“As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality.”

This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that’s exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things.

Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I’ll call “panic policies” that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let’s turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics. For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid — so long as they were under 2 — on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: The risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they’d turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car.

Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under 2 in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they’re simply fragile.

A group of pediatricians stepped in to quash the AAP’s unfounded proposal. They reported that “even if the policy led to no increase in car travel and cost only $20 per round trip per young child, the cost per life saved would be about $4.3 million per discounted life-year.”

As difficult as it may be to put a price tag on saving the life of an infant, in a world of scarce legislative attention and sparse resources, policymakers cannot avoid such analysis. Thankfully, the FAA sided with reason, resisted popular pressure, and rejected the AAP’s proposal.

Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that reason will win out over panic policies. Following a number of tragic school-bus incidents in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress faced mounting calls to insist on heightened safety regulations for school buses. The resulting proposal would have increased the cost of school buses by 25 percent by virtue of shoring up their safety measures. How do you think school districts would have responded?

Stick with the older buses for longer, right? Few school districts have spare funds lying around. Yet, this somewhat obvious response by districts appears to have been lost on the chief proponents of the policy.

The upshot is that policymaking that occurs in the heat of public panic is precisely when we ought to slow down, rely on evidence, and avoid enacting laws that will actually do more harm than good. It is undeniable that extensive use of AI tools has resulted in tragic outcomes for several young Americans.

How best to respond, though, is not as clear-cut as many may have you believe. It’s highly questionable that existing reports about the pros and cons of AI tools are representative of users. It’s also highly probable that proponents of bans are not adequately weighing the fact that there’s a massive shortage of psychiatrists to address the growing need among children and teens for specialized support. This is especially for children in rural and economically-insecure communities.

Finally, and most importantly, it’s nearly certain that by stigmatizing the use of AI, proponents of panic policies may undermine uses of tools that have already shown their effectiveness. Not all AI is created equal. While there may be a case for limiting and even banning certain uses of certain AI tools, such policies should be grounded in evidence, not vibes.

To be clear — as someone who suffered from mental health issues as a child, I am not at all opposed to the motivations of those paying close attention to the misuse of AI. I applaud their devotion and attention to this issue.

However, I’m vehemently opposed to allowing panic to distract us from adhering to good public policy. This is an emotional topic, which often makes it difficult for nuanced conversations, but the well-being of our youth demands that we rise to the occasion — leaning on research, investigation, and deliberation rather than acting on headlines and speculation.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack. He wrote this colum for The Fulcrum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: Experimenting on dogs is getting harder to defend

Karishma Vaswani: Islamic State isn’t back in Asia, but its ideas endure

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China

The unprecedented turmoil at the top U.S. health agencies, under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is sure to have a long-term impact on the well-being of Americans. Although Kennedy’s mantra has been to “Make America Healthy Again,” the most visible changes he and his allies have made within the Department of Health and Human Services in 2025 appear, in practice, designed to do the opposite.

The consequences of Kennedy’s first year in office — marked by sweeping cuts in funding and personnel at the agencies under his purview, the erosion of expertise and the mainstreaming of anti-vaccine rhetoric into national policy — will unfold over years or even decades. However, several key metrics could serve as early indicators of how quickly Kennedy’s influence, combined with President Donald Trump’s broader agenda, will shape Americans’ health.

From the spread of preventable diseases to access to both established and emerging drugs and vaccines to health care coverage, here are a few things I’ll be paying attention to in 2026:

Kennedy faced his first significant test within days of his confirmation: a rapidly spreading measles outbreak in West Texas. Unfortunately, he failed the exam. He waffled for weeks, failing to forcefully encourage vaccination, while simultaneously promoting unproven treatments for the virus. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s deep cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention left local health authorities struggling to contend with the outbreak.

By July, measles cases had reached 1,288, their highest level since the virus was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. By late December, the number of cases had grown to 2,012, of which approximately 87% were associated with an ongoing outbreak. Cases have been reported in several states, and at least three unvaccinated people are reported to have died from the disease.

The situation has continued to deteriorate as we head into 2026, as evidenced by an accelerating outbreak in South Carolina that, by mid-December, had infected more than 135 people and sent hundreds more into quarantine. The question for 2026 seems to be not whether, but when, the U.S. will lose its measles elimination status — and how severe the consequences may become amid future outbreaks.

