Columns
Morning drinks shift as coffee loses its monopoly
February 16 ,2026
Coffee still owns the mug, but it no longer has exclusive rights to the
morning routine. Mushroom blends, roasted roots, whisked teas and
fermented drinks find their way into cups as people experiment with
fresh flavors and gentler ways to start the day. These alternatives work
within the same mug while offering a new go-to for anyone curious
enough to look beyond the bean.
:
Jennifer Allen
Food Drink Life
Food Drink Life
Coffee still owns the mug, but it no longer has exclusive rights to the morning routine. Mushroom blends, roasted roots, whisked teas and fermented drinks find their way into cups as people experiment with fresh flavors and gentler ways to start the day. These alternatives work within the same mug while offering a new go-to for anyone curious enough to look beyond the bean.
Apart from a quick jolt of energy, coffee alternatives offer mornings with fewer surprises and more control. Many options draw interest for their perceived support around digestion or overall balance without the jitters. Flavor also gets a starring role, bringing earthy, nutty or tangy notes that awaken the palate, not just the brain.
“I tried fig coffee out of curiosity. I’ve always loved figs and was interested in finding something that gave me a warm, coffee-like experience without the buzz,” says Bella Bucchiotti, owner of xoxoBella. “It’s a genuinely enjoyable alternative on days when I still want the comfort and ritual, just not more caffeine.”
—————
Functional mushroom blends
Mushroom coffee combines ground coffee with extracts from functional mushrooms rather than the types commonly used for cooking. These mixes often include varieties such as chaga, lion’s mane, reishi, cordyceps, king trumpet and turkey tail, which have long appeared in wellness products.
Flavor tends to stay subtle, with many drinkers describing mild earthy notes or a soft nuttiness. Beyond taste, these mushroom extracts contain compounds linked to immune support and metabolic balance, which have fueled interest among consumers looking to add perceived health benefits to their daily cup without giving up familiar routines.
—————
Roasted root coffee alternative
Chicory coffee offers a roasted drink that brews much like traditional coffee while staying free of caffeine. It comes from the root of the cultivated chicory plant, which is roasted and ground before brewing. Many people turn to it as a substitute because it delivers familiar warmth and depth without the stimulating effect of coffee.
Raw chicory root tastes sharply bitter, but roasting softens that edge and brings out toasty notes with mild sweetness similar to caramelized sugar. The aroma can resemble coffee at first sip, but the flavor leans closer to roasted nuts with a gentle finish, making it suitable on its own or blended with regular coffee for a smoother cup.
—————
Turkish traditional brew
Menengic coffee uses the roasted and ground fruit of the terebinth tree, a wild relative of the pistachio. The drink brews into a smooth cup with a nut-forward taste and mild bitterness, while remaining naturally caffeine free, which sets it apart from bean-based coffee.
The beverage has deep roots in southeastern Türkiye, where people have consumed it for generations as part of everyday life. In cities such as Gaziantep, menengic coffee holds a strong place in local culinary traditions, valued not as a trend but as a long-standing staple tied to regional identity.
—————
Whisked tea ritual
Matcha is a powdered form of green tea made from steamed, dried and finely ground leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant. The taste stays clean and grassy, often described as lightly earthy, making it distinct from darker roasted drinks. Because the entire leaf is consumed rather than steeped and discarded, matcha delivers a more concentrated source of antioxidants per serving.
Preparation stays simple but specific. Most people sift 1-2 teaspoons into a bowl, add hot but not boiling water, then stir until smooth before whisking briskly to create a light foam. A bamboo whisk works best, though a small hand whisk can substitute. For a latte-style drink, many add steamed milk or a non-dairy option after the tea fully dissolves.
—————
Herbal caffeine source
Yerba mate is a naturally caffeinated tea made from dried leaves of a South American holly plant that has long been consumed as a daily drink. A typical cup delivers about 80 milligrams of caffeine, which places it close to the lift many people expect from a standard cup of coffee.
The flavor differs from most teas, with many first-time drinkers noticing a bold bitterness and smoky edge that can take time to appreciate. Fans often describe it as a taste that grows on you rather than one that feels familiar at first sip, which explains its loyal following among people looking for a coffee alternative with presence.
“I’ve tried a few coffee alternatives, including herbal coffee and cacao tea. They’re fine, especially with a little sweetener, but for me, they don’t truly replace a cup of black coffee,” says Jessica Haggard of Primal Edge Health. “Herbal coffee came the closest, but that was almost the problem. It was close enough to make me want real coffee, but not close enough to fully satisfy.”
—————
Fermented tea option
Kombucha is a fermented tea made by adding yeast and bacteria to sweetened tea, which then turns into a tangy drink over time. The process usually takes one to two weeks and relies on a living culture that develops as the tea ferments. Both black and green tea work, though black tea remains the most common choice because it ferments more quickly.
The finished drink pours cold with a light fizz and a sharp, slightly sour taste. Many producers add fruit or spice flavors, such as raspberry, ginger or lemon, which soften the acidity and make it easy to drink. It’s refreshing profile contrasts with hot coffee and appeals to people looking for a chilled alternative.
—————
Alternatives for daily energy
People no longer treat coffee alternatives as second-best options, but as deliberate choices that match different needs throughout the day. From caffeine-free brews to gentler stimulants and fermented drinks, these choices give people more control over energy, digestion and routine without forcing an all-or-nothing break from coffee culture. As daily habits continue to shift, the appeal lies less in replacing coffee outright and more in expanding what a satisfying cup can look like.
—————
Jennifer Allen is a retired professional chef and long-time writer. Her work appears in dozens of publications, including MSN, Yahoo, The Washington Post and The Seattle Times. These days, she’s busy in the kitchen developing recipes and traveling the world, and you can find all her best creations at Cook What You Love.
Apart from a quick jolt of energy, coffee alternatives offer mornings with fewer surprises and more control. Many options draw interest for their perceived support around digestion or overall balance without the jitters. Flavor also gets a starring role, bringing earthy, nutty or tangy notes that awaken the palate, not just the brain.
“I tried fig coffee out of curiosity. I’ve always loved figs and was interested in finding something that gave me a warm, coffee-like experience without the buzz,” says Bella Bucchiotti, owner of xoxoBella. “It’s a genuinely enjoyable alternative on days when I still want the comfort and ritual, just not more caffeine.”
—————
Functional mushroom blends
Mushroom coffee combines ground coffee with extracts from functional mushrooms rather than the types commonly used for cooking. These mixes often include varieties such as chaga, lion’s mane, reishi, cordyceps, king trumpet and turkey tail, which have long appeared in wellness products.
Flavor tends to stay subtle, with many drinkers describing mild earthy notes or a soft nuttiness. Beyond taste, these mushroom extracts contain compounds linked to immune support and metabolic balance, which have fueled interest among consumers looking to add perceived health benefits to their daily cup without giving up familiar routines.
—————
Roasted root coffee alternative
Chicory coffee offers a roasted drink that brews much like traditional coffee while staying free of caffeine. It comes from the root of the cultivated chicory plant, which is roasted and ground before brewing. Many people turn to it as a substitute because it delivers familiar warmth and depth without the stimulating effect of coffee.
Raw chicory root tastes sharply bitter, but roasting softens that edge and brings out toasty notes with mild sweetness similar to caramelized sugar. The aroma can resemble coffee at first sip, but the flavor leans closer to roasted nuts with a gentle finish, making it suitable on its own or blended with regular coffee for a smoother cup.
—————
Turkish traditional brew
Menengic coffee uses the roasted and ground fruit of the terebinth tree, a wild relative of the pistachio. The drink brews into a smooth cup with a nut-forward taste and mild bitterness, while remaining naturally caffeine free, which sets it apart from bean-based coffee.
The beverage has deep roots in southeastern Türkiye, where people have consumed it for generations as part of everyday life. In cities such as Gaziantep, menengic coffee holds a strong place in local culinary traditions, valued not as a trend but as a long-standing staple tied to regional identity.
—————
Whisked tea ritual
Matcha is a powdered form of green tea made from steamed, dried and finely ground leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant. The taste stays clean and grassy, often described as lightly earthy, making it distinct from darker roasted drinks. Because the entire leaf is consumed rather than steeped and discarded, matcha delivers a more concentrated source of antioxidants per serving.
