Blog

  • Permanent paid family leave is a boon for employees and employers | Expert opinion

    Permanent paid family leave is a boon for employees and employers | Expert opinion

    Emily Wielk, a senior policy analyst for working families at the Bipartisan Policy Center, says that she “hears consistently” that paid family and medical leave is a benefit that workers want and need to continue working.

    “It is also a benefit that many businesses want to offer, but they are trying to determine the best way to manage the financial, compliance and administrative burdens,” she said.

    It doesn’t matter how big or small your business is. Providing this benefit has become increasingly important for recruiting and retaining talent. The good news is that the federal government can help, and thanks to 2025’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, more support is available.

    Employer tax credit

    Since 2018 there has been a generous tax credit available for employers who want to voluntarily provide some sort of compensation to their employees taking leave. It’s called the Employer Credit for Paid Family and Medical Leave under Internal Revenue Code Section 45S.

    As long as you pay your employee a minimum of 50% of their normal wages while they are on leave, you can take a 12.5% tax credit on what you pay. The credit then increases by 0.25% for each additional percentage point of wages paid.

    “If you offer the leave, you have greater certainty that the employee is coming back, and you can determine how to manage the gap in the interim,” said Wielk. “If you lose the worker, you will spend more time, money, and energy recruiting and trying to replace that employee.”

    For example, if an employee normally earns $15,000 over 12 weeks and you pay the employee $7,500 while on qualifying leave, your business may receive a federal income-tax credit of $937.50. The more of the employee’s normal wages you replace, the larger the potential credit — up to 25% of the qualifying wages paid. So if you paid the full $15,000, your credit would be $3,750.

    To claim the credit, you must have a written policy and provide two weeks of paid leave (not vacation or sick time).

    If you own a pass-through business, like an S corporation or partnership, you can still claim the credit against the taxes you owe. If the credit is larger than the taxes you owe, you can carry it forward for up to 20 years. Highly compensated employees — those making $96,000 or more per year — are excluded.

    “One specific thing the Section 45S credit does is encourage businesses to offer the benefit specifically to lower- and moderate-wage workers — not just necessarily to their C-suite or higher-wage earners,” said Wielk. “It is designed to ensure that workers who typically don’t have access to the benefit are getting access.”

    Updated guidance

    Earlier this month, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service provided interim guidance on the expanded credit (more comprehensive proposed regulations are expected.)

    Among these changes: Employers who purchase insurance providing paid family and medical leave benefits may now calculate the credit using qualifying premiums rather than wages actually paid during leave. It also potentially allows certain employers to use the credit where leave is required by a state or local government (such as New Jersey and soon in Delaware).

    Previously, only wages paid to employees who worked for a company for a year were eligible, but that requirement was relaxed to six months. For 2026, employees who earned more than $96,000 are excluded. Most importantly, the credit has now been made permanent. Previously it came up for renewal every few years.

    Stability promises

    Wielk says that for Section 45S in particular, the fact that it was a pilot program created uncertainty. She believes that even when businesses knew the credit existed, they couldn’t be sure it would still be there four, five, or six years down the road.

    “Many businesses were hesitant to use it for a few years and then have to assume the entire financial burden if the credit expired,” she said. “I think that uncertainty deterred some businesses from utilizing the credit.”

    According to Wielk, the data “is very clear” that when workers have access to paid family leave, it boosts employee morale and increases loyalty to the business.

    “It allows employees to take the time they genuinely need away from work with the knowledge and security that they can come back,” she said. “That has ripple effects on their ability to return and be productive.”

  • Burnout among psychiatric nurses is high. What can hospitals do to improve?

    Burnout among psychiatric nurses is high. What can hospitals do to improve?

    As a former psychiatric hospital nurse, Justinna Dixon knows what it’s like to feel passionate for a job and overwhelmed by it at the same time.

    Dixon graduated from nursing school at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and threw herself into her work, caring for people struggling with mental health and addiction issues. But her new-nurse shine quickly dulled under the burden of long hours, high caseloads, and insufficient support.

    Now a postdoctoral fellow at Penn Nursing’s Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, Dixon is studying the burnout she experienced. She hopes her work will help hospital systems better understand what contributes to burnout and what they can do to improve.

    Two out of five inpatient psychiatric mental health registered nurses experience high burnout, according to Dixon’s latest study, published in July in the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. The study, based on data from 740 registered nurses across 10 states, found that workplace improvements — such as increasing staffing — can help nurses feel more supported and provide better care.

    Dixon spoke to The Inquirer about her research and experience as a nurse in an interview lightly edited for length and clarity.

    What in your experience as a nurse made you want to study burnout?

    I’m a Ph.D.-prepared registered nurse. After I finished my bachelor’s degree in nursing in 2020 from Rutgers University, I worked as an inpatient psychiatric registered nurse for two years. I worked within the same types of units that I talk about in this study. I have personally seen and even felt myself how, when we didn’t have enough leadership support and adequate staffing, it made the job much harder. It made me and my other fellow colleagues give worse care to our patients and made our patients suffer even more than they already were.

    What were the study’s most significant findings?

    One of the main takeaways is that 40% of current inpatient psychiatric nurses right now are burned out. One of the other takeaways: Staffing was a huge driver of these outcomes, the impact of the work environment on the poor job outcomes of the nurses.

    Were you surprised by what you learned?

    To be honest, I’m actually not struck by any of my findings, because I have lived it. Normally, on medical-surgical units in a general acute hospital, nurses are assigned around four to five patients to take care of for their shift.

    I worked on a substance-abuse detox unit in a psychiatric hospital. In this unit, one of the most medically complex units in the psychiatric hospital, I was typically assigned around 10 to 12 patients. One time, we were very short-staffed and had a full house or an almost full house, and we had one patient who was just so sick from actively withdrawing. We were so overwhelmed with all the other patients on the unit, taking admissions on top of caring for our other patients, being short a nurse.

