Introduction

It’s 3 PM on a Tuesday. You’ve crushed three back-to-back meetings, cleared 47 emails from your inbox, and somehow still have half your to-do list glaring at you from your second monitor. But here’s the problem: you’re running on fumes. Your third coffee has stopped working. Your brain feels like it’s wading through molasses. And the thought of “powering through” the rest of your day makes you want to crawl under your desk.

Sound familiar?

If you’re a high-achiever, chronic energy depletion isn’t just an occasional annoyance. It’s your daily reality. You’ve built a successful career, you’re hitting your goals, you’re doing all the things you’re supposed to do. Yet you still wake up exhausted, drag yourself through the day, and collapse into bed wondering why you can’t seem to get your energy back.

Here’s what most people won’t tell you: this isn’t temporary tiredness. This is persistent fatigue that fundamentally affects your performance, your relationships, and your quality of life. And the generic advice—sleep more, eat better, exercise—doesn’t address the root causes for people operating at your level.

The truth? Your energy crisis isn’t a personal failure. It’s a predictable result of how modern high-performance work depletes specific energy resources. As someone running a company with two young sons at home, I’ve learned this the hard way. The difference between barely surviving and actually thriving isn’t willpower or caffeine. It’s understanding the science behind energy depletion and strategically rebuilding your reserves.

In this article, you’ll discover why your fatigue is different from normal tiredness, the psychophysiological mechanisms behind energy depletion in high-performers, and a comprehensive framework to diagnose and fix your energy crisis. Most importantly, you’ll get practical strategies that actually work within your packed schedule—because I know you don’t have time for advice that requires a complete life overhaul.

Let’s figure out why you have no energy, and more importantly, how to get it back.

Understanding Your Energy Crisis: It’s Not Just About Being Tired

The Three Types of Fatigue High-Achievers Experience

When you say “I have no energy,” what you’re actually experiencing is likely a combination of three distinct types of fatigue. Understanding which type you’re dealing with is the first step to fixing it.

Physical fatigue is what most people picture when they think of exhaustion. It’s body-level depletion from lack of movement, poor sleep quality, or physical overexertion. Your muscles feel heavy, your body aches, and you struggle to complete basic physical tasks. For desk-bound professionals, physical fatigue often comes from paradoxical sources: too much sitting, not enough movement, or disrupted sleep patterns rather than actual physical exertion.

Cognitive fatigue is the mental fog that sets in after sustained focus, decision-making, and information processing. It’s that moment when you’ve been analyzing spreadsheets for three hours and suddenly can’t remember what you’re looking at. Your brain feels slow, concentration becomes impossible, and even simple tasks require Herculean effort. Research by Enoka and Duchateau distinguishes between performance fatigability (actual measurable decline in function) and perceived fatigability (how tired you feel). With cognitive fatigue, you might still be able to perform, but it feels exponentially harder ^[1].

Emotional fatigue is the psychological drain from managing stress, navigating difficult relationships, and performing emotional labor. It’s the exhaustion that comes from maintaining your professional persona all day, managing team conflicts, or dealing with high-stakes client relationships. You might have energy for tasks but zero bandwidth for people. Or you dread social interactions that used to energize you.

Here’s what makes high-achievers different: you often experience all three simultaneously. You’re physically depleted from poor sleep and chronic stress. You’re cognitively overloaded from constant decision-making and context-switching. And you’re emotionally drained from managing teams, clients, and your own high standards.

Ask yourself these diagnostic questions:

Physical fatigue check: Do you wake up feeling unrested? Does your body feel heavy or achy? Do you struggle with basic physical tasks?

Cognitive fatigue check: Does focusing feel impossible? Do you reread the same paragraph five times? Do simple decisions feel overwhelming?

Emotional fatigue check: Do you dread interactions with people you normally enjoy? Do you feel cynical or detached? Does everything feel harder than it should?

The problem isn’t picking which type you have. It’s recognizing that your energy system is under siege from multiple directions at once. A senior executive I know exercises regularly, eats well, and still feels completely exhausted. Why? Because she’s addressed physical fatigue while ignoring the cognitive and emotional drain of running a 200-person company. Her body is fine. Her brain and emotional reserves are tapped out.

This is why generic “just exercise more” or “get better sleep” advice falls flat for high-performers. You need a framework that addresses all three types of fatigue simultaneously.

The Hidden Energy Drains in High-Performance Work

The obvious energy drains are easy to spot: poor sleep, skipped meals, back-to-back meetings. But the real culprits behind chronic exhaustion in high-achievers are invisible, insidious, and constantly running in the background.