Preparation stays simple but specific. Most people sift 1-2 teaspoons into a bowl, add hot but not boiling water, then stir until smooth before whisking briskly to create a light foam. A bamboo whisk works best, though a small hand whisk can substitute. For a latte-style drink, many add steamed milk or a non-dairy option after the tea fully dissolves.
—————
Herbal caffeine source
Yerba mate is a naturally caffeinated tea made from dried leaves of a South American holly plant that has long been consumed as a daily drink. A typical cup delivers about 80 milligrams of caffeine, which places it close to the lift many people expect from a standard cup of coffee.
The flavor differs from most teas, with many first-time drinkers noticing a bold bitterness and smoky edge that can take time to appreciate. Fans often describe it as a taste that grows on you rather than one that feels familiar at first sip, which explains its loyal following among people looking for a coffee alternative with presence.
“I’ve tried a few coffee alternatives, including herbal coffee and cacao tea. They’re fine, especially with a little sweetener, but for me, they don’t truly replace a cup of black coffee,” says Jessica Haggard of Primal Edge Health. “Herbal coffee came the closest, but that was almost the problem. It was close enough to make me want real coffee, but not close enough to fully satisfy.”
—————
Fermented tea option
Kombucha is a fermented tea made by adding yeast and bacteria to sweetened tea, which then turns into a tangy drink over time. The process usually takes one to two weeks and relies on a living culture that develops as the tea ferments. Both black and green tea work, though black tea remains the most common choice because it ferments more quickly.
The finished drink pours cold with a light fizz and a sharp, slightly sour taste. Many producers add fruit or spice flavors, such as raspberry, ginger or lemon, which soften the acidity and make it easy to drink. It’s refreshing profile contrasts with hot coffee and appeals to people looking for a chilled alternative.
—————
Alternatives for daily energy
People no longer treat coffee alternatives as second-best options, but as deliberate choices that match different needs throughout the day. From caffeine-free brews to gentler stimulants and fermented drinks, these choices give people more control over energy, digestion and routine without forcing an all-or-nothing break from coffee culture. As daily habits continue to shift, the appeal lies less in replacing coffee outright and more in expanding what a satisfying cup can look like.
—————
Jennifer Allen is a retired professional chef and long-time writer. Her work appears in dozens of publications, including MSN, Yahoo, The Washington Post and The Seattle Times. These days, she’s busy in the kitchen developing recipes and traveling the world, and you can find all her best creations at Cook What You Love.
LEGAL PEOPLE
February 16 ,2026
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced appointments to the following boards and commissions:
:
Office of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced appointments to the following boards and commissions:
—Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission
Granner Ries has served on the Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission since 2019, as well as from 2005 to 2011. Ries previously worked in private practice, representing employees in worker’s compensation matters. Ries earned a Bachelor of Science in interdisciplinary engineering from Purdue University and law degree from Wayne State University Law School. Ries will be reappointed as an attorney with five or more years’ experience in the field of workers’ compensation law for a term commencing August 1, 2026, and expiring July 31, 2030.
The Workers’ Disability Compensation Appeals Commission created in Executive Order No. 2019-13 handles, processes, and decides appeals from orders of the director and the workers’ compensation magistrates as provided for under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act of 1969. The Commission may promulgate rules on administrative appellate procedure for purposes under the act.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—Hispanic/Latino Commission of Michigan
Veronica Beltran is an?assistant director of student engagement and culture?at Wayne State University Law School. Beltran?was previously the?legal director?for the?Southwest Detroit Immigrant and Refugee Center.?Beltran?earned a?Bachelor of?Arts?in?political science, Spanish, and Latin American studies from Grand Valley State University and a?law degree from?the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.?Beltran?is?appointed for a term?commencing February 11, 2026, and expiring December 10, 2029.?Beltran succeeds Monteze Morales, whose term has expired.
The Hispanic/Latino Commission of Michigan was created to develop a unified policy and plan of action to serve the needs of Michigan’s Hispanic and Latino people. The law directs the Commission to advise the Governor, the Legislature, and the office concerning the coordination and administration of state programs serving the Hispanic and Latino population.
This appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
—————
Plunkett Cooney
During Plunkett Cooney’s recent annual meeting, partner Benjamin M. Glazebrook was among those elected by his colleagues to serve as a member of the firm’s board of directors. He was elected to his first two-year term.
A member of Plunkett Cooney’s Detroit office, Glazebrook serves as leader of the firm’s Transportation Law Practice Group. He focuses his litigation defense practice primarily in the areas of motor vehicle liability and Michigan No-Fault law.
Glazebrook represents the insured policyholders of some of the nation’s leading auto insurance providers. These matters typically involve claims of first and third-party liability, as well as uninsured and underinsured motorist claims. He also has experience resolving cases of alleged fraud and suspicious claims involving insureds and medical providers.
Admitted to practice law in state and federal courts in Michigan, Glazebrook is also a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group. He received his law degree in 2006 from the Wayne State University Law School and his undergraduate degree in 2002 from the University of Michigan.
—————
McDonald Hopkins LLC
McDonald Hopkins is pleased to welcome attorney Jane Petoskey as an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department and national Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group.
Petoskey said McDonald Hopkins is her destination firm because of the collaborative team of skilled attorneys who are passionate about providing data privacy advice.
“I am most excited about joining such a seamlessly run data privacy team that uses advanced technologies to provide intelligent and efficient legal advice to clients across a broad range of industries,” she added.
Petoskey’s practice focuses on incident response and data breach matters, as well as data privacy and cybersecurity compliance work. She advises clients of all sizes and industries through privacy and data security matters, including counseling clients on compliance with domestic and international laws and regulations, including the CCPA, COPPA, GLBA, HIPAA and HITECH, and GDPR.
“I frequently counsel clients through corporate emergencies, such as business interruption events, where they may be encountering certain issues for the first time,” Petoskey said. “In those moments, it’s critical to set clear expectations early, quickly build trust, and maintain strong communication.”
Prior to joining McDonald Hopkins, Petoskey represented clients in data incident and breach matters, advising organizations through incidents, regulatory inquiries, and notification obligations under U.S. state and federal and international privacy laws. She also assisted clients with developing and enhancing data privacy and security compliance programs and advising on related technology and vendor agreements.
She is particularly drawn to data privacy law for its practical, solutions-oriented nature.
“What I enjoy most about practicing in this area of law is the ability to help clients emerge from challenging situations, whether that be compliance gaps, security issues, or data breaches, in stronger positions,” Petoskey said. “These efforts often involve implementing employee training, new policies and procedures, stricter controls, and additional security measures, which ultimately reduce risk across a client’s entire business.”
Petoskey is a Certified Information Privacy Professional in the United States (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPM), and she is a Fellow of Information Privacy (FIP).
In addition, McDonald Hopkins is proud to announce that Detroit Member Michael Latiff has been named a 2026 Thomson Reuters “Stand-Out Lawyer.”
Latiff serves as chair of McDonald Hopkins’ Litigation Department and on the firm’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee. He has experience as lead counsel in the litigation of significant commercial, business, automotive, construction, trade secret/non-compete, product liability and toxic tort, real property, OSHA/MIOSHA, and professional liability disputes.
Latiff has tried several jury and non-jury trials in state and federal courts. In addition, he has represented clients in many arbitration disputes.
—————
Kemp Klein Law Firm
Kemp Klein Law Firm is proud to announce that Austin W. Probst has been named a 2026 Up & Coming Lawyer by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Probst represents families, individuals, and fiduciaries in a wide range of probate, estate, and trust matters, including estate planning, Medicaid planning, and complex probate and trust disputes. His practice encompasses guardianships, conservatorships, estate and trust administration, and litigation, and he regularly appears before both trial and appellate courts.
—————
Zausmer, P.C.
Zausmer PC is pleased to announce the promotion of Jason Schneider to shareholder. The firm also congratulates Dylan Beadle and Christopher Best on their elevation to principal attorney. Managing Shareholder Mark Zausmer made the announcement on February 2.
Schneider, a commercial litigation attorney, handles a variety of litigation, including business and commercial disputes, insurance, real estate, employment, civil rights, and general liability claims.
Beadle handles high-exposure insurance disputes through disciplined strategy and early risk assessment. He represents insurers and self-insured entities in property loss, premises liability, and first- and third-party automobile matters.