    To be honest, we just couldn’t take care of him the way we wanted to, we couldn’t get him the medication he really needed to quell his uncomfortable symptoms. He was in a lot of distress, and he ended up getting so overwhelmed he threw a chair into our nursing station. It was terrifying for the nurses, but imagine how the other patients felt. It made us delay their care because now we have to deal with this situation, and they’re all sick, too.

    What could hospitals do to reduce nurse burnout?

    Nurse staffing is a very complex issue. But there are some things I think could move the needle. In the current system, hospitals are not financially incentivized to improve their staffing. Hospitals are typically able to bill individually for physicians or other prescribing provider services. But for registered nurses, there’s really no financial structure that allows hospitals to bill insurance companies to pay for a nurse’s contributions to patient care. Nurses are actually lumped in with hospitals’ overhead costs.

    I think that a potential solution to incentivize hospitals to improve hiring is giving them a financial incentive to do so. Another thing that I think could really help is enlisting the public. As nurses, we try to advocate so much for our patients. But maybe we could let our patients advocate for us, too.

  • Return of the Philadelphia Cycling Classic made ‘perfect sense.’ It was all about filling in the details.

    Return of the Philadelphia Cycling Classic made ‘perfect sense.’ It was all about filling in the details.

    Carlos Rogers was devastated when the iconic Philadelphia Cycling Classic hosted its final race in 2016.

    “It was like a schism across my body,” Rogers said. “As a fan, it was a big gash. It was a feeling of loss, as a passionate cyclist and as a fan.”

    For years, he and others both in and outside the Philly cycling community lamented the loss of the race. But while attending the Maryland Cycling Classic in 2022, Rogers decided he’d “had enough of people missing it.”

    “Someone’s got to step up,” he said.

    Rogers, a salon owner in Old City, had helped organize smaller bike races before, but never anything on the scale of the 14.4-mile course through Philadelphia. Virtually everyone he talked to in the community, from local government leaders and civic organizations to those formerly involved with the Philly Cycling Classic, was interested in bringing the race back.

    The hard part, of course, was finding the money.

    “I was throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what would stick with any kind of corporate sponsors,” Rogers said.

    “Someone’s got to step up,” said Carlos Rogers, co-owner of the Philadelphia Cycling Classic. Monica Herndon / Staff Photographer

    One of his connections referred him to entrepreneur Eric Robbins, who lived in Manayunk in the late 1990s and remembered how great an event the race used to be for the neighborhood.

    Rogers’ enthusiasm and determination made it a “no-brainer” to partner with him on bringing back the race. Robbins looped in former Mayor Michael Nutter, who used to represent the Manayunk and Roxborough neighborhoods in City Council. But from there, it still took about a year and a half to secure the funding.

    “There were a tremendous amount of no’s,” Robbins said. “For us, the vision of 2026, of bringing it back after a 10-year hiatus, it made perfect sense. It’s the greatest year to bring it back, but also the most difficult one.”

    Because of the large number of sports events in the area this summer, from the World Cup to the PGA Championship to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, sponsorship dollars were extremely competitive. As the lead organizers, they knew why bringing the race back was important, but with so many events happening, they struggled to find sponsors who understood their mission.

    “We’re reintroducing an historic event to a whole new crowd of people and bringing along the folks who knew it because they longed for it,” Nutter said.

    Former Mayor Michael Nutter is one of the co-owners of the Philadelphia Cycling Classic.Monica Herndon / Staff Photographer

    Rogers was reluctant to publicize his efforts to bring back the race until they’d actually secured the funding.

    “I knew how easy it would be to fail, and then how everybody could point the finger and be like, here’s another clown trying to do something. … I had no resumé of success at this level, where people would invest in me.”

    But he ultimately decided to go to the press late into the process, as a last-ditch effort to get the race up in 2026. His hope was that maybe a CEO or local business leader would see it and be moved to support.

    That didn’t happen, but it did put a bit of “wind in his sails” as more people learned about the efforts and tried to push it along. Ultimately, through a mutual connection, he met with Bob Flexon, CEO of the UGI Corporation, who happened to be an avid cyclist himself, and got AmeriGas on board as the title sponsor in September 2025.

    Carlos Rogers (from left), Brian O’Reilly, Eric Robbins and Former Mayor Michael Nutter toast with the new Philadelphia Classic Lager from Mainstay brewery during an event at Craft Hall on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026 in Philadelphia.Monica Herndon / Staff Photographer

    Since then, it’s been a mad dash to rebuild the teams that made past iterations of the race so successful. Former race director Robin Morton and G4 Productions are leading the production, and numerous city employees who managed logistics for the race 10 years ago are still in place.

    “[Raffaele Casale], he’s worked security barricade staging for 31 years of the race, and he’s on our crew this year,” Rogers said. “He could put barricades around the course blindfolded. He knows every turn, every corner, every pothole. He’s a secret weapon.”

    Rogers, Robbins, and Nutter coined the race “the People’s Race.” Spectating the men’s and women’s races, which will be held Sunday, is completely free, everywhere from Kelly Drive to the iconic Manayunk Wall. They hope it will be a big community celebration, like the Philadelphia Marathon, and what the race once was.

    “This race is by Philadelphians, for Philadelphians,” Rogers said. “We haven’t brought in any outside components. We put the band back together.”

  • House of the week: A four-bedroom century-old stone house in Bryn Mawr for $699,000

    House of the week: A four-bedroom century-old stone house in Bryn Mawr for $699,000

    Elizabeth Monroe was living in New Jersey with her son in 2006 when she saw a listing in Bryn Mawr, and thought it might be time to go back to the town where she’d grown up.

