Question Portland

🚨JAW-DROPPING POLL: Republicans lead by 4% in the race for governor in deep-blue Oregon. Oregon - 2026 Governor 🟥Chris Dudley 48% (+4) 🟦Tina Kotek* 44% If Dudley wins the Republican primary, polls suggest that Kotek—who is deeply unpopular—is finished. Hoffman/Dudley | May 11-12, 2026 | 603 LV Visit pollsmax.com for more polls.

President Donald Trump is dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, according to court documents, a signal that the administration is preparing to go forward with a plan to set up a $1.8 billion fund that would compensate those who believe they were subject to unfair investigations under previous administrations. cnn.it/4uZ0loE

A new study by @WilliamsPolicy reveals the impact of Trump’s anti-trans policies on trans & nonbinary parents and their children. No one should have to live in fear because of who they are or what their family looks like—but under Trump, that’s exactly what is happening.

🚨SHOCK POLL: Republicans are tied with Democrats in the race for Oregon governor. Oregon - 2026 Governor 🟥Christine Drazan 45% 🟦Tina Kotek* 45% Kotek is among the least popular governors in the country, and in 2022, Drazan lost to Kotek by less than 5%. Oregon's governorship is now in play for the GOP. Hoffman/Dudley | May 11-12, 2026 | 603 LV Visit pollsmax.com for more polls.