Best defends insurers against fraudulent and disputed claims, using in-depth case analysis and strategic litigation to achieve their legal goals. He has a background in Special Investigative Unit (SIU) matters and focuses on first- and third-party no-fault claims.
—————
Clark Hill PLC
Clark Hill has appointed new leadership across its Hospitality, Food & Beverage, and Retail practices.
Clark Hill’s Food & Beverage group is now led by Jason R. Canvasser, member in the firm’s Detroit office. The multi-disciplinary team represents food and beverage processors, manufacturers, industry groups, distributors, retailers, and other clients in the industry with corporate structuring, transactions, employment issues, litigation, and other matters.
While each industry group has its own defined leadership and areas of focus, the teams frequently collaborate given the interconnected nature of their clients’ needs and the shared regulatory, operational, and transactional issues across these sectors. The overarching initiative is led by Maria Fracassa Dwyer, Detroit office, and Ashley Kisner, Dallas office.
“With dedicated leaders overseeing each area, we can deepen subject-matter knowledge, enhance client service, and more effectively reach clients within each sector,” Dwyer explained.
—————
Brooks Kushman P.C.
Brooks Kushman recently announced that the firm has been recognized in Juristat’s Top Patent Firms awards, earning distinctions across multiple performance categories that measure both patent prosecution outcomes and operational efficiency before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The firm received recognition for Normalized Allowance Rate, Normalized Office Actions to Allowance, Normalized Time to Allowance, Extensions, and Time to Response After Office Action.
The firm was also recognized among top-performing firms in the Automotive and Information Technology sectors, highlighting its depth of experience supporting innovation across complex and rapidly evolving technologies.
—————
Butzel Long
Butzel attorney Debra Geroux will co-present a session during the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) 31st Annual Health Law Institute on Thursday, March 12. The presentation is titled, “Mitigate Licensing, Patient Complaints, and Grievances.” The panel of attorneys will address best practices to manage risks and uphold professional standards.
Geroux is co-chair of Butzel’s Health Care Industry Team. Her health care practice focuses on health care compliance, cybersecurity and privacy, and statutory reporting obligations.
She has assisted health care practitioners in defense of state and federal debarment, fraud, waste and abuse investigations and litigation, cyber incident and breach response, including state and federal post-breach investigations, licensing and credentialing, government and commercial payor audits and a host of other health care issues. Geroux has experience in supply chain and source contracting for a large Michigan-based health system, including negotiations of its IT contracts.
Geroux is a Certified Information Privacy Professional – United States (CIPP/US) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). She also holds Certified in Healthcare Privacy Compliance (CHPC) and Certified in Healthcare Compliance (CHC) designations from the Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA) Compliance and Certification Board (CCB). Geroux also serves on IAPP Advisory Board.
—————
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone
Miller Canfield announced the election of Jennifer Sabourin as a managing director and the re-election of Thomas Cranmer and Jeffrey Aronoff to the firm’s board of managing directors. The elections were confirmed at the firm’s 2026 annual meeting, held February 6-7 in Detroit.
The firm also recognized attorneys elevated to principal and senior principal:
—Elevations to Principal
Alan Aboona
Ahmad Chehab
George Holton
Kara Hoorn
Matthew Warmbir
—Elevations to Senior Principal
Brian Gallagher
Ashley Higginson
Ron Liscombe
Sam Galecki Sager
In addition, Miller Canfield has announced that Jeffrey Aronoff and Steven Frank will serve as co-leaders of the firm’s Public Finance Group. They succeed Thomas Colis, who is stepping down as practice group leader after serving in the role since 2023.
Colis represents cities, counties, townships, villages, schools, libraries and authorities on a broad range of public financings and related matters. His work includes guiding clients on legal structures and documentation for the issuance and sale of bonds supporting public infrastructure and capital projects, as well as advising on millage and ballot proposals, elections, special assessments, and tax issues. He also represents investment banking firms as underwriter’s counsel in connection with tax-exempt bond transactions.
Aronoff focuses on public finance and securities matters, including municipal infrastructure finance and economic development finance, serving as bond counsel and underwriter/purchaser’s counsel on a variety of transactions. He also advises governmental clients on general matters, including economic development initiatives, fiscal distress issues and public-private collaboration. Aronoff has experience in airport finance and conduit financing for tax-exempt organizations, and in helping establish and support intergovernmental and regional authorities. In addition to serving as a co-leader of the practice group, he is a member of the firm’s Board of Managing Directors.
Frank represents issuers and underwriters in a wide range of traditional and complex tax-exempt and taxable financings, with a focus on the higher education, health care, senior living, and public and private utility sectors. He also has experience in advising governmental entities on all aspects of public-private partnerships, including procurement, development, financing, and implementation.
Senior discount won’t solve Michigan’s property tax problem
February 13 ,2026
Gov. Whitmer is proposing a property tax break that would provide
refunds of up to 10% for Michigan senior citizens. The governor is one
of many politicians seeking solutions to homeowners’ high (and rising)
property tax burdens.
:
Jared Walczak
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Gov. Whitmer is proposing a property tax break that would provide refunds of up to 10% for Michigan senior citizens. The governor is one of many politicians seeking solutions to homeowners’ high (and rising) property tax burdens.
But targeted tax breaks for favored voting demographics will not solve the problem. Michigan imposes heavy property taxes, and state leaders should lower that burden for everybody. Owners’ effective rates remain 27 percent higher than the national average, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Worse, progress on reducing property tax burdens stalled more than a decade ago. Between 2010 and 2018, Michigan’s property tax effective rates declined from 47 percent higher than the national average to 27 percent higher. Unfortunately, the ratio has not improved since.
Leaving aside our lack of competitiveness against other states, Michiganders are just plain paying higher rate property tax rates. Even after adjusting for inflation, statewide property tax burdens as a percentage of property values have risen by about 16 percent over the past ten years for which data are available, 2015 to 2024.
Some lawmakers want to address that problem. That is to their credit, but few are proposing meaningful, long-term property tax relief.
Michigan’s constitution already contains limits on property taxes. The Headlee Amendment lowers rates when property values increase more than inflation. Michigan also has an annual assessment limit designed to ensure that an individual’s property assessment increases by no more than the rate of inflation. Neither has worked to keep property tax rates from going up.
Language in the Headlee Amendment makes it possible for rates to increase faster than inflation. The amendment does not apply to the 6-mill state education tax, nor to any millages imposed to pay for bonded projects. Local governments have routinely turned to bonding (for which voter approval is often forthcoming), and this shifts tax burdens from the capped operating budget to the uncapped budget for general obligation bond payments. Many jurisdictions also create “special assessment districts” with assessments designed to avoid Headlee tax reductions.
The annual assessment limit lowers property taxes for some at the price of exorbitant property taxes on potential first-time homebuyers, among others. It benefits long-time residents but costs the people who move into the state or purchase new homes.
Taxpayers know the current system isn’t working as advertised. They can see it on their property tax bills. They want a legislative solution.
Rather than target the source of the problem — high property tax rates — the governor and some lawmakers are pushing targeted relief that merely shifts burdens and complicates meaningful long-term tax reductions. Rate reductions across the board can be hard, while exemptions for some and targeted reductions for others make for an easier political lift.
Targeted tax relief narrows the tax base, benefiting a select few and distorting housing markets by driving up prices and shrinking supply. Rate relief, by contrast, benefits all taxpayers.
Economists generally regard the property tax as the most efficient major tax. It does less economic harm and introduces fewer distortions than income or sales taxes. When well designed, a property tax better conforms to the benefit principle, wherein tax burdens at least roughly correspond to benefits received.
None of this justifies unnecessarily high property taxes. It is, however, a good reason for lawmakers to be careful not to replace the current system with something worse.
When states provide additional aid to favored groups to offset property tax burdens, or even when they directly abate property tax bills through credits, they reward jurisdictions with higher property taxes and often incentivize further rate increases.
If lawmakers want to deliver real relief, they should focus on lowering rates, not narrowing the base. Carving up the base is the easier path politically, but it won’t deliver true long-term relief. Broad-based rate relief is fairer, delivers longer-term benefits, and better promotes economic growth.