    “I hadn’t even gone inside it,” she said. “but I loved the Tudor look and the stone.

    “It’s a soulful kind of house. A friend once called it my ‘sanctuary,’” she recalled.

    One of the bedrooms in the Bryn Mawr home features large windows to let in the light. Brendan Farrell

    The four-bedroom, two-bathroom house spans 1,762 square feet.

    Monroe, an ordained Presbyterian minister who mostly worked as a hospice chaplain, said she had considerable renovations done, mostly on the first and second floors.

    The house, has a gated front porch, original hardwood floors, and deep-set windows.

    The kitchen has updated appliances. Brendan Farrell

    The kitchen has white cabinetry, black granite countertops, and updated appliances.

    The living room has a working gas fireplace.

    Each of the two second-floor bedrooms has its own sitting room, which could be used as a home office, reading room, art studio, or playroom.

    A working gas fireplace is a highlight of the living room.Brendan Farrell

    The third floor has two additional bedrooms and a hall bathroom.

    There is high velocity central air and 200-amp electrical service.

    There is a private brick patio, a fenced outdoor space, and a detached one-car garage. It is walkable to the Bryn Mawr Regional Rail station.

    The dining room can fit a table for six.Brendan Farrell

    And “it’s walkable to the Wawa,” Monroe joked. And since the parking lot there is often congested, “I thought that this might be a selling point.”

    The house is in the Radnor School District.

    It is listed by Colleen Whitlock and Brianna Golden of Keller Williams Main Line for $699,000.

  • El-Sayed joins Fox News for some light verbal combat and a pitch to Republicans

    El-Sayed joins Fox News for some light verbal combat and a pitch to Republicans

    “You’re filibustering.”

    “Pipe down one second.”

    “That’s a dodge, Abdul.”

    Through tense smiles and laughter, Fox News host Jesse Watters frequently reminded his guest — the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed — that Watters was the one conducting their prime-time interview as the candidate swerved through a minefield of hostile questions about issues ranging from transition surgeries to reparations to Islam to immigration.

    The appearance Monday night by El-Sayed, a progressive who has sought to dispel worries from moderate Democrats that he is too left-wing to win battleground Michigan, signaled his growing efforts to reach Republican voters and previewed his messaging strategy for the general election. His hard-fought primary victory this month has set up a race against former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, in a contest considered crucial to Senate control.

    When Watters sought to pin down El-Sayed, the candidate would often redirect the question to more favorable political terrain. He pivoted from a question on immigration enforcement to high gas and grocery costs, and turned an inquiry on whether he drives an electric car (he drives a plug-in hybrid, he said) into a jab at President Donald Trump’s new trade war with Canada.

    In the most eye-popping moment of the exchange, Watters asked if El-Sayed believed it was OK “for a parent to slash his kid’s ding-a-ling off,” referring to transition surgeries for minors.

    El-Sayed responded by asking if Watters was circumcised.

    “Uh, yeah, but that’s a personal question, doctor,” Watters responded, laughing, before contending that “circumcision’s different than castration.”

    El-Sayed said that he believed the government should not tell Americans what healthcare procedures they could undergo, but he did not directly say whether he approved of transition surgeries.

    The interview showed the strategy El-Sayed is adopting as Rogers seeks to paint him as a radical leftist who is out of touch with Michigan voters. The Democratic nominee’s approach is to cast “culture-war” issues as a distraction from the everyday problems Americans face, like rising costs and worries about health care.

    The interview also previewed the kinds of arguments that could animate El-Sayed’s planned debate against Rogers, which is set for Oct. 8 on WOOD-TV, both campaigns announced Monday. The two men may face off sooner if they agree to additional debates.

    After Watters brought up Shariah — the system of Islamic religious rules often invoked by opponents to portray Islam as dangerous and anti-American — El-Sayed countered by asking the host if he knew about canon law, the code of religious rules that guides the Roman Catholic Church.

    “Nobody is trying to push Shariah law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law on anybody else,” El-Sayed said. “Because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion.”

    Watters responded by saying: “Maybe. Shariah law in Michigan is kind of scary.”

    El-Sayed argued that voters were far more concerned about affording gas, seeing doctors and keeping their jobs than they were about Shariah.

    Asked about his position on trans athletes in sports, El-Sayed said he believed that matter should be “decided by the people who govern sports,” not him.

    “I’m out here trying to take on the healthcare crisis and Big Pharma, and you’re asking me about who gets to play what sports,” El-Sayed said. “It’s silly.”

    El-Sayed’s appearance Monday was his third televised interview with Fox News of the campaign, and his first of the general election.

    Whether or not he is able to attract a slice of Republican voters, he has already sought to capitalize on Watters’ comments about him. He started airing an ad Thursday that features the Fox News host saying after the primary, “You’ve got to respect Abdul because he beat the machine.”

    At the end of the interview Monday, Watters gave his guest “credit for facing the music” by going on his show, but called him “a little naive” and said some of his policies were “straight-up wacky.”

    El-Sayed contended that Trump’s ballroom renovations amid the war with Iran were “wacky,” and then said he would “love to come back on” to talk about money in politics, affordability and Medicare for All.

    “We’ll do it again, Abdul,” Watters said, smiling amusedly and adding, “Good luck in Michigan.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Canada to announce retaliatory tariffs as Trump tells its leaders to ‘fall in line’

    Canada to announce retaliatory tariffs as Trump tells its leaders to ‘fall in line’

    TORONTO — Canada will announce retaliatory tariffs against the United States on Tuesday after relations deteriorated sharply Monday, with President Donald Trump telling Canadian leaders to “fall in line” or face consequences “far WORSE” than existing tariffs and Prime Minister Mark Carney accusing Washington of trying to subordinate Canada.