Decision fatigue is the silent killer of your energy. Every single choice you make—from what to wear, what to eat for lunch, which email to answer first, whether to take that call—depletes a finite pool of cognitive resources. Research shows that the average adult makes about 35,000 decisions per day. For executives and entrepreneurs, that number is likely higher ^[2].

Each decision costs metabolic energy. Your brain uses about 20% of your body’s energy despite being only 2% of your body weight. When you’re making hundreds of micro-decisions before 10 AM, you’re burning through cognitive fuel at an alarming rate. By afternoon, you’re not just tired—you’re running on vapors.

This is why Mark Zuckerberg wears the same outfit every day. It’s not quirky minimalism; it’s strategic energy conservation.

Context switching is murdering your productivity and energy. Every time you shift from email to a report to Slack to a meeting, your brain pays a metabolic switching cost. You’re not just changing tasks; you’re loading entirely new mental models, retrieving different information from memory, and recalibrating your attention.

A study from the University of California found that it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully regain focus after an interruption ^[3]. If you’re switching contexts every 10-15 minutes (which is typical for most professionals), you never actually achieve deep focus. You’re operating in a constant state of partial attention, which is cognitively exhausting.

Invisible load is draining you dry. This is the energy you spend on things no one sees or acknowledges. Emotional labor—managing difficult personalities, staying composed under pressure, maintaining your professional image. Cognitive load from holding multiple projects in your working memory simultaneously. Social coordination—the mental effort of managing relationships, expectations, and communication across teams.

For many leaders, invisible load represents 30-40% of their daily energy expenditure. You’re not just doing the visible work; you’re managing the emotional, social, and cognitive infrastructure that makes the work possible. And none of it appears on your calendar or task list.

Information overload is drowning your cognitive capacity. The average professional receives 121 emails per day and checks their phone 96 times. Each notification, ping, and alert fragments your attention and triggers a small stress response. Your brain treats each input as potentially important, activating threat-detection systems and evaluating whether you need to respond.

This creates chronic cognitive arousal—your brain stays in a low-level alert state, unable to fully relax or focus. It’s like having 47 browser tabs open simultaneously. Each one uses a tiny bit of processing power. Collectively, they crash the system.

Conservation of Resources Theory, developed by psychologist Stevan Hobfoll, explains this perfectly: energy is a finite resource that requires active, strategic management. When you’re constantly depleting without restoring, you spiral into resource loss. The more depleted you become, the less capable you are of protecting your remaining resources, creating a downward cascade ^[4].

Your daily decision budget exercise:

Track your decisions for one day. Count every choice, from snooze button to bedtime Netflix. You’ll likely hit 200+ before lunch. Now ask yourself: which 10% of these decisions actually matter? Those are worth your cognitive energy. The rest? Automate, delegate, or eliminate them.

Identify your top three hidden energy drains right now. Be specific. “Email” isn’t specific enough. “Checking email 37 times per day and feeling obligated to respond to non-urgent requests within 10 minutes” is specific. You can’t fix what you can’t see.

The Energy Management Framework for High-Achievers

The COM-B Model: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation

Here’s why most energy advice fails: it tells you what to do without addressing why you’re not already doing it. “Just exercise more” ignores the fact that you barely have time to eat lunch. “Meditate for 20 minutes daily” overlooks that your brain won’t shut up long enough to sit still. “Get 8 hours of sleep” dismisses the reality that your mind races the moment your head hits the pillow.

Sustainable behavior change—including energy management—requires three elements working together. This is the COM-B model from behavioral science, developed by Susan Michie and colleagues at University College London ^[5].

Capability: Do you have the physical and psychological ability to manage your energy? This includes your sleep quality, nutrition, fitness level, cognitive skills, and knowledge about energy management.

Opportunity: Does your environment support energy-sustaining behaviors? This covers your schedule structure, workspace design, social support, and the time architecture of your day.

Motivation: Do you have the drive and reasons to prioritize energy management? This includes both reflective motivation (conscious goals and plans) and automatic motivation (habits and emotional responses).

All three must align. If any one is missing, the system fails.

You can have perfect capability (you know exactly what to do) and strong motivation (you desperately want to change), but if your opportunity is broken (your calendar is packed with back-to-back meetings), nothing changes. Or you might have great opportunity (flexible schedule) and motivation (you’re committed), but without capability (you don’t actually know how to optimize your energy), you spin your wheels.

This is why “just try harder” doesn’t work. Willpower is motivation without capability or opportunity. It’s trying to force behavior change through sheer determination while ignoring the structural barriers making it impossible.