Voters already have the ability to lower their property taxes, because local governments’ property taxes are subject to voter approval. Yet those approvals often come in low-turnout May and August elections. Lawmakers can ensure that the millages receive real popular support by scheduling these elections in November.
Lawmakers could also reduce the state’s six-mill levy and eliminate authorization for special assessments, which in practice have been abused as Headlee Amendment workarounds.
Michigan property taxes are too high across the board, and the current system offers governments too many ways to raise taxes. Officials in Lansing should deliver real property tax relief, not targeted programs that pick winners and losers while doing nothing to curb the overall growth of Michigan’s high property tax burdens.
—————
Jared Walczak is an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center, president of Walczak Policy Consulting, and Senior Fellow at the Tax Foundation, where he spent five years as Vice President of State Projects.
But targeted tax breaks for favored voting demographics will not solve the problem. Michigan imposes heavy property taxes, and state leaders should lower that burden for everybody. Owners’ effective rates remain 27 percent higher than the national average, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Worse, progress on reducing property tax burdens stalled more than a decade ago. Between 2010 and 2018, Michigan’s property tax effective rates declined from 47 percent higher than the national average to 27 percent higher. Unfortunately, the ratio has not improved since.
Leaving aside our lack of competitiveness against other states, Michiganders are just plain paying higher rate property tax rates. Even after adjusting for inflation, statewide property tax burdens as a percentage of property values have risen by about 16 percent over the past ten years for which data are available, 2015 to 2024.
Some lawmakers want to address that problem. That is to their credit, but few are proposing meaningful, long-term property tax relief.
Michigan’s constitution already contains limits on property taxes. The Headlee Amendment lowers rates when property values increase more than inflation. Michigan also has an annual assessment limit designed to ensure that an individual’s property assessment increases by no more than the rate of inflation. Neither has worked to keep property tax rates from going up.
Language in the Headlee Amendment makes it possible for rates to increase faster than inflation. The amendment does not apply to the 6-mill state education tax, nor to any millages imposed to pay for bonded projects. Local governments have routinely turned to bonding (for which voter approval is often forthcoming), and this shifts tax burdens from the capped operating budget to the uncapped budget for general obligation bond payments. Many jurisdictions also create “special assessment districts” with assessments designed to avoid Headlee tax reductions.
The annual assessment limit lowers property taxes for some at the price of exorbitant property taxes on potential first-time homebuyers, among others. It benefits long-time residents but costs the people who move into the state or purchase new homes.
Taxpayers know the current system isn’t working as advertised. They can see it on their property tax bills. They want a legislative solution.
Rather than target the source of the problem — high property tax rates — the governor and some lawmakers are pushing targeted relief that merely shifts burdens and complicates meaningful long-term tax reductions. Rate reductions across the board can be hard, while exemptions for some and targeted reductions for others make for an easier political lift.
Targeted tax relief narrows the tax base, benefiting a select few and distorting housing markets by driving up prices and shrinking supply. Rate relief, by contrast, benefits all taxpayers.
Economists generally regard the property tax as the most efficient major tax. It does less economic harm and introduces fewer distortions than income or sales taxes. When well designed, a property tax better conforms to the benefit principle, wherein tax burdens at least roughly correspond to benefits received.
None of this justifies unnecessarily high property taxes. It is, however, a good reason for lawmakers to be careful not to replace the current system with something worse.
When states provide additional aid to favored groups to offset property tax burdens, or even when they directly abate property tax bills through credits, they reward jurisdictions with higher property taxes and often incentivize further rate increases.
If lawmakers want to deliver real relief, they should focus on lowering rates, not narrowing the base. Carving up the base is the easier path politically, but it won’t deliver true long-term relief. Broad-based rate relief is fairer, delivers longer-term benefits, and better promotes economic growth.
Voters already have the ability to lower their property taxes, because local governments’ property taxes are subject to voter approval. Yet those approvals often come in low-turnout May and August elections. Lawmakers can ensure that the millages receive real popular support by scheduling these elections in November.
Lawmakers could also reduce the state’s six-mill levy and eliminate authorization for special assessments, which in practice have been abused as Headlee Amendment workarounds.
Michigan property taxes are too high across the board, and the current system offers governments too many ways to raise taxes. Officials in Lansing should deliver real property tax relief, not targeted programs that pick winners and losers while doing nothing to curb the overall growth of Michigan’s high property tax burdens.
—————
Jared Walczak is an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center, president of Walczak Policy Consulting, and Senior Fellow at the Tax Foundation, where he spent five years as Vice President of State Projects.
What is the American Dream, and has it become harder to achieve in recent years?
February 13 ,2026
Few ideas are as central to the nation’s identity as that of the American Dream.
:
Mark Robert Rank
Washington University in St. Louis
(THE CONVERSATION) — Few ideas are as central to the nation’s identity as that of the American Dream.
With the 250th birthday of the United States coming up in July 2026, it’s worth stepping back to examine a concept essential to the nation’s self-image.
The term “American Dream” was actually coined in the 1930s by historian James Truslow Adams. Ever since the establishment of the Colonies, however, America has been viewed as a land where individual and collective hopes and aspirations can be realized.
From the idea of America as a shining “city on a hill” to the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the nation has been premised on high aspirations. The concept of the American Dream has epitomized these hopes, and it continues to be present throughout our cultural landscape.
As a social scientist, I set out to explore what Americans thought about the American Dream in today’s society. I interviewed scores of people, from an elderly man sleeping on the street to a billionaire entrepreneur.
I wanted to know exactly how they defined the American Dream – and whether it has become harder to achieve today than in the past.
—————
Defining the dream
From pickup trucks and lawn tractor ads to the labeling of undocumented immigrant children as Dreamers, references to the American Dream in contemporary life are ubiquitous. Washington, D.C., is now home to a brand-new, US$500 million museum, the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream, devoted to celebrating the idea and its history.
It turns out that for most people I interviewed, the American Dream consists of three basic ideas.
The first is what might be called an economic bargain: If you work hard and play by the rules, you should expect to have a financially secure life. This includes owning a home, being able to afford raising kids and retiring in comfort.
Second, the American Dream is centered on hope and optimism. It is about personal progress and the belief that the nation’s best days lie ahead. It’s the idea that each generation should do better than the previous one, and that upward economic mobility is essential for bringing this about.
The third and final idea people expressed was having the freedom to pursue their hopes to reach their full potential. For many, this is the epitome of the American Dream.
At its best, the U.S. is seen as allowing individuals the freedom to live the life they want. Liberty and rugged individualism have been hallmarks of America since its beginnings, so it should come as no surprise that they are also central to the American Dream.
—————
Economically more elusive?
Given this, has the American Dream become more or less difficult to achieve over time? Unfortunately, for a growing number of Americans, it appears to be more difficult.
First, the goal of leading an economically secure life in exchange for hard work has become more elusive. Data from the Census Bureau indicates that median wages for full-time male workers have essentially flatlined since 1973. The economy has been producing more low-wage and part-time jobs. Many of these lack benefits, such as health insurance.
Less-skilled workers, such as truck drivers and postal clerks, have actually lost ground in terms of income. At the same time, housing, medical care, child care and higher education costs have dramatically increased over the past 40 years.
What about upward mobility and the hope for each generation to do better economically than the previous one? There is some evidence that one reason the middle class is shrinking is that more people have entered upper-income tiers.
Still, younger generations will actually earn, on average, less as adults than their parents did. This is the first time in U.S. history that this is the case. The formerly taken-for-granted idea of generational progress and moving forward appears to have stalled.
Upward economic mobility for lower-income workers has also slowed over the past 50 years, making it harder to climb the ladder of opportunity.
—————
Dissatisfied, not dreaming
Finally, what about personal freedom? Survey data indicates that greater numbers of Americans feel they have less control over their lives and futures than in the past.
For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked the question, “In this country, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?” The percentage of Americans reporting being satisfied has dropped notably over the past two decades. In 2007 it was 87%, but by 2024 it had fallen to 72%. For women, the number was even lower, declining from 85% in 2007 to 66% in 2024.
By comparison, the average for the wealthiest countries in the Gallup survey was 86%. Consequently, on all three counts it appears that the American Dream is becoming harder to achieve.
—————
An aspirational hope
These trends are important for making sense of the polarization and general negativity found in America today. Too many Americans feel that they’ve been left behind and that the American Dream has become a distant reality.