EXAMINING JUNK SCIENCE PROUDLY PROMOTED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL EQUALITY CAUCUS The "Congressional Equality Caucus", formerly the "Congressional LGBTQ+ Caucus", is a House of Representatives organization founded in 2008. It functions as the primary resource on "LGBTQI+" federal policy. In the 119th Congress from 2025 to 2027, it is chaired by Representative Mark Takano of California’s 39th District with eleven co-chairs, all "openly LGBTQI+ House Democrats", and has 191 members. As the largest caucus in the House, it includes only Democrats with no Republicans. On its X page with about 39k followers, @EqualityCaucus promoted a pinned post in its profile, a link leading to a report called "Impact of the Trump Administration on Transgender Parents and their Children", published in April 2026, written by Abbie E. Goldberg and Brad Sears of the Williams Institute at @UCLA School of Law. The report claims to document "impacts on children" via a survey of 108 "transgender and nonbinary parents" recruited in June to July 2025 (6 - 8 months into the second Trump term). The highlights make grand claims, stating: “Two-thirds of the children of transgender parents had grown more anxious or fearful under the Trump administration.” “Since Trump’s re-election, most parents reported making at least one change to better protect their children’s safety and well-being.” “Many transgender parents reported taking legal and defensive measures to protect themselves and their families.” Notice the vague and dramatic wording. On closer look, the report appears to be methodologically bankrupt, ideologically driven advocacy masquerading as science. It is extremely alarming that such reports are being promoted by (Democrat) members of Congress, using our taxpayer money for political gain and propaganda. We break down why this should be dismissed as unreliable for any serious policy, clinical, or social science purpose. 1. Absurdly Small, Convenience Sample with Zero Claim to Representativeness - n = 108 total - laughably underpowered even for descriptive purposes. No power analysis, no margins of error reported. Compare what the title implies and what this study actually looks at. - Recruited exclusively via "Prolific", a paid online panel platform that targets pre-registered users who self-identify as transgender/nonbinary and parents of kids under 18. Respondents GET PAID to complete surveys. This is the definition of "self-selected convenience sampling", notorious in social science for attracting young, highly educated, politically progressive, and survey-savvy participants who are motivated to signal distress on hot-button topics. - Demographics, showing lack of representation - 65% aged 18–35 (extremely young parents). - 77%+ have bachelor’s degree or higher (master’s 36%, doctorate/professional 14%) — far above national or even "trans" population averages. - 92.6% employed. - 55% of families have TWO trans/nonbinary parents, an extreme outlier compared to broader data on "trans" parenting. - Heavy concentration in a handful of states (Texas 16%, NY/VA/NC/FL 5–7% each). - No response rate, no weighting, no comparison to any known population benchmarks. The report never even mentions representativeness or generalizability. This sample tells you what a tiny, atypical, highly educated, left-leaning slice of "trans" parents on Prolific said in mid-2025, nothing more. 2. No Full Questionnaire, No Validated Measures, Massive Risk of Leading Questions and Demand Characteristics - The report admits questions were "informed by the authors’ knowledge of the relevant literature and our prior research" plus "input from colleagues" i.e., crafted by UCLA Williams Institute insiders. But, the complete survey instrument is not provided anywhere (no appendix). We cannot evaluate wording, order effects, or priming. - Key outcome questions (inferred from results) ask parents to attribute children’s "anxiety/fear," "new worries since the election," avoidance behaviors, etc., directly to the Trump administration. This is textbook leading/framing. Parents who already oppose Trump are primed to connect dots causally. - Outcomes are purely subjective proxy reports: parents guessing their kids’ internal states. No direct child interviews, no standardized anxiety/depression scales (e.g., SCARED, CBCL), no clinical thresholds. "66% said children more anxious/fearful" and "56% said new worries" are raw endorsements with zero validation. - Open-ended quotes are cherry-picked for maximum emotional impact ("will I get taken away?"; "whether our family is safe"). Qualitative analysis = two research assistants doing "content analysis" with no inter-rater reliability stats reported beyond "validation checks." 3. No Controls, No Baselines, No Causal Inference Possible - Zero comparison group (gen pop parents, pre-2024 election data, or even 2021–2024 Biden-era data). - No attempt to disentangle Trump-specific effects from: - Parents’ own sky-high baseline mental health issues (79% reported anxiety, 67% depression in past year). - General post-election anxiety that affects millions regardless of identity. - Media amplification, social media echo chambers, or activist messaging. - All "impacts" are retrospective self-attributions 6–8 months later. Recall bias + confirmation bias = guaranteed inflation. - 45% of parents said kids were "too young to be aware", yet the report still aggregates the 55% who noticed and treats the whole as evidence of widespread harm. 4. No Limitations Section, at all The report has ZERO dedicated limitations discussion. No caveats about sample bias, subjectivity, generalizability, or alternative explanations. This is scientific malpractice. Even student papers are expected to address this. The authors simply declare their narrative and stop. 5. Purely Descriptive Statistics + narrative spin; no inferential stats - only percentages and theme counts. No p-values, confidence intervals, regressions, or tests for subgroup differences. You cannot claim "two-thirds of children more anxious" as meaningful without this. - Behaviors (39% limited visibility, 45% avoided family spaces, 19% considering moving) are presented as rational responses to Trump rather than possible over-reaction, ideology-driven hypervigilance, or pre-existing patterns. 6. Institutional and Author Bias Is Naked - Williams Institute exists to advocate for LGBTQ+ policy positions. Its reports are consistently framed to support expansion of rights and oppose conservative policies. - Authors have long histories in this space. The report’s language ("aimed to erase the identities," "anti-transgender rhetoric and policies") is polemical, not neutral. - No funding disclosure beyond internal acknowledgments. No conflicts-of-interest statement. 7. Overreach and Policy Implications Are Ludicrous - Claims that children fear "family separation" or "being taken away" are presented as direct consequences of one early executive order on federal definitions/IDs/health care for minors. No evidence is offered that any actual family in the sample lost custody, access to care, or faced federal enforcement. This is fearmongering by anecdote. - Mitigation strategies (homeschooling due to "bullying," avoiding pediatricians) could equally reflect parental ideology or overprotection rather than objective danger. The report never considers this. - One-third reportedly planning fewer children in the future: again, subjective, unverified, and unlinked to actual policy outcomes. BOTTOM LINE: This is not a "study" or scientific in any sense, which is maybe why they carefully frame it as a "report" . It is a 27-page propaganda release. It fails every basic standard of social science: sampling, instrumentation, controls, transparency, and self-critique. The Williams Institute has produced yet another piece of activist scholarship that will be weaponized in media and court briefs but collapses under any serious scrutiny. If you want real evidence on family outcomes under different administrations, look for large-scale, representative, longitudinal data with validated measures, none of which exists here. Why is it acceptable for members of Congress to promote such shoddy reports as proof of anything? The House Oversight Committee should look into this. The rabbit hole of the trans industry infiltrating rigorous academia is long, twisted and full of deceit. At the very least, members of Congress should have the ethics to refrain from trying to deceive the American people on its behalf. #junkscience #pseudoscience #propaganda #ethics #UCLA #LawSchool #academia Link to report: williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/i…