    Trump also threatened new 50% tariffs on Canadian vehicles, auto parts and steel, while Carney said U.S. trade demands showed Washington wanted to “destroy our major industries,” including autos, steel and aluminum.

    Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne and three other Cabinet ministers are also expected Tuesday morning to share details of supports for workers affected by tariffs. Carney said earlier Monday that Canada may need to move away from matching U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar and instead use more targeted retaliation aimed at protecting Canadian workers and businesses.

    “An attitude at the negotiation table that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States” is “not something we’re going to accept,” Carney said.

    Carney was even more blunt in French.

    “We learned during the negotiations that the Americans want to destroy our major industries, including autos, steel and aluminum,” Carney said. “That was one of the main reasons we said no. It was a bad deal.”

    The fiery words from both sides show how U.S.-Canada relations have deteriorated since Carney walked away from trade negotiations with the Trump administration late Friday, triggering the president’s threatened 50% tariffs the next day on about $20 billion worth of Canadian goods.

    Canada and the United States share one of the world’s largest trading relationships, with deeply integrated supply chains across autos, energy, agriculture and manufacturing, making a prolonged trade fight potentially costly for businesses and workers on both sides of the border.

    Carney cast doubt on the U.S.’s dependability, saying Canada was finding reliable partners “everywhere in the world, except in the United States. Except in the United States. And Russia.”

    Trump unleashes personal attacks on Canadian leaders

    On Monday, Trump came back with further tariffs, warning that he would impose them on Canada’s auto industry beginning next year.

    “Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years,” Trump wrote on social media, criticizing what he called the country’s “ridiculously high tariffs” on American farmers.

    Carney said Washington’s auto-sector proposals would gradually have the effect of dismantling Canadian production.

    “This is the most successful automotive partnership in history,” Carney said, referring to the deeply integrated Canada-U.S. industry.

    Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Doug Ford unleashed his own tirade. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said Trump had underestimated Canadians’ willingness to endure economic pain rather than give in to U.S. pressure.

    “We’re all in,” Ford said. “Up here, we’re at a fever pitch; everyone’s in for an economic war. They know they’re going to have to sacrifice.”

    Trump responded in a social media post by attacking Ford personally, calling him “the less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great, Rob Ford,” and once again referring to Canada’s prime minister as “Governor Carney.”

    Ford dismissed the insults: “If you think an insult from him hurts me? Well, bring it on, buddy, I’m ready.”

    Ford is a Progressive Conservative whose party differs from that of Carney, a Liberal, but the two underscore broad political unity in Canada over the trade fight with Trump.

    Ford threatens critical minerals and electricity

    Ford said “everything is on the table” if the dispute worsens, including cutting off electricity and critical minerals from Ontario.

    Critical minerals are increasingly important to U.S. national security and manufacturing. The Pentagon has sought more secure supplies of minerals used in military aircraft, missiles, munitions and electronics as Washington tries to reduce reliance on China, which dominates the mining or processing of several strategically important minerals.

    Ford said Canada should also consider increasingly severe retaliation if Trump continues targeting Canadian industries, including oil and potash, while Ontario could raise electricity prices or stop sending power south.

    “We power 1.5 million homes and businesses,” Ford said. “Everything’s on the table. I’ll do whatever it takes.”

    Ford has used electricity as leverage before. During an earlier phase of the dispute, Ontario imposed a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to Michigan, Minnesota and New York. Trump responded by threatening to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum before both sides backed away.

    Auto industry becomes a central battleground

    Ford accused Trump of not simply seeking a better trade deal but aiming to hollow out Canadian industries and move production south.

    Ford said Trump wants to make Canada a vassal state.

    “He wants to bleed out every single sector and bring them down to the U.S.,” Ford said.

    The auto sector is especially important to Ontario, the center of Canada’s vehicle manufacturing industry. Plants and suppliers in Ontario are tightly integrated with factories in Michigan and other U.S. states, with parts routinely crossing the border multiple times during production.

    Automakers including Ford, General Motors and Stellantis operate major assembly plants in Ontario, and the wider supply chain supports tens of thousands of jobs. Trump’s new threat of a 50% tariff on Canadian vehicles and parts puts that sector directly at the center of the escalating dispute.

    U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Monday that “the only reason Canada has auto production in the first place” was because of the 1960s Auto Pact, under which Canada used access to its market to encourage vehicle production north of the border.

    Ford says he opposed preliminary deal

    Ford also disclosed that he had opposed the preliminary agreement Carney was considering before Canada walked away from negotiations, and that he was unwilling to restore American liquor to Ontario store shelves as part of an agreement.

    “I wasn’t going to put the booze back on the shelves,” Ford said. “I was ready to go out there and call a press conference … and say I’m not buckling over.”

    Ford said he understood Washington had sought language late in the negotiations that would have restricted Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries without U.S. approval. Carney has called that demand unacceptable and a question of Canadian sovereignty.

    Carney said the dispute also exposed a deeper divide over language and culture, saying protections for French and Canadian culture that Washington views as trade irritants are considered fundamental rights in Canada.

    “Who does he think he is?” Ford said of Trump. “You gotta be kidding.”

  • Black voters have long been politically pragmatic

    Black voters have long been politically pragmatic

    Fierce primary fights throughout the spring and summer have exposed deep ideological fractures within the Democratic Party. They’ve also reopened an internal party debate about whether African Americans — one of the pillars of the Democratic Party — will support “progressive” or left-wing candidates in primaries against moderate opposition.

    In Michigan’s contentious Senate primary, upstart candidate Abdul El-Sayed narrowly beat establishment candidate Haley Stevens, despite the latter performing better overall with African American voters. In Wisconsin, however, African American voters proved decisive, as David Crowley eked out a narrow victory over Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong. In both campaigns, perceptions of electability in November became a key issue and a key indicator of whether a candidate could win Black support.