For these Americans, the words of the late comedian and social commentator George Carlin ring true: “It’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
Yet the American Dream is a powerful metaphor and aspiration that continues to inspire many in this country. Among those I interviewed, there was a strong consensus that it represents the very best of what America has to offer.
There is no other country that has quite the equivalent of the American Dream. As the nation enters its next 250 years, working toward reestablishing the concept as a reality for millions of people who have fallen behind may be vital to maintaining the essence of the American promise.
With the 250th birthday of the United States coming up in July 2026, it’s worth stepping back to examine a concept essential to the nation’s self-image.
The term “American Dream” was actually coined in the 1930s by historian James Truslow Adams. Ever since the establishment of the Colonies, however, America has been viewed as a land where individual and collective hopes and aspirations can be realized.
From the idea of America as a shining “city on a hill” to the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the nation has been premised on high aspirations. The concept of the American Dream has epitomized these hopes, and it continues to be present throughout our cultural landscape.
As a social scientist, I set out to explore what Americans thought about the American Dream in today’s society. I interviewed scores of people, from an elderly man sleeping on the street to a billionaire entrepreneur.
I wanted to know exactly how they defined the American Dream – and whether it has become harder to achieve today than in the past.
—————
Defining the dream
From pickup trucks and lawn tractor ads to the labeling of undocumented immigrant children as Dreamers, references to the American Dream in contemporary life are ubiquitous. Washington, D.C., is now home to a brand-new, US$500 million museum, the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream, devoted to celebrating the idea and its history.
It turns out that for most people I interviewed, the American Dream consists of three basic ideas.
The first is what might be called an economic bargain: If you work hard and play by the rules, you should expect to have a financially secure life. This includes owning a home, being able to afford raising kids and retiring in comfort.
Second, the American Dream is centered on hope and optimism. It is about personal progress and the belief that the nation’s best days lie ahead. It’s the idea that each generation should do better than the previous one, and that upward economic mobility is essential for bringing this about.
The third and final idea people expressed was having the freedom to pursue their hopes to reach their full potential. For many, this is the epitome of the American Dream.
At its best, the U.S. is seen as allowing individuals the freedom to live the life they want. Liberty and rugged individualism have been hallmarks of America since its beginnings, so it should come as no surprise that they are also central to the American Dream.
—————
Economically more elusive?
Given this, has the American Dream become more or less difficult to achieve over time? Unfortunately, for a growing number of Americans, it appears to be more difficult.
First, the goal of leading an economically secure life in exchange for hard work has become more elusive. Data from the Census Bureau indicates that median wages for full-time male workers have essentially flatlined since 1973. The economy has been producing more low-wage and part-time jobs. Many of these lack benefits, such as health insurance.
Less-skilled workers, such as truck drivers and postal clerks, have actually lost ground in terms of income. At the same time, housing, medical care, child care and higher education costs have dramatically increased over the past 40 years.
What about upward mobility and the hope for each generation to do better economically than the previous one? There is some evidence that one reason the middle class is shrinking is that more people have entered upper-income tiers.
Still, younger generations will actually earn, on average, less as adults than their parents did. This is the first time in U.S. history that this is the case. The formerly taken-for-granted idea of generational progress and moving forward appears to have stalled.
Upward economic mobility for lower-income workers has also slowed over the past 50 years, making it harder to climb the ladder of opportunity.
—————
Dissatisfied, not dreaming
Finally, what about personal freedom? Survey data indicates that greater numbers of Americans feel they have less control over their lives and futures than in the past.
For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked the question, “In this country, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?” The percentage of Americans reporting being satisfied has dropped notably over the past two decades. In 2007 it was 87%, but by 2024 it had fallen to 72%. For women, the number was even lower, declining from 85% in 2007 to 66% in 2024.
By comparison, the average for the wealthiest countries in the Gallup survey was 86%. Consequently, on all three counts it appears that the American Dream is becoming harder to achieve.
—————
An aspirational hope
These trends are important for making sense of the polarization and general negativity found in America today. Too many Americans feel that they’ve been left behind and that the American Dream has become a distant reality.
For these Americans, the words of the late comedian and social commentator George Carlin ring true: “It’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
Yet the American Dream is a powerful metaphor and aspiration that continues to inspire many in this country. Among those I interviewed, there was a strong consensus that it represents the very best of what America has to offer.
There is no other country that has quite the equivalent of the American Dream. As the nation enters its next 250 years, working toward reestablishing the concept as a reality for millions of people who have fallen behind may be vital to maintaining the essence of the American promise.
Fifteen years after Egypt’s uprising, how faith and politics reshaped a generation
February 13 ,2026
Fifteen years ago, Egyptians from all walks of life took to the street
to demand “bread, freedom, social justice.” They were protesting the
oppressive 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak.
:
Nareman Amin
Michigan State University
(THE CONVERSATION) — Fifteen years ago, Egyptians from all walks of life took to the street to demand “bread, freedom, social justice.” They were protesting the oppressive 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak.
Egypt had been under martial law for 31 years. This meant that political opposition was silenced, and opponents were often imprisoned and tortured. Police brutality was the norm.
Egypt’s economy was also weak and relied heavily on foreign aid and loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Even though the country’s per capita gross domestic product was growing, almost 25% of the population was living in poverty by 2011.
Neighboring Tunisia had toppled its dictator, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, on Jan. 14, 2011, after 28 days of protest. The Tunisian revolution’s success led to a wave of uprisings against corruption, injustice and economic inequality across the region, including the January 2011 revolution in Egypt.
For many who joined the movement in Egypt, there was a newfound sense of unity, equality and nationalism. Egyptians young and old, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, man and woman, stood arm-in-arm for 18 days, until Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11, 2011.
Mubarak’s resignation signaled to many Egyptians the power of common will and determination.
Slowly, however, political divisions set in. While there were exciting voting opportunities that seemed free and fair for the first time in modern Egyptian history, there were many disappointments in this nascent and short-lived democratic experiment.
In my recently published book, “Is God for Revolution? Affect, Youth and Islam,” I investigate these political changes, but through the lens of religion.
—————
Islam in Egypt
Egypt is a Muslim-majority country. Islam can be felt, seen and heard in every corner of the nation: The melodic call to prayer rings out five times a day to remind Muslims to stop what they are doing and turn their attention to God in worship.
Minarets of mosques and domes of churches dot the sepia-toned Egyptian sky. The Quran plays in shops, taxi cabs and on radios and television in local cafes. Most women wear veils as part of a religious obligation; men grow long beards,
which they believe to be a prophetic tradition.
Scholars of Islam like Saba Mahmood, Charles Hirschkind, Aaron Rock-Singer and others have noted a resurgence in these physical aspects of Islamic piety since the 1970s. Some of these scholars attribute it to Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, established by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 as a response to the cultural and political incursions of the British occupation.
Salafis are another group who urged people to be good Muslims by believing in Allah – the Arabic word for God – and looking and acting the part as well. The Salafis believe they follow the Islam of the “pious predecessors,” or salaf – that is, the generations during and immediately following the life of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis offered social services for the poor and preached their versions of Islam widely.
—————
The research
I lived in Egypt between 2007 and 2012 and visited every summer until 2018, when I formally began conducting interviews for this book.
In 2018 and 2019, I spoke with 61 middle- and upper-middle class Muslim Egyptians who were in their early- to mid-20s when the Egyptian uprising began in 2011. Most interviewees were from big cities like Cairo and Alexandria, but some also grew up in smaller villages and towns across Egypt.
For them, the revolution and the social and political freedoms it came with offered them a space to question everything in their lives, including how they relate to the Islamic teachings they grew up with and heard from Muslim parents and preachers.
For example, many of the interviewees came to believe that there are many paths to gaining God’s favor. Some turned to Sufism, or mystical Islam, for answers. Others left Islam altogether.
My interviewees all grew up with the sights and sounds of Islam surrounding them. Their parents and schools also taught them an Islam that highlighted both belief in God and physical practices like the veil, beards and prayer. For many of the people I spoke to, these rituals and visible markers of Islam were no longer as important as they had been raised to believe.