The measles outbreak was fueled by vulnerabilities in the vaccine safety net that helps keep everyone protected. Eliminated diseases remain eliminated only if enough people — typically around 95% of the population — are immunized. Data indicate that acceptance of routine childhood vaccines is softening, and the share of children entering kindergarten with all their shots has gradually declined over the past five years. During the same period, many more children received non-medical exemptions from required vaccinations.

The question now becomes how Kennedy’s influence over both public opinion and actual policy might amplify those twin trends. Last summer, he overhauled the influential CDC advisory panel that makes recommendations on the use of vaccines nationwide, appointing members who more closely align with his anti-vaccine views. The panel has since restricted the use of certain vaccines, most notably by revoking the longstanding advice that all newborns be vaccinated against hepatitis B. The group is also poised, under Trump’s direction, to review the entire childhood immunization schedule, raising concerns about rollbacks of other established protections.

Meanwhile, lawmakers, emboldened by Kennedy’s actions, have sought to pass laws that make it easier for parents to obtain exemptions that allow their children to forgo routine vaccinations. Kindergarten exemption data for this school year could provide our first indication of whether these efforts have significantly affected parents’ decision-making.

During the Biden administration, the number of uninsured Americans fell to record lows, largely due to the introduction of pandemic-era subsidies that made insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act more affordable. The looming expiration of those tax credits at the end of this year led to months of congressional gridlock over whether and how to extend them. Democrats advocated extending them, while Republicans debated whether they should be preserved in a more limited form or discarded altogether.

Lawmakers failed to reach a consensus before Congress adjourned for the year. The expiration of the credits means millions of Americans will see their insurance premiums roughly double in January. Negotiations will continue after the holiday break, and if a deal is reached, health policy experts at KFF say the Trump administration could help consumers by making the subsidies retroactive to Jan. 1 and extending the sign-up deadline to allow enrollees to switch to more affordable plans.

The stakes are high: The number of Americans receiving coverage through ACA plans has more than doubled since 2020 to more than 24 million. Without the subsidies, some 4.2 million people are projected to forgo coverage.

Early numbers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services suggest that fewer new customers are enrolling in ACA plans, but they also indicate a slight increase in returning customers compared with this time in 2024. And, of course, the ultimate unknown is how many Americans will end up uninsured — and how that could affect the nation’s long-term health and strain its infrastructure.

U.S. consumers have long benefited from the country’s leadership in biomedical innovation, a position predicated on a gold-standard regulatory body that carefully evaluates scores of new drugs, vaccines and medical devices each year.

But that typically predictable approval process has been disrupted by turmoil and ever-shifting policies at the Food and Drug Administration. As FDA Commissioner Marty Makary puts existing vaccines and other long-used drugs under new scrutiny, there is reason to worry that the approval thresholds for newer ones could become unreasonably high.

At the same time, Makary is intent on speeding up new drug approvals. He is reportedly planning to reduce the number of late-stage studies required for FDA approval from two to one. He has also introduced a controversial “national priority review voucher,” which promises reviews within weeks for companies that align with Trump’s focus on affordability, domestic manufacturing, and unmet public health needs.

All of this is unfolding at a time of significant churn at the FDA, both at the leadership level and among the career scientists who review new products. The question for next year is whether the flow of new therapies can increase without compromising safety and efficacy — a difficult balance to strike.

These key health measures use real-time data to capture the immediate impact of a transformed HHS. But it is essential to ensure there is a full accounting of the many other areas — including opioid deaths, maternal mortality, and drug prices — that could be affected by the seismic shifts to our nation’s health infrastructure.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

Related Articles

With new variant, flu season picking up. Here’s what to know.

A family is trying to raise millions to test gene therapy that could help kids trapped in bodies they can’t move

US commits $480M in health funding to Ivory Coast, the latest to sign ‘America First’ health deals

MN paid leave applications open early statewide. Here’s how to apply.

SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1

 

I was one of the researchers in the well-known Stanford prison experiment in 1971, demonstrating the destructive dynamics that are generated when one group of people — randomly assigned as “guards” — is given near total power over a group of “prisoners.”

In six short days, inside a simulated prison environment, authoritarian forms of mistreatment emerged and numerous emotional breakdowns ensued among otherwise psychologically healthy college-student volunteers. In the decades since, I have studied these dynamics in real correctional settings: jails, prisons and immigration detention centers throughout the United States.