    This fight isn’t new. The Democratic Party has long featured debates over electability, and whether it ought to prioritize finding candidates who can excite base voters or identifying candidates who have crossover appeal in November.

    This question has unique importance for African American voters. They take a deeply pragmatic approach, one that has been shaped by the fraught racial environment that is, sadly, a key part of American electoral history. For close to a century, that has translated into a reluctance to back political causes or campaigns that make broad promises, but will have difficulty delivering results. While African Americans have been a stalwart Democratic constituency for more than 60 years, they have not automatically gravitated toward left-wing causes.

    The 1948 presidential campaign took place at the height of the Cold War abroad and the Second Red Scare at home. It also had a critical civil rights dimension.

    Many Black soldiers had fought in World War II for a “Double V” — victory against fascism abroad and victory over racism at home. Yet, returning after the war, they discovered that many of their white counterparts did not want to eliminate Jim Crow segregation in the South, or other forms of white supremacy and discrimination elsewhere in the country. Lynchings and racial violence dramatically increased after the war, most memorably, the beating and blinding of Pacific War veteran Sergeant Isaac Woodard in South Carolina in 1946.

    In this Feb. 9, 2019, file photo, the Blinding of Isaac Woodard historical marker was dedicated in Batesburg-Leesville, S.C. Woodard, a uniformed World War II veteran was headed home on a bus in 1946, when he was removed and beaten by a white South Carolina police chief, leaving Woodard permanently blind.Christina Myers

    Black Americans demanded that embattled President Harry Truman embrace new civil rights protections. Truman was aghast at the treatment of returning veterans and believed in fairness. He also realized that he’d need the votes of African Americans to have any chance of winning reelection.

    In 1947, Truman began making a concerted effort to advance the civil rights cause. He became the first president to speak at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention. The White House also released To Secure These Rights, a book detailing how the Truman administration both acknowledged the problems facing African Americans and the steps it would take to ameliorate them. Additionally, Truman desegregated the armed forces, a critical step in showing he was serious about embracing civil rights.

    Truman made these moves to showcase American freedom and democracy and juxtapose it with Soviet communism, while also trying to shore up the African American vote. That was especially critical because of a political insurgency that threatened Truman’s hope for reelection: the rise of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party.

    Wallace had served as agriculture secretary during Franklin Roosevelt’s first two terms as president and as vice president during Roosevelt’s third term. He had also served as Truman’s secretary of commerce. Many on the left saw Wallace as the only hope for achieving their main goals: preventing a full-blown war with the Soviets, and securing greater labor, civil and human rights at home.

    Wallace’s backers included prominent African Americans like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois, who distrusted Truman. Both men supported Wallace due to the former’s strong stance in favor of civil rights at home and deep-seated opposition to the brewing Cold War abroad. Their support helped catalyze a debate in the Black community over which candidate to back.

    Forums like The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP, became spaces for African American voters to debate Wallace vs. Truman. In early 1948, The Crisis editors declared “Wallace is straight on our question,” referring to his unabashed support for civil rights. They refrained, however, from outright endorsing him, noting his mixed record as secretary of agriculture.

    Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    Readers remained divided over this support for Wallace. Some felt the editorial was too harsh about his policies as secretary, while others believed he had not done enough for Black Americans in the federal government. “I challenge you to name another American of equal stature,” Robert and Selma Singer from Chicago wrote to The Crisis offices after its April 1948 issue, “who has mass support, who has given such impetus toward solving the ‘Negro Problem.’”

    Yet, others, such as Max Womack of Iowa City, argued that Wallace had no chance as a third-party candidate, and would merely split the votes of people who’d otherwise back Truman. He also wondered why the editors hadn’t given “President Truman any credit at all?”

    This last question hinted at the prevailing sentiment in the Black community: most African American voters backed Truman that November. They preferred trusting the incumbent — a proven commodity — rather than taking a chance on what turned out to be a quixotic campaign.

    Their overwhelming support delivered key margins in battleground states in the North and Midwest, like Michigan, a testament to the maturing power of the African American vote. “Negro leaders pointed out,” proclaimed the front page of the Black-owned and operated Detroit Tribune, “that the Michigan Republican party seemed to go out of its way to avoid the Detroit population and its political desires.”

    Black voters siding with mainstream, liberal Democrats over more radical ideas proved to be no anomaly. Twenty-four years later, in 1972, Black voters again engaged in an ideological skirmish. Activists debated the best way forward after the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement and the election of Republican Richard Nixon in 1968 against a deeply divided Democratic Party.

    At the National Black Political Convention, held in Gary, Indiana, African American liberals, moderates, socialists, nationalists, and even conservatives gathered to map out a strategy for adjusting the politics of Black America to a new normal. Nixon’s administration had largely practiced “benign neglect” on racial issues, while suppressing the Black Power Movement. Attendees grappled with an overall backlash to the Great Society programs spearheaded by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

    In this March 13, 1972, file photo, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, executive director of Operation: PUSH, speaks from the floor of the National Black Political Convention in Gary, Ind.Jim Wells

    The Convention’s “Gary Declaration” gave voice to the frustration of many Black Americans, arguing, “Both parties have betrayed us whenever their interests conflicted with ours (which was most of the time), and whenever our forces were unorganized and dependent, quiescent and compliant.”

    Still, despite the critique of both Nixonian conservatism and Great Society liberalism, the members of the Gary Convention disagreed over a radical proposal to create an all-Black political party that could, in theory, broker deals with both major parties on behalf of Black America. Later that year, most Black Americans stuck with the Democrats — one of the few constituencies to back the doomed campaign of George McGovern.