Heidi, a human rights activist, explained that the revolution was an eye-opener, especially for women. She explained that, after the revolution, she took off the veil and now places more importance on the ethical and spiritual rather than the ritualistic aspects of Islam.
“The revolution broke the fear barrier we had of thinking for ourselves … including about religion,” she said.
Similarly, Hasan, a tech entrepreneur, who once used to be conservative in his understanding of what makes one a good Muslim, told me that after the uprising, he came to believe that “religion is not one single path, and that no one action can take you to heaven.” He became more accepting of the different ways people relate to Islam.
Some of my interviewees turned to Eastern practices like yoga and meditation, sometimes even mixing them with Sufism or Islamic mysticism. I spoke to Sonia, an Egyptian American Muslim woman who received training in various wellness methods like pranic healing, breath work and meditation, and I attended her sessions online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In post-revolution Egypt, she held sessions in yoga studios in which she guided practitioners through traditional breath work and meditation. She asked practitioners to chant the names of Allah in Arabic: al-Nur (the Light) and al-Rahman (the Merciful), in sync with their rhythmic, conscious breathing.
In these spaces, one would find energy crystals, and incense wafting in and out of the room. Attendees, both Muslim and non-Muslim, would sit in a semicircle around Sonia, trying to reach something transcendent, spiritual, maybe even universal.
Not all my interviewees approved of this spiritual practice. Basim, an entrepreneur, felt that practices like Sonia’s were not Islamic; they were a mishmash of Eastern practices that pull on the Islamic tradition selectively for marketing purposes.
Sonia, however, felt that people should not be judged for how they choose to build a connection with God or something transcendent.
Other interviewees left Islam altogether. Six of the people I spoke to had become atheist or agnostic. There were atheists in Egypt before 2011, but shortly after the uprising, more people became vocal about their lack of belief. The media widely reported on what it framed as a worrying trend in society.
—————
Why did this happen?
The revolution opened a space for people who may never have come together to join one another in protest. Once Mubarak fell, people found unprecedented freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to take part in politics.
Among those who openly joined the political scene after Mubarak’s removal were the Muslim Brotherhood and political arms of the Salafis, who made considerable political gains in 2011 and 2012.
In June 2012, Muhammad Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood became the first democratically elected president of Egypt. But just a year into his administration, Mursi was deposed by the military. People who staged demonstrations and sit-ins to protest his deposition were violently removed from public squares and killed.
—————
Religion in post-revolution politics
How religion was used in the political processes led almost all my interviewees to rethink matters of faith, practice and religious authority.
Data from the Arab Barometer, which conducts public opinion surveys in the Middle East, shows similar trends over the past decade. In 2011, when respondents were asked if Egypt would be better off if religious people held public office, 53% disagreed. By 2022, the figure had risen to 80%. Views on religious practice also indicated a change.
At the very beginning of the 2011 movement, for example, many of the Islamic scholars my interviewees followed argued that revolting against a ruler, no matter how unjust, is a sin and forbidden in the Islamic tradition. Later, when Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, most of my interviewees were shocked that many of these Islamist politicians played the political game, which meant lying and reneging on promises made.
When Mursi became president, his supporters compared his rule with that of the prophet. Others used offensive language to describe political opponents who did not share their political vision.
My interviewees believed that these behaviors were antithetical to the ethical and moral codes of the Islamic tradition that these Islamists and their supporters preached for years prior to the uprising and their political ascent.
Things came to a head when Mursi was deposed through a violent coup. The country was divided between those who praised the military for restoring order and stability in Egypt and those who decried the move as a massacre that ushered in the end of the democratic experiment.
All my interviewees were horrified by the massacre, leading a few to question why a just God would allow hundreds of innocent people to be killed in such a way. Worse yet was that some of the religious scholars who forbade people from protesting against Mubarak in 2011 urged people to protest against Mursi in 2013, with a few even condoning the massacre or at least staying silent in the face of renewed oppression.
The Egyptians I interviewed witnessed all these events and reacted emotionally to them. And because religion was at the center of these political processes in ways that almost all my interviewees viewed as hypocritical and opportunistic, my interviewees wanted to break away from the version of Islam that the Islamists and their supporters represented.
Fifteen years on, though the political and economic aims of the 2011 movement have not been realized, the social afterlives of a revolution live on.
Egypt had been under martial law for 31 years. This meant that political opposition was silenced, and opponents were often imprisoned and tortured. Police brutality was the norm.
Egypt’s economy was also weak and relied heavily on foreign aid and loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Even though the country’s per capita gross domestic product was growing, almost 25% of the population was living in poverty by 2011.
Neighboring Tunisia had toppled its dictator, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, on Jan. 14, 2011, after 28 days of protest. The Tunisian revolution’s success led to a wave of uprisings against corruption, injustice and economic inequality across the region, including the January 2011 revolution in Egypt.
For many who joined the movement in Egypt, there was a newfound sense of unity, equality and nationalism. Egyptians young and old, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, man and woman, stood arm-in-arm for 18 days, until Mubarak resigned on Feb. 11, 2011.
Mubarak’s resignation signaled to many Egyptians the power of common will and determination.
Slowly, however, political divisions set in. While there were exciting voting opportunities that seemed free and fair for the first time in modern Egyptian history, there were many disappointments in this nascent and short-lived democratic experiment.
In my recently published book, “Is God for Revolution? Affect, Youth and Islam,” I investigate these political changes, but through the lens of religion.
—————
Islam in Egypt
Egypt is a Muslim-majority country. Islam can be felt, seen and heard in every corner of the nation: The melodic call to prayer rings out five times a day to remind Muslims to stop what they are doing and turn their attention to God in worship.
Minarets of mosques and domes of churches dot the sepia-toned Egyptian sky. The Quran plays in shops, taxi cabs and on radios and television in local cafes. Most women wear veils as part of a religious obligation; men grow long beards,
which they believe to be a prophetic tradition.
Scholars of Islam like Saba Mahmood, Charles Hirschkind, Aaron Rock-Singer and others have noted a resurgence in these physical aspects of Islamic piety since the 1970s. Some of these scholars attribute it to Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, established by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 as a response to the cultural and political incursions of the British occupation.
Salafis are another group who urged people to be good Muslims by believing in Allah – the Arabic word for God – and looking and acting the part as well. The Salafis believe they follow the Islam of the “pious predecessors,” or salaf – that is, the generations during and immediately following the life of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis offered social services for the poor and preached their versions of Islam widely.
—————
The research
I lived in Egypt between 2007 and 2012 and visited every summer until 2018, when I formally began conducting interviews for this book.
In 2018 and 2019, I spoke with 61 middle- and upper-middle class Muslim Egyptians who were in their early- to mid-20s when the Egyptian uprising began in 2011. Most interviewees were from big cities like Cairo and Alexandria, but some also grew up in smaller villages and towns across Egypt.
For them, the revolution and the social and political freedoms it came with offered them a space to question everything in their lives, including how they relate to the Islamic teachings they grew up with and heard from Muslim parents and preachers.
For example, many of the interviewees came to believe that there are many paths to gaining God’s favor. Some turned to Sufism, or mystical Islam, for answers. Others left Islam altogether.
My interviewees all grew up with the sights and sounds of Islam surrounding them. Their parents and schools also taught them an Islam that highlighted both belief in God and physical practices like the veil, beards and prayer. For many of the people I spoke to, these rituals and visible markers of Islam were no longer as important as they had been raised to believe.
Heidi, a human rights activist, explained that the revolution was an eye-opener, especially for women. She explained that, after the revolution, she took off the veil and now places more importance on the ethical and spiritual rather than the ritualistic aspects of Islam.
“The revolution broke the fear barrier we had of thinking for ourselves … including about religion,” she said.
Similarly, Hasan, a tech entrepreneur, who once used to be conservative in his understanding of what makes one a good Muslim, told me that after the uprising, he came to believe that “religion is not one single path, and that no one action can take you to heaven.” He became more accepting of the different ways people relate to Islam.
Some of my interviewees turned to Eastern practices like yoga and meditation, sometimes even mixing them with Sufism or Islamic mysticism. I spoke to Sonia, an Egyptian American Muslim woman who received training in various wellness methods like pranic healing, breath work and meditation, and I attended her sessions online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In post-revolution Egypt, she held sessions in yoga studios in which she guided practitioners through traditional breath work and meditation. She asked practitioners to chant the names of Allah in Arabic: al-Nur (the Light) and al-Rahman (the Merciful), in sync with their rhythmic, conscious breathing.