The beauty of the COM-B framework is that it shows you exactly where your energy management system is breaking down. You’re not failing because you’re weak or lazy. You’re failing because one or more of these three pillars is compromised.

Let’s build all three.

Capability: Building Your Energy Infrastructure

Building energy capability isn’t about generic wellness advice. It’s about strategic optimization of your physical and cognitive infrastructure.

Sleep Architecture (Not Just Duration)

Everyone tells you to sleep 8 hours. Almost no one tells you that sleep quality matters more than quantity, and that your ultradian rhythms affect everything about how you function during waking hours.

Your brain operates in roughly 90-120 minute cycles throughout the day and night. During sleep, these cycles move you through different stages—light sleep, deep sleep, and REM. Each stage serves distinct restoration functions. Deep sleep restores physical energy and consolidates memories. REM sleep processes emotions and enhances creativity ^[6].

Most high-achievers hack this wrong. They focus on total hours while ignoring sleep architecture. You can sleep 7 hours with optimal architecture and wake up more restored than 9 hours of fragmented, low-quality sleep.

Practical protocol: Track your sleep cycles, not just hours. Aim to wake up at the end of a complete cycle (multiples of 90 minutes from when you actually fall asleep, not when you get in bed). If you’re crashing at 11 PM and need to wake at 6 AM, that’s 7 hours—roughly 4.5 complete cycles. Better than 7.5 hours that cuts you off mid-cycle.

Strategic Nutrition Timing for Cognitive Performance

Chrononutrition—eating specific foods at specific times to optimize performance—is criminally underutilized by professionals. Your body’s insulin sensitivity, digestive efficiency, and nutrient utilization vary dramatically throughout the day.

For sustained energy: high-protein breakfast stabilizes blood sugar and reduces decision fatigue. Carbohydrate-heavy lunches trigger insulin spikes and afternoon crashes. Light, protein-focused lunches maintain afternoon cognitive performance. Strategic carbs in the evening support sleep quality by promoting serotonin and melatonin production ^[7].

Practical protocol: Front-load protein (30g at breakfast), moderate complex carbs midday, save simple carbs for evening. Time your largest meal for when you don’t need peak cognitive performance. If you have crucial afternoon work, eat your smallest meal at lunch.

Movement Patterns That Energize (Not Deplete)

Exercise advice for energy management is backwards. People treat movement as energy expenditure when it should be energy restoration.

High-intensity workouts deplete immediate energy but improve baseline capacity over time. Low-intensity movement (walking, stretching, light mobility) provides immediate energy restoration with minimal depletion. The problem? High-achievers skip the restorative movement and only do depletion-focused exercise (or no movement at all).

Your body needs both, but timing matters. Intense training when you’re already depleted compounds fatigue. Gentle movement when you’re depleted restores energy through improved circulation, stress hormone regulation, and nervous system reset.

Practical protocol: Schedule intense workouts during high-energy windows (typically morning for most people). Use 5-10 minute movement snacks every 90 minutes during work (walk, stretch, mobility drills). These aren’t workouts; they’re energy restoration.

Cognitive Capacity Building

Your brain has working memory limits. Most people can hold 4-7 pieces of information simultaneously. When you exceed this, cognitive performance crumbles and mental fatigue spikes.

Attention restoration theory, developed by environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, shows that different activities either deplete or restore attention capacity. Directed attention (focused work, decision-making, problem-solving) depletes. Soft fascination (nature, art, music, casual conversation) restores ^[8].

Practical protocol:

Offload working memory externally. Use a second brain system (notes, task managers, reference systems) to free cognitive capacity.

Build attention restoration into your day. Five minutes looking at trees or listening to instrumental music after intense cognitive work restores 30-40% of depleted attention capacity.

Batch cognitive load. Group similar tasks to reduce switching costs. Process all emails in 2-3 defined windows rather than 47 micro-sessions throughout the day.

Energy Audit Action Item

Track one full day with brutal honesty: – Sleep: actual hours and quality (restless, deep, interrupted?) – Food: what you ate and when, how you felt 60-90 minutes later – Movement: when you moved, intensity, how it affected your energy – Cognitive load: peak focus periods, depletion moments, restoration attempts

You can’t optimize what you don’t measure. Your energy patterns are unique to you—generic advice will fail without personalized data.

Opportunity: Restructuring Your Environment

You can have perfect sleep hygiene, optimal nutrition, and excellent cognitive practices, but if your environment constantly sabotages you, none of it matters. Opportunity is about designing your context to make energy-sustaining behavior the path of least resistance.