    The primary that year had illustrated Black political pragmatism at work. Ebony magazine journalist Alex Poinsett acknowledged that McGovern was far from perfect and that Black voters lacked a truly satisfactory option. Yet, he argued that the candidate’s support for elements of the Gary Declaration — and a competing “Black Bill of Rights” proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus — made him a sensible option over several longer shots, including African American congresswoman Shirley Chisholm.

    The choice of McGovern over Chisholm reflected how Black voters’ wariness about progressivism that did not seem to be electorally viable even applied to Black candidates. The same was true three decades later: Barack Obama struggled with Black voters in polling until his victory in Iowa in January 2008 made it clear he was a candidate who could win.

    These cases epitomize how, over time, Black voters have stuck with liberals in the Democratic Party who demonstrate a genuine chance of victory over more radical options that might promise better policy. They aren’t always happy with their choices, but they know what to expect from mainstream Democrats.

    This choice reflects how, ultimately, for African American voters, a pragmatic view of politics overrules almost everything else. The old saying that “politics is the art of the possible” is, often, the rueful outlook on politics by African Americans.

    Robert Greene II is associate professor of history at Claflin University. He is also managing editor of “Global Black Thought” and co-host of the award-winning podcast, “Our New South.”

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of The Inquirer.

  • Jeffries defends Kushner meeting, vowing tough oversight of Trump

    Jeffries defends Kushner meeting, vowing tough oversight of Trump

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, was forced to defend himself on Monday for taking a recent meeting with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, amid a backlash about the encounter from some progressives.

    “I wanted to give you a little real talk on this Jared Kushner situation,” Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a video he posted on social media, in which he appeared in Brooklyn dressed in a bright green New York Yankees cap and matching polo shirt.

    Jeffries, who had initially declined to acknowledge the meeting or comment on it, said in the video that Kushner had asked for the meeting, and he had taken it, in order “to discuss the affordability crisis that exists, that is not a hoax.” (Trump has accused Democrats of inventing the concept of “affordability” to attack him over the high cost of living.)

    The discussion came as Trump and Democrats are attacking one another relentlessly on the campaign trail as they battle for control of Congress, and as the president’s inner circle is facing the increasingly likely possibility of a Democratic takeover, one that would put the Brooklyn lawmaker in line to be the House speaker.

    It drew bitter criticism from some Democrats, who are eager to see accountability for the Trump administration on a range of topics after a pliant two years of House Republican control. They said his decision to privately huddle with Kushner raised questions about how tough Jeffries would be in investigating the administration.

    “You do not meet with them — don’t have anything to do with them,” James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist, vented online in a four-minute rant about Jeffries. “Any business we have is going to be conducted with you under oath.”

    Jeffries insisted in the video that he would be aggressive.

    “I shouldn’t have to say it, but I am,” he said. “No one is going to get a pass. We’re going to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable.”

    A spokesperson for Kushner did not respond to an email seeking comment on Jeffries’ video.

    The confab, which was first reported by The New York Times on Sunday, was described by people familiar with it as a general get-together in New York City to discuss areas where the Trump administration and Democrats could find common ground, discussing housing, cost-of-living and immigration. Kushner used the discussion to suggest that Jeffries meet with Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, with whom the Democratic leader has no relationship, according to one of the people with knowledge of the meeting.

    Kushner worked with Jeffries on criminal justice legislation during Trump’s first term, when he was an official senior adviser in the White House. Kushner now runs an investment firm backed heavily by Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and is not formally a part of the administration.

    But he has been an increasingly key outside adviser to his father-in-law, playing a central role in aspects of Trump’s foreign policy since last summer, a fact that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have begun to investigate.

    One of the most prominent faces of the Democratic left, Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, said he would still support Jeffries to lead the party. But elsewhere, there was outrage.

    Mehdi Hasan, the founder of the news site Zeteo, called the meeting “pathetic stuff from the House Dem leader” in a social media post. Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican member of Congress who has been among Trump’s harshest critics, referred to the meeting by posting: “Make this make sense.”

    Jeffries was already facing a potential rift within his caucus next year, with an incoming faction of antiestablishment members on the left who have repudiated him and broken with mainstream Democrats on a number of issues.

    A person with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, said it was a mutual friend, not the president’s son-in-law, who suggested that Jeffries and Kushner meet.

    The meeting also created an awkward situation for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who has been confidently predicting that his party will retain its majority and found himself pushing back on the idea that the Trump administration was instead preparing for a Democratic victory.

    Asked on Sunday about the meeting, Johnson played down Kushner’s influence, saying he was “not really directly involved” in the administration, “at least in the day-to-day in the White House,” and again expressed confidence that Republicans could keep control of the House.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • How to reset your child’s sleep schedule for back-to-school season

    How to reset your child’s sleep schedule for back-to-school season

    NEW YORK — After a summer of vacations and late nights, it’s time to set those back-to-school alarms.

    A good night’s sleep helps students stay focused and attentive in class. Experts say it’s worth easing kids back into a routine with the start of a new school year.

    “We don’t say ‘ get good sleep ‘ just because,” said pediatrician Dr. Gabrina Dixon with Children’s National Hospital. “It really helps kids learn and it helps them function throughout the day.”

    The amount of sleep kids need changes as they age. Preschoolers should get up to 13 hours of sleep. Tweens need between nine and 12 hours. Teenagers do best with eight to 10 hours of shut-eye.

    Set an earlier bedtime

    Early bedtimes can slip through the cracks over the summer as kids stay up for sleepovers, movie marathons and long plane flights. To get back on track, experts recommend setting earlier bedtimes a week or two before the first day of school or gradually going to bed 15 to 30 minutes earlier each night.

    Don’t serve a heavy meal before bed and avoid TV or screen time two hours before sleep. Instead, work on relaxing activities to slow down, like showering and reading a story.