In these spaces, one would find energy crystals, and incense wafting in and out of the room. Attendees, both Muslim and non-Muslim, would sit in a semicircle around Sonia, trying to reach something transcendent, spiritual, maybe even universal.
Not all my interviewees approved of this spiritual practice. Basim, an entrepreneur, felt that practices like Sonia’s were not Islamic; they were a mishmash of Eastern practices that pull on the Islamic tradition selectively for marketing purposes.
Sonia, however, felt that people should not be judged for how they choose to build a connection with God or something transcendent.
Other interviewees left Islam altogether. Six of the people I spoke to had become atheist or agnostic. There were atheists in Egypt before 2011, but shortly after the uprising, more people became vocal about their lack of belief. The media widely reported on what it framed as a worrying trend in society.
—————
Why did this happen?
The revolution opened a space for people who may never have come together to join one another in protest. Once Mubarak fell, people found unprecedented freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to take part in politics.
Among those who openly joined the political scene after Mubarak’s removal were the Muslim Brotherhood and political arms of the Salafis, who made considerable political gains in 2011 and 2012.
In June 2012, Muhammad Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood became the first democratically elected president of Egypt. But just a year into his administration, Mursi was deposed by the military. People who staged demonstrations and sit-ins to protest his deposition were violently removed from public squares and killed.
—————
Religion in post-revolution politics
How religion was used in the political processes led almost all my interviewees to rethink matters of faith, practice and religious authority.
Data from the Arab Barometer, which conducts public opinion surveys in the Middle East, shows similar trends over the past decade. In 2011, when respondents were asked if Egypt would be better off if religious people held public office, 53% disagreed. By 2022, the figure had risen to 80%. Views on religious practice also indicated a change.
At the very beginning of the 2011 movement, for example, many of the Islamic scholars my interviewees followed argued that revolting against a ruler, no matter how unjust, is a sin and forbidden in the Islamic tradition. Later, when Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, most of my interviewees were shocked that many of these Islamist politicians played the political game, which meant lying and reneging on promises made.
When Mursi became president, his supporters compared his rule with that of the prophet. Others used offensive language to describe political opponents who did not share their political vision.
My interviewees believed that these behaviors were antithetical to the ethical and moral codes of the Islamic tradition that these Islamists and their supporters preached for years prior to the uprising and their political ascent.
Things came to a head when Mursi was deposed through a violent coup. The country was divided between those who praised the military for restoring order and stability in Egypt and those who decried the move as a massacre that ushered in the end of the democratic experiment.
All my interviewees were horrified by the massacre, leading a few to question why a just God would allow hundreds of innocent people to be killed in such a way. Worse yet was that some of the religious scholars who forbade people from protesting against Mubarak in 2011 urged people to protest against Mursi in 2013, with a few even condoning the massacre or at least staying silent in the face of renewed oppression.
The Egyptians I interviewed witnessed all these events and reacted emotionally to them. And because religion was at the center of these political processes in ways that almost all my interviewees viewed as hypocritical and opportunistic, my interviewees wanted to break away from the version of Islam that the Islamists and their supporters represented.
Fifteen years on, though the political and economic aims of the 2011 movement have not been realized, the social afterlives of a revolution live on.
Citizenship voting requirement in SAVE America Act has no basis in the Constitution – and ignores precedent that only states decide who gets to vote
February 13 ,2026
The Republican-led House of Representatives voted Feb. 11, 2026 to
approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act – or SAVE America
Act. The bill would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship
when they register to vote and present photo identification when they do
vote in federal elections.
:
By John J. Martin
Quinnipiac University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The Republican-led House of Representatives voted Feb. 11, 2026 to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act – or SAVE America Act. The bill would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote and present photo identification when they do vote in federal elections.
This marks the third year in a row that the House has passed similar legislation. Passage in the Senate, which would require Democratic votes, continues to appear unlikely. But Republicans from President Donald Trump on down are clearly interested in finding ways to enhance election security – although critics contend the SAVE America Act would unfairly disenfranchise millions of citizens.
The SAVE America Act would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to first “provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship” in person, such as a passport or birth certificate. The new version goes further than its predecessor by requiring many individuals voting in federal elections to present photo identification at the polls indicating proof of U.S. citizenship.
Voting rights experts and advocacy organizations have detailed how the legislation could suppress voting. In part, they say it would particularly create barriers in low-income and minority communities. People in such communities often lack the forms of ID acceptable under the SAVE America Act for a variety of reasons, including socioeconomic factors.
As of now, at least 9% of voting-age American citizens – approximately 21 million people – do not even have driver’s licenses, let alone proof of citizenship. In spite of this, many legislators support the bill as a means of eliminating noncitizen voting in elections.
As a legal scholar who studies, among other things, foreign interference in elections, I find considerations about the potential effects of the SAVE America Act important, especially given how rare it is that a noncitizen actually votes in federal elections.
Yet, it is equally crucial to consider a more fundamental question: Is the SAVE America Act even constitutional?
—————
How the SAVE America Act could change voting requirements
The SAVE America Act would forbid state election officials from registering an individual to vote in federal elections unless this person “provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.” Furthermore, it would forbid individuals from voting unless they bring such proof to the polls each time they vote, unless their state agrees to submit voter registration lists to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on a quarterly basis.
Acceptable forms of proof for voter registration would include a REAL ID that demonstrates U.S. citizenship – most of which do not – as well as a U.S. passport or a U.S. military identification card.
So – should the SAVE America Act become law – if a person turns 18 or moves between states and wishes to register to vote in federal elections in their new home, they would likely be turned away if they do not have any such documents readily available. At best, they could still fill out a registration form, but they would need to mail in acceptable proof of citizenship.
For married people with changed last names, among others, questions remain about whether birth certificates could even count as acceptable proof of citizenship for them.
—————
The Constitution says little about voting rights
Despite the national conversation the SAVE America Act has sparked, it is unclear whether Congress even has the power to enact it. This is the key constitutional question.
The U.S. Constitution imposes no citizenship requirement when it comes to voting. The original text of the Constitution, in fact, said very little about the right to vote. It was not until legislators passed subsequent amendments, starting after the Civil War up through the 1970s, that the Constitution even explicitly prohibited voting laws that discriminate on account of race, sex or age.
Aside from these amendments, the Constitution is largely silent about who gets to vote.
Who, then, gets to decide whether someone is qualified to vote? No matter the election, the answer is always the same – the states.
Indeed, by constitutional design, the states are tasked with setting voter-eligibility requirements – a product of our federalist system. For state and local elections, the 10th Amendment grants states the power to regulate their internal elections as they see fit.
States also get to decide who may vote in federal elections, which include presidential and congressional elections.
When it comes to presidential elections, for instance, states have – as I have previously written – exclusive power under the Constitution’s electors clause to decide how to conduct presidential elections within their borders, including who gets to vote in them.
The states wield similar authority for congressional elections. Namely, according to Article 1 of the Constitution and the Constitution’s 17th Amendment, if someone can vote in their state’s legislative elections, they are entitled to vote in its congressional elections, too.
Conversely, the Constitution provides Congress zero authority to govern voter-eligibility requirements in federal elections. Indeed, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling on the Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council case, the court asserted that nothing in the Constitution “lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.”
—————
Is the SAVE America Act constitutional?
The SAVE America Act presents a constitutional dilemma. By requiring individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to vote, the SAVE America Act is implicitly saying that someone must be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections.
In other words, Congress would be instituting a qualification to vote, a power that the Constitution leaves exclusively to the states.
Indeed, while all states currently limit voting rights to citizens, legal noncitizen voting is not without precedent. As multiple scholars have noted, at least 19 states extended voting rights to free male “inhabitants,” including noncitizens, starting from our country’s founding up to and throughout the 19th century.
Today, over 20 municipalities across the country, as well as the District of Columbia, allow permanent noncitizen residents to vote in local elections.
Any state these days could similarly extend the right to vote in state and federal elections to permanent noncitizen residents. This is within their constitutional prerogative. And if this were to happen, there could be a conflict between that state’s voter-eligibility laws and the SAVE America Act.