Among the things I have learned is that the damaging dynamics unleashed inside such places are not self-correcting. Quite the opposite. Absent transparency and accountability, dehumanization and degradation intensify. Indeed, if left unchecked, the destructive forces that are set in motion almost invariably lead to greater and greater levels of mistreatment.

Because they make up what Justice Anthony Kennedy years ago called a “hidden world of punishment,” what goes on inside these facilities largely escapes public awareness and scrutiny. Many of these sites operate outside the conventional bounds of the rule of law. Lawless institutions in particular do not merely tolerate mistreatment: They engender, normalize and amplify it.

A recent HBO documentary, “The Alabama Solution,” dramatically illustrates many of these forces at work. Based on a six-year investigation and contraband cellphone footage that courageous incarcerated men supplied from inside one of America’s most dangerous and dysfunctional prison systems, filmmakers Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman give their audience a gut-wrenching view of something that few outsiders ever see: that hidden world of punishment laid bare, vividly depicting the depth of institutional cruelty and indifference to suffering that characterize many of our nation’s penal facilities.

The Alabama prison system on which the film focuses is one I know well. I was an expert witness in a federal lawsuit in which Judge Myron Thompson found the entire system to be unconstitutional. I spent many days in that role documenting the egregious living conditions inside the state’s prisons and interviewing prisoners about the neglect and mistreatment to which they were subjected. Remarkably, the system was so dangerously out of control that there were a number of days when my scheduled fact-finding missions had to be canceled because, as prison officials told me, they “could not guarantee my safety.” If they could not guarantee the safety of an expert witness with a court order to come inside, we should all wonder whether and how they could guarantee the safety of the 30,000 prisoners under their control. The new documentary provides all too chilling answers to that question.

The film also gives lie to a common stereotype that prisoners cannot be believed about the terrible realities they face in their daily life and regularly exaggerate the suffering and indignities they endure. In my experience, the opposite is true. If anything — perhaps because they do not want to fully relive the trauma or worry that skeptical outsiders will not believe them — they tend to understate what really goes on inside. As viewers of “The Alabama Solution” will see, the brutal reality is actually much worse than most people can imagine. And it is infinitely worse than the rosy accounts from many officials and politicians — who are themselves responsible for creating and maintaining these horrific places.

I wish that I could say that the egregious conditions and shocking treatment depicted in the film were limited to just one prison or prison system. The truth is that, although Alabama may be an outlier in some respects, scenes like those depicted in the film play out all too often in jails, prisons and detention facilities across the country. There are currently nearly 2 million people confined inside the nation’s bloated carceral system, which costs taxpayers more than $180 billion annually to maintain. Yet in far too many of these places — operating away from public view and meaningful legal regulation — callousness, cruelty and mistreatment prevail instead of rehabilitation, programming and treatment. Far too many people emerge from them traumatized by the experience, if they are fortunate enough to emerge at all.

Rather than reforming these institutions and minimizing their reach, federal and state governments are expanding their dehumanizing penal practices beyond the prison walls. We are daily witnessing the metastasizing of an increasingly lawless system of state-sanctioned oppression in society at large, one in which anonymous government actors operate unrestrained by due process safeguards, subjugating and terrorizing people with impunity — as has long been common inside prisons and jails. Only the restoration of transparency and the rule of law can reverse the perilous direction in which our country has been moving and shift the tide back toward justice and humanity.

Craig Haney, a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, is the author of “Criminality in Context: A Psychological Framework for Criminal Justice Reform.” He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: Experimenting on dogs is getting harder to defend

Karishma Vaswani: Islamic State isn’t back in Asia, but its ideas endure

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China

A minority of Somalis have brought shame to our community

There is a Somali proverb that came to mind when reflecting on the bitter language that has been coming from President Trump recently: the barking hyena warns you, but the silent hyena harms you. In Somali wisdom, the quiet hyena is more dangerous than the loud one. The loud hyena is noisy so you know it is coming. Someone who tells you the truth, even if it hurts, is like a loud hyena, giving you a warning. I would argue that President Trump is a loud hyena, though his truth is mixed with untruth. His simplistic stereotyping was uncalled for, and it is not right to call any human being garbage.

But it is true that the Somalis involved in large-scale fraud should face the consequences of their poor choices. And it is true that we Somalis need to ask ourselves what role we may have played in becoming the target of such hostile criticism.

It’s time to stop blaming others for our wrong choices. Blaming is self-sabotage; it keeps us stuck in our problems and prevents us from taking steps toward solutions. It’s time to get rid of the victim mentality.

Many Somalis lived through decades of state collapse, with corrupt and violent conditions. We saw how rules were enforced unfairly and were used to harm rather than protect people. This experience with broken systems and injustice created rule skepticism. On top of that, moral obligations to one’s clan often outweighed obligations to obey formal laws. Sometimes clan loyalty helped people survive. But these strategies didn’t work in Somalia, and they won’t work here either.

Here in the United States, Somalis need to shift their mindset. The government does not exist for personal gain. Too often we approach a situation thinking: “What can I get?” But is it time to ask, “How can I contribute?” It is time to build up the communities that have welcomed us.

Research consistently shows that most immigrants are law-abiding and often commit less crime than native-born citizens. Yet a minority of Somalis who have failed to integrate have chosen to engage in fraud or corruption. They have brought shame to the community.

We need to remember that when we became citizens here, we took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Such allegiance involves fulfilling our civic duties and following the law in our new home.

Badeh Dualeh, St. Paul

 

Urging a transparent reassessment of the Summit Avenue bike trail

Our new mayor hit the ground running to deliver on her promise for transparency and hard work. As we celebrate her victory, I write to urge a transparent and objective reassessment of the planned Summit Avenue raised bicycle trail.

It is crucial that we expand the range of alternatives being considered and commit to a truly unbiased process — one where the outcome is not predetermined, but instead reflects a fair comparison of all options.

The assessment must include an honest evaluation of the real impact on our tree canopy,  and a thorough analysis of this impact should be a key element of the promised Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The assessment must also include an evaluation of safety to pedestrians and bicyclists in view of the fact that e-bicycles, which have become ubiquitous, pose new dangers.

Related Articles

John Mannillo: Some friendly advice for St. Paul’s new mayor

Real World Economics: Tales of economic growth speak volumes

Skywatch: Extended stargazing pleasure in January

Working Strategies: Resolve to create an efficient job search for new year

Mark Glende: Against the odds, this tipsy tree with the leaning star

We also need a clear understanding of the true costs involved. Citizens deserve the chance to voice their opinions on whether a full reconstruction of Summit should be prioritized — especially given the City’s looming financial challenges — or if a more targeted approach, such as a mill and overlay for sections most in need, might be more prudent. Selective reconstruction should be considered where inspections show it is truly necessary.

If the planned Summit Avenue bicycle trail is genuinely the superior option on its merits, let’s allow the facts to speak for themselves. This way, we can resolve the debate once and for all and move forward as a community.

Anastasia (Tess) Galati, St. Paul

 

Mayor Carter’s graceful exit

Kudos to outgoing Mayor Melvin Carter for the way he is exiting office in the aftermath of his surprising re-election defeat.

The class  that he has displayed is a sharp contrast to the graceless behavior of the current occupant of the White House after he lost his bid to stay there four  years ago as well as that of one of his acolytes, Mike Lindell, now seeking the gubernatorial position here.

Both the president and the pillow maker could learn from the mayor how to handle the agony of defeat and provide an example to others, rather than the way they have tainted the democratic process as perpetrators of petulance.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

 

Accountability?

Related Articles

Letters: Overfed on materialism, starved for enchantment …

Letters: If we can sue automakers for car theft, whom should we sue for Minnesota fraud?

Letters: Rage rear-ended by hope in the middle of a St. Paul intersection

Letters: Tone it down and deliver, elected officials left and right

Letters: Both Tim Walz and Donald Trump do the Minnesota Somali community a grave disservice

The US Government Accountability Office reports that the federal government loses a billion dollars to fraud everyday – so why are only Democrats and Somali-Americans in Minnesota in trouble?

The GOP is all over Tim Walz, holding him responsible for the fraud that happened in Minnesota, when Donald Trump resides over the federal government that loses a billion dollars every day to fraud.

But this is par for the course when it comes to Trumpers and accountability. Trump is on tap saying he sexually assaults women, but then when women come forward and say Trump did sexually assault them, Trumpers go after the women and claim Trump is the victim.

Trumpers have a very bizarre approach to accountability.

Frank Erickson, Minneapolis