    “You’re trying to take the cognitive load off your mind,” said Dr. Nitun Verma, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. “It would be like if you’re driving, you’re slowly letting go of the gas pedal.”

    Parents can adjust their back-to-school plans based on what works best for their child. Nikkya Hargrove moves her twin daughters’ bedtimes up by 30 minutes the week before school starts.

    Sometimes, her kids will negotiate for a few extra minutes to stay up and read. Hargrove said those conversations are important as her children get older and advocate for themselves. If they stay up too late and don’t have the best morning, Hargrove said that can be a learning experience too.

    “If they’re groggy and they don’t like how they feel, then they know, ‘OK, I have to go to bed earlier,’” said Hargrove, an author and independent bookstore owner from Connecticut.

    In the morning, soaking in some daylight by sitting at a window or going outside can help train the brain to power up, Verma said.

    Squash back-to-school sleep anxiety

    Sleep quality matters just as much as duration. First-day jitters can make it hard to fall asleep no matter how early the bedtime.

    Dixon says parents can talk to their kids to find out what is making them anxious. Is it the first day at a new school? Is it a fear of making new friends? Then they might try a test run of stressful activities before school starts to make those tasks feel less scary — for example, by visiting the school or meeting classmates at an open house.

    The weeks leading up to school can be jam-packed and it’s not always possible to prep a routine in advance. But kids will adjust eventually, so sleep experts say parents should do what they can. After all, their kids aren’t the only ones adjusting to a new routine.

    “I always say, ‘Take a deep breath, it’ll be OK,’” Dixon said. “And just start that schedule.”

  • From ‘Fortress North America’ to all-out trade war: How the U.S.-Canada talks collapsed

    From ‘Fortress North America’ to all-out trade war: How the U.S.-Canada talks collapsed

    The clock ticked toward midnight on Friday. New U.S. tariffs on Canada were about to come into effect and negotiators cooped up across the street from the White House were still plodding through the differences on each side. Aides shuffled in and out with new drafts, adjusting and readjusting.

    U.S. officials said they had offered Canada the best trade deal of any nation. Canadians believed it was a bad one. In the waning hours, both sides dug in even more.

    One Canadian negotiator said it was as if “shadow figures were suddenly in the room,” raising topics that had supposedly been settled in previous days.

    Back in Ottawa, Prime Minister Mark Carney got off the phone with Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario. Ford had told him plainly: Don’t take the deal.

    Ford told Carney he would not comply with a key U.S. demand: restoring the sale of U.S. alcohol that he, alongside most other provincial leaders, had banned. American tariffs on Canadian steel and automobiles were still too high to enable their long-term survival, Ford had decided.

    Carney called his team in Washington for the latest news from the negotiations. Then, just after 10:30 p.m., he pulled the plug and ordered them home.

    A month of intense talks to stave off new U.S. tariffs on Canada and soften the ones previously imposed by the Trump administration had been yielding steady progress. But they collapsed suddenly, setting in motion an all-out trade war between the two nations.

    The sticking points were many. In the last few hours, negotiators clashed over Canadian rules promoting French-language movies and shows online, as well as the Trump administration’s demands to dictate Canada’s steel tariffs on other countries. Canada, in turn, insisted on more generous treatment for its autos and electric vehicles, and ultimately backed away from its offer to cooperate on the Keystone XL pipeline that President Donald Trump has long desired, people familiar with the negotiations said.

    On Monday, after the negotiations collapsed, Trump vowed to increase tariffs on all cars, trucks, car parts and steel from Canada to 50%, starting on Jan. 1. He called Canadian officials “clowns” from “among the worst Nations in the World to deal with.”

    “WE DON’T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US!” he wrote.

    Carney fired back: “The attitude, at the negotiation table, that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States,” he said, “that’s not something we’re going to accept.”

    Carney is now expected to announce Canada’s retaliation tariffs against the United States.

    What led to the breakdown is a story of fundamental misalignment between the countries — ideological, economic and political. Ultimately, Carney decided to defy Trump and endure his economic and political targeting of Canada.

    This account, which contains previously unreported details of the final days and hours of the trade negotiations, is based on interviews with five American and Canadian officials with direct knowledge of the talks, two former U.S. officials, as well as seven senior industry leaders on both sides of the border who were briefed throughout.

    The interviews show that the red lines for the two sides were so far apart that it would have required major concessions, particularly by Canada, to come to a final agreement.

    The zombie pipeline

    “The great Keystone XL Pipeline, long ago killed by Sleepy Joe Biden, may be awoken from the grave!” Trump said in an Aug. 18 social media post, in which he also claimed that the United States and Canada had a “DEAL!”

    Trump’s love of the beleaguered pipeline extension, meant to transport oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast until it was canceled by Biden in 2021, is well known.

    Carney had brought up the idea of reviving it during his first White House visit last year.

    Officials said that, when Carney and Trump spoke by phone early last week, Carney again mentioned the pipeline, saying that, for the right deal on tariffs, Canada would consider bringing its side of the pipeline back to life. Trump was thrilled, a former official briefed on the talks said.

    But by Friday, the Keystone XL pipeline idea was buried again. A U.S. official said that, in the last few hours, Canada had expressed reluctance to cooperate. A Canadian official said that the trade deal on offer was not good enough to make the pipeline make sense.

    The Lutnick factor

    Last Monday afternoon, with the talks still underway, Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, and Dominic LeBlanc, the Canadian trade minister, dodged reporters waiting in the Washington humidity as they left a roughly two-hour meeting at the Commerce Department.

    Canadian negotiators were used to working closely with Greer, who oversees U.S. trade deals and helped negotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement during Trump’s first term. But many of the issues that Canadians cared about most were instead the purview of the man who stayed inside in the air conditioning: Howard Lutnick, the secretary of commerce.