Normally, when state and federal laws conflict, the Constitution’s supremacy clause mandates that federal law prevails.
Yet, in this instance, where Congress has no actual authority to implement voter qualifications, the SAVE America Act would seem to have no constitutional leg on which to stand.
—————
Reconciling the SAVE America Act with the Constitution
So, why have 108 U.S. representatives sponsored a bill that likely exceeds Congress’ powers?
Politics, of course, plays some role here. Namely, noncitizen voting is a major concern among Republican politicians and voters. Every SAVE America Act co-sponsor is Republican, as were all but four of the 220 U.S. representatives who voted to pass the SAVE Act in April 2025.
When it comes to the constitutionality of the SAVE America Act, though, proponents simply assert that Congress is acting within its purview.
Specifically, many proponents have cited the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, as support for that assertion. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, for example, explicitly referenced the elections clause when defending the SAVE Act earlier in 2025.
But the elections clause only grants Congress authority to regulate election procedures, not voter qualifications. The Supreme Court explicitly stated this in the Inter Tribal Council ruling.
Congress can, for instance, require states to adopt a uniform federal voter registration form and even include a citizenship question on said form. What it cannot do, however, is implement a nonnegotiable mandate that effectively tells the states they can never allow any noncitizen to vote in a federal election.
For now, the SAVE America Act is simply legislation. Should the Senate pass it, Trump will almost assuredly sign it into law, given, among other factors, his recent call for Republicans to nationalize elections. If and when that happens, the courts would have to reckon with the SAVE America Act’s legitimacy within the country’s constitutional design.
Quinnipiac University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The Republican-led House of Representatives voted Feb. 11, 2026 to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act – or SAVE America Act. The bill would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote and present photo identification when they do vote in federal elections.
This marks the third year in a row that the House has passed similar legislation. Passage in the Senate, which would require Democratic votes, continues to appear unlikely. But Republicans from President Donald Trump on down are clearly interested in finding ways to enhance election security – although critics contend the SAVE America Act would unfairly disenfranchise millions of citizens.
The SAVE America Act would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to first “provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship” in person, such as a passport or birth certificate. The new version goes further than its predecessor by requiring many individuals voting in federal elections to present photo identification at the polls indicating proof of U.S. citizenship.
Voting rights experts and advocacy organizations have detailed how the legislation could suppress voting. In part, they say it would particularly create barriers in low-income and minority communities. People in such communities often lack the forms of ID acceptable under the SAVE America Act for a variety of reasons, including socioeconomic factors.
As of now, at least 9% of voting-age American citizens – approximately 21 million people – do not even have driver’s licenses, let alone proof of citizenship. In spite of this, many legislators support the bill as a means of eliminating noncitizen voting in elections.
As a legal scholar who studies, among other things, foreign interference in elections, I find considerations about the potential effects of the SAVE America Act important, especially given how rare it is that a noncitizen actually votes in federal elections.
Yet, it is equally crucial to consider a more fundamental question: Is the SAVE America Act even constitutional?
—————
How the SAVE America Act could change voting requirements
The SAVE America Act would forbid state election officials from registering an individual to vote in federal elections unless this person “provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.” Furthermore, it would forbid individuals from voting unless they bring such proof to the polls each time they vote, unless their state agrees to submit voter registration lists to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on a quarterly basis.
Acceptable forms of proof for voter registration would include a REAL ID that demonstrates U.S. citizenship – most of which do not – as well as a U.S. passport or a U.S. military identification card.
So – should the SAVE America Act become law – if a person turns 18 or moves between states and wishes to register to vote in federal elections in their new home, they would likely be turned away if they do not have any such documents readily available. At best, they could still fill out a registration form, but they would need to mail in acceptable proof of citizenship.
For married people with changed last names, among others, questions remain about whether birth certificates could even count as acceptable proof of citizenship for them.
—————
The Constitution says little about voting rights
Despite the national conversation the SAVE America Act has sparked, it is unclear whether Congress even has the power to enact it. This is the key constitutional question.
The U.S. Constitution imposes no citizenship requirement when it comes to voting. The original text of the Constitution, in fact, said very little about the right to vote. It was not until legislators passed subsequent amendments, starting after the Civil War up through the 1970s, that the Constitution even explicitly prohibited voting laws that discriminate on account of race, sex or age.
Aside from these amendments, the Constitution is largely silent about who gets to vote.
Who, then, gets to decide whether someone is qualified to vote? No matter the election, the answer is always the same – the states.
Indeed, by constitutional design, the states are tasked with setting voter-eligibility requirements – a product of our federalist system. For state and local elections, the 10th Amendment grants states the power to regulate their internal elections as they see fit.
States also get to decide who may vote in federal elections, which include presidential and congressional elections.
When it comes to presidential elections, for instance, states have – as I have previously written – exclusive power under the Constitution’s electors clause to decide how to conduct presidential elections within their borders, including who gets to vote in them.
The states wield similar authority for congressional elections. Namely, according to Article 1 of the Constitution and the Constitution’s 17th Amendment, if someone can vote in their state’s legislative elections, they are entitled to vote in its congressional elections, too.
Conversely, the Constitution provides Congress zero authority to govern voter-eligibility requirements in federal elections. Indeed, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling on the Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council case, the court asserted that nothing in the Constitution “lends itself to the view that voting qualifications in federal elections are to be set by Congress.”
—————
Is the SAVE America Act constitutional?
The SAVE America Act presents a constitutional dilemma. By requiring individuals to show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to vote, the SAVE America Act is implicitly saying that someone must be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections.
In other words, Congress would be instituting a qualification to vote, a power that the Constitution leaves exclusively to the states.
Indeed, while all states currently limit voting rights to citizens, legal noncitizen voting is not without precedent. As multiple scholars have noted, at least 19 states extended voting rights to free male “inhabitants,” including noncitizens, starting from our country’s founding up to and throughout the 19th century.
Today, over 20 municipalities across the country, as well as the District of Columbia, allow permanent noncitizen residents to vote in local elections.
Any state these days could similarly extend the right to vote in state and federal elections to permanent noncitizen residents. This is within their constitutional prerogative. And if this were to happen, there could be a conflict between that state’s voter-eligibility laws and the SAVE America Act.
Normally, when state and federal laws conflict, the Constitution’s supremacy clause mandates that federal law prevails.
Yet, in this instance, where Congress has no actual authority to implement voter qualifications, the SAVE America Act would seem to have no constitutional leg on which to stand.
—————
Reconciling the SAVE America Act with the Constitution
So, why have 108 U.S. representatives sponsored a bill that likely exceeds Congress’ powers?
Politics, of course, plays some role here. Namely, noncitizen voting is a major concern among Republican politicians and voters. Every SAVE America Act co-sponsor is Republican, as were all but four of the 220 U.S. representatives who voted to pass the SAVE Act in April 2025.
When it comes to the constitutionality of the SAVE America Act, though, proponents simply assert that Congress is acting within its purview.
Specifically, many proponents have cited the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, as support for that assertion. Utah Sen. Mike Lee, for example, explicitly referenced the elections clause when defending the SAVE Act earlier in 2025.
But the elections clause only grants Congress authority to regulate election procedures, not voter qualifications. The Supreme Court explicitly stated this in the Inter Tribal Council ruling.
Congress can, for instance, require states to adopt a uniform federal voter registration form and even include a citizenship question on said form. What it cannot do, however, is implement a nonnegotiable mandate that effectively tells the states they can never allow any noncitizen to vote in a federal election.
For now, the SAVE America Act is simply legislation. Should the Senate pass it, Trump will almost assuredly sign it into law, given, among other factors, his recent call for Republicans to nationalize elections. If and when that happens, the courts would have to reckon with the SAVE America Act’s legitimacy within the country’s constitutional design.
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- A wave of lawsuits has resulted from online comments after Charlie Kirk’s assassination
- Goldman Sachs top lawyer resigns after emails show Jeffrey Epstein friendship
- Failed indictment of 6 Democratic lawmakers blamed on Jeanine Pirro-picked prosecutors
- Federal judges may address ‘illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks,’ according to new ethics opinion
- Senate GOP aims to reveal companies funding lawsuits
- Bad Bunny’s ‘love conquering hate’ message at Super Bowl reiterated by judge sentencing assaulter