Time Architecture: Building Energy-Optimized Schedules

Your calendar is either your energy management tool or your energy destruction device. Most professionals use calendars to cram in maximum productivity, creating schedules that guarantee depletion.

Energy-optimized scheduling works differently. It respects three principles:

Chronotype alignment: Your energy peaks and valleys follow predictable daily patterns based on your circadian rhythm. Morning people (larks) hit peak cognitive performance 2-4 hours after waking. Evening people (owls) peak 8-10 hours after waking. Forcing an owl to do deep analytical work at 8 AM is fighting biology. They’ll complete the task, but at 2-3x the energy cost ^[9].

Task-energy matching: Different tasks require different energy types. Creative work needs fresh cognitive energy. Administrative tasks tolerate lower energy. Relationship-heavy work requires emotional energy. Schedule high-value, cognitively demanding work during your peak windows. Save low-value, routine tasks for energy valleys.

Strategic batching: Group similar tasks to minimize context-switching costs. All meetings on specific days. Deep work in uninterrupted blocks. Email processing in defined windows. Every context switch costs 15-20 minutes of cognitive recalibration. Batching similar work can save 2-3 hours of effective time per day.

Practical implementation: Block your calendar for next week right now. Mark your peak energy windows (typically 2-4 hours) and protect them ruthlessly. Schedule only your highest-leverage work there. Batch all meetings into specific afternoons. Create “decision-free zones”—periods where you’ve pre-decided what you’ll work on, eliminating choice fatigue.

Environmental Design: Physical and Digital Workspace Optimization

Your workspace either supports sustained energy or drains it through a thousand small cuts.

Physical environment factors: Natural light exposure regulates circadian rhythm and improves alertness. Poor lighting increases cognitive fatigue by 15-20%. Temperature affects performance—most people perform best in 68-72°F. Too warm induces drowsiness. Too cold increases metabolic stress. Air quality matters more than most realize; CO2 levels above 1000ppm (common in poorly ventilated offices) impair decision-making and increase fatigue ^[10].

Quick wins: Work near windows when possible. Open windows for 10 minutes every 2 hours if you can’t control ventilation. Adjust lighting to match task—bright for alertness, dimmer for creative work. Keep workspace temperature slightly cool rather than warm.

Digital environment is equally important. Every notification triggers a cortisol micro-spike and fragments attention. Open browser tabs create background cognitive load. Visual clutter increases cognitive fatigue even if you’re not consciously processing it.

Practical protocol: Eliminate all non-essential notifications. Seriously, all of them. Close all browser tabs at end of work sessions. Use separate browsers or profiles for different contexts (work, research, personal) to reduce cognitive bleeding between domains. At day’s end, shut down completely—no half-closed laptops humming in the background.

Social Environment Energy Accounting

People either energize you or drain you, and that calculus changes based on context and your current reserves. An energizing conversation when you’re fresh becomes an exhausting obligation when you’re depleted.

Most professionals never account for social energy in their schedules. They book back-to-back meetings with difficult stakeholders, accept every coffee chat invitation, and wonder why they’re emotionally fried by 3 PM.

Social energy audit: List your regular interactions and honestly rate them: energizing (+1), neutral (0), or draining (-1). Notice patterns. Some people always drain you. Some energize you only in small doses. Some relationships are energizing but require you to be fresh first.

Strategic scheduling: Cluster draining interactions together when possible, followed by recovery time. Never schedule energy-draining meetings before high-stakes, high-value work. Protect time with energizing people when you’re depleted—they’re restoration resources.

With two young sons, I learned this the hard way. Coming home completely depleted and trying to be present for family time doesn’t work. I restructured my schedule to include a 20-minute buffer before the evening shift—a walk, music, anything that transitions me from work mode to dad mode. That small opportunity change transformed both my energy and my presence.

Environmental Energy Audit

Map your weekly energy flow: – Which days leave you energized vs. depleted? – Which time blocks consistently drain you? – Which physical spaces correlate with better/worse energy? – Which digital tools or platforms increase cognitive fatigue? – Which people or interactions reliably deplete you?

Look for patterns. Your energy crisis likely has structural causes hidden in your environment. You can’t willpower your way through a sabotaged context.

Motivation: Aligning Energy with What Matters

Here’s the paradox of high-achiever energy management: you have motivation to succeed but often lack motivation to protect the energy that makes success sustainable. You’ll work through exhaustion to hit a deadline but won’t take 15 minutes for a recovery walk.

The problem isn’t that you don’t care about energy. It’s that your motivation system is misaligned.