    Lutnick, a hard-charging former bond broker who has known Trump for decades, oversees the administration’s tariffs on cars, trucks, steel and aluminum. And in the coming days, he would take a hard line on those topics, issues that ultimately took down the talks.

    Negotiators were hopeful to start that week. After Trump threatened last month to impose 50% tariffs on hundreds of products, the Canadians reached out to negotiate, asking for a comprehensive deal that resolved Trump’s earlier tariffs and his latest threats, a U.S. official said. Trump gave Greer a green light to see what the Canadians had to offer.

    U.S. officials felt confident that they could get Canada to both scale back the retaliatory tariffs they had imposed against Trump and to remove what the United States saw as unfair barriers to agriculture, energy and digital trade.

    On Aug. 18, U.S. and Canadian officials agreed on the outlines of a deal, and Trump proclaimed on social media that he had paused his tariffs until midnight Friday to finalize the paperwork.

    But on Wednesday, as the two sides got into the details, particularly on metals and autos, snags emerged. Lutnick was wary of Canadian proposals that would lower the tariff on autos below the level he wanted.

    As word leaked last week that the United States would reduce its tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, U.S. companies lobbied the Commerce Department and the White House to preserve their protections. Lutnick intervened on their behalf, including suggesting that only a certain volume of aluminum be subject to lower tariff rates.

    After spending several days in negotiations, LeBlanc flew home to Ottawa on Wednesday afternoon. But early the next morning, he urgently returned to Washington, as did Marc-André Blanchard, Carney’s chief of staff.

    Neither was scheduled to be in Washington that day, according to two people familiar with the events. They were rushing back because of Lutnick’s intervention.

    Lutnick also insisted that tariffs not be lowered for heavy trucks, as they would be for cars. And Canada, which produces the GM Silverado and Ford F-350 and F-450 in Ontario, insisted this was a red line.

    Lutnick’s interventions caused frustration inside the trade office, which had been in talks with the Canadians for weeks, one person close to the office said. The person said Greer did not disagree with Lutnick substantively, but he did not think the Canadians would accept the proposals.

    A White House official said Lutnick’s hard line did not derail the negotiations. Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said that the entire trade and economic team was “playing from one playbook, President Trump’s playbook.”

    The United States ultimately offered to reduce its tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars, and eliminate entirely a tariff on Canadian lumber imposed last year, Greer said in an interview Saturday.

    For Canadians, Lutnick was already something of a villain. Though he is friendly enough to exchange text messages with Carney, he has offended many Canadians, including intervening to block the opening of a new Canada-U.S. bridge and saying that Canadian officials “suck” during an event in Washington in April.

    Lutnick had also made clear that his goal was moving auto production out of Canada into the United States. Speaking virtually at a U.S.-Canada summit late last year, Lutnick told a Canadian audience that the United States was no longer interested in buying Canadian-made cars.

    Sovereignty matters

    For the Canadian team, a number of different issues came down to sovereignty.

    On Friday, U.S. officials raised concerns about Canada’s future trade agreements and how they would guard against foreign products flooding into North America. They wanted to be able to review and potentially dictate the terms for Canada’s trade agreements with other countries, a Canadian official said.

    Canadian negotiators had gone into the talks suggesting the ultimate goal should be to create a “Fortress North America,” as they called it, with ultralow or nonexistent tariffs inside its walls, namely between Canada and the United States, and aligned tariffs for outsiders.

    But the United States wanted Canada to apply U.S. tariffs to other countries, particularly when it came to steel, now and in the future: If the United States changed policy and place higher tariffs on certain goods from a third country, Canada would need to do the same, even if it already had a trade agreement in place, a Canadian official said.

    For the Trump administration, this was necessary to prevent, for example, cheaper steel from flooding third countries through Canada and into the United States.

    But this was unacceptable to the Canadians, who are in talks on multiple trade deals with Latin American and other nations as part of Carney’s vision to diversify trade away from dependence on the United States.

    A Canadian official also said that the U.S. side also wanted Canada to swiftly phase out a program it began last year to support industries impacted by U.S. tariffs, known as “Buy Canadian,” which prioritizes using domestic products and suppliers for public-sector projects — similar to a policy the United States implements to favor its own industries.

    The Canadians also pressed the United States for a level of certainty that the deal would not be scrapped overnight by the Trump administration. But the United States maintained that it would retain all power to change tariff policy against Canada at any time, irrespective of the agreement, officials said. Carney would say in his seething Saturday address to Canadians: Sometimes, the United States signature is “written in pencil.”

    Lost in translation

    A particularly sore point in the talks, and one that has animated Canadians since they collapsed, was the suggestion by Carney that the United States wanted to intervene in Canada’s all-important policy to protect the use of the French language.

    French, spoken mostly but not exclusively in Quebec, is one of Canada’s two official languages and bilingualism is government policy across the country. Different kinds of laws protect and guarantee the continued use of French in daily life, from labels on products to funding for the arts and education. Quebec would likely break away from Canada, as it has often threatened to, without such guarantees.

    As part of the trade talks, Canada had agreed to review laws that protect Canadian-made online content, including French-language shows. On Friday, and until the final moments, the United States was asking Canada to repeal a law that would, among other provisions, compel streaming platforms to place such movies or series more prominently for Canadian subscribers.

    The U.S. side, officials said, viewed such policies as an intervention in the platforms’ freedoms.

    A person with direct knowledge of the talks said that the American side was flexible on this point, and did not make any asks regarding the French language explicitly. A Canadian counterpart said that, even if that were the case, the topic was still being debated until the last minute before the talks broke down Friday.

    It would be one of many issues left unresolved, as Carney decided the concessions were unthinkable for Canada.

    “We cannot accept what they have offered, and we will not give what they have asked,” he said.

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.