    Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real.  They are serious and they are many.  They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.  But know this America:  They will be met.

    We still face serious challenges, but fortunately we have three (hopefully seven) more years. Let’s recognize those challenges “future work” and take solace what’s already been accomplished in this short portion of the excruciatingly slow march of progress. My hope for the State of the Union is that it frames our current challenges in the “unlikely story that is America”, reasserting that once again we will meet and far surpass our challenges.