For individuals fleeing oppressive regimes, the support from migrant communities often serves as a lifeline. Although prior research has mostly focused on how host societies respond to migration, this study shifts the lens to examine how migrants themselves decide whom to support in contexts of authoritarian repression and war. Drawing on an original survey of 2,036 Russian emigrants residing in more than 60 countries, which features a conjoint experiment, as well as 60 in-depth interviews, we investigate the criteria underlying migrant-to-migrant assistance. Russian migrants prefer to assist those emigrants who are fleeing because of political persecution or their dissenting political views, rather than those leaving for economic reasons. We suggest that this preference reflects not only political solidarity with antiwar emigrants but also a strategic effort to reshape the image of the Russian diaspora in response to nationality-based discrimination. In addition, contrary to the literature, migrants, driven by perceptions of vulnerability and a sense of guilt over Russia’s wartime actions, offer more support to members of ethnic minorities than to ethnic Russians.

This study contributes to the growing literature on white identity in American politics by examining how dominant in-group identification varies among individuals and how expressions of white identity respond to shifts in social and political context that disrupt the racial order. Drawing on three rounds of in-depth interviews with white residents of Minneapolis and Saint Paul in Minnesota from 2020 to 2023, I identify three ideal types of white identifiers: Type I (low awareness), Type II (disadvantaged awareness), and Type III (advantaged awareness). The findings suggest that the 2020 uprising constituted an epistemic disruption that heightened the salience of whiteness, prompting varied responses ranging from grievance to solidarity. While some participants reverted to prior identity expressions as the disruption faded, others maintained increased awareness and engagement. This study highlights the contextual nature of white identity and underscores the limitations of survey-based approaches in capturing its complexity. It offers a typology and framework for understanding how white Americans navigate racial identity amid sociopolitical change.

American politics is characterized by an implicit rights-centrism, for example, when public discourse champions the freedom of speech in absolute terms. This article proposes instead an ends-centric mode of deliberation that underscores the myriad ends beyond rights that are also necessary to a polity’s health. Grounded in republican theory, the ends-centric mode maintains space to (re)prioritize ends and to redraw the boundaries of rights as required by a given moment or issue. Rather than displace rights-centrism or the courts’ role in enforcing rights, the ends-centric mode prompts other institutions also to engage in rights reasoning, thereby elevating the larger conversation and process of deliberation. It thus allows a separation-of-powers logic to operate more fully in the realm of rights by leveraging diverse institutional perspectives and capacities toward a multi-sided dialogue over rights questions. We draw from historical debates on speech and press freedom from the early republic and the twentieth century to find sight lines for an ends-centric approach in American politics. We further examine how ends-centric arguments would benefit deliberations over the regulation of social media today. Specifically, arguments that overemphasize speech in social media crowd out other desirable ends, such as protecting young people online and combating misinformation. Ultimately, we argue the benefits of rights-centric and ends-centric modes operating alongside each other across constitutional fora, as the polity deliberates rights in old and new forms.

Current research conceptualizes the gender performance of populist leaders in terms of toxic hypermasculinity expressed through their sexist, misogynist, and transphobic rhetoric. This article challenges and complicates this perspective. As hegemonic masculinities, which formerly gained their power through their invisibility, are increasingly contested, they engage in a strategic hybridization by borrowing aesthetic elements from marginalized identities. In contrast to the established hypermasculinity thesis, we contend that right-wing populists, exemplified by Donald Trump, incorporate queer elements in their embodied gender performances. Trump’s masculinity appropriates the subversive spirit of queerness. It conveys reactionary content through rebellious aesthetics, which results in fake subversion. By drawing together insights from populist research with masculinities studies and queer theory, the article makes sense of (1) why Trump employs queer aesthetics, (2) why his followers appreciate his queer performance, (3) why the queer dimension of his masculinity goes unnoticed, and (4) what new light the case of Trump’s queerness sheds on the concept of hybrid masculinities.

Backers of nuclear deterrence are thought to use strategic logic, while nuclear disarmament advocates are believed to embrace moral reasoning. Yet policy makers and diverse publics may hold both—ostensibly contradictory—preferences. Recent studies find that publics in Western democratic countries support the nuclear strikes underpinning long-standing conceptions of deterrence policy. But other scholarship indicates that these very same publics want to abolish nuclear arsenals. A lack of comparative analyses across the Global North and the Global South limits the generalizability of these claims. Does a categorical dichotomy between nuclear deterrence and disarmament really reflect global public views on the bomb? What explains a multitude of seemingly inconsistent scholarly results? In this reflection essay, we argue that deterrence and disarmament are not necessarily incompatible tools for reducing nuclear dangers. We point to several ways that individuals might simultaneously accommodate both pro- and antinuclear weapons policy positions. To investigate this proposition, we offer a new observational dataset on global nuclear attitudes from a survey we conducted in 24 countries on six continents (N = 27,250). Unlike isolated studies of these phenomena, our data strongly confirm that publics do not subscribe to categorical views of nuclear weapons. This headline finding and novel dataset open new possibilities for studying nuclear politics.

Negative out-group attitudes are often attributed to perceptions of competition or threat. We propose an alternative source: culture, conceptualized as cultural scripts—interconnected networks of meanings that link particular group identities to negatively connoted phenomena. Evidence comes from three studies on the reactivation of the cultural script of traditional antisemitism in Germany. We begin our analysis by isolating the cultural script through automated analysis of a corpus of antisemitic texts. Next, using survey data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 17,800), we document an increase in antisemitism among Christian believers. This, we argue, is due to the pandemic activating the cultural script of traditional antisemitism, which links Judaism with the spread of disease. By means of an additional survey (n = 2,000) and a concept association task, we demonstrate the presence of the cultural script in the minds of Christian believers. Two priming experiments explore how elements of the script can be triggered. Our work demonstrates the deep cultural roots of negative out-group attitudes and suggests a novel set of methods for studying them.

As America’s racial composition shifts, states that minimize changes to existing districts in successive redistricting cycles can entrench racial disparities in representation, a process I term dilutive drift. Using novel spatial measures of US House district change between successive congresses, I show that packing and cracking can occur passively, and not only through deliberate gerrymandering. States with long histories of racial exclusion, such as Alabama and Louisiana, make persistently fewer changes to their districts than other states. Minimal-change redistricting, I argue, can entrench unequal representation just as effectively as overt gerrymandering.

Elite interviewing is a valuable tool that helps political scientists to understand decision making, trace political processes, and access insider knowledge. Yet despite its prevalence, we know surprisingly little about how elite interviews are conducted and reported in the discipline. This study addresses this gap by examining elite interviewing practices and transparency using an original dataset of articles published in 13 leading political science journals between 2000 and 2023. Drawing on article content and supplementary materials, I analyze trends in the use and quality of elite interviews, highlighting an increasing reliance on this method, particularly in comparative politics. Findings show promising improvements in reporting practices over time. Systematic reporting and the inclusion of online appendices significantly enhance transparency, offering detailed insights into ethical considerations, confidentiality, and data-sharing practices. This study underscores the evolving rigor in reporting elite interviewing, reflecting its enduring relevance and growing methodological sophistication in political science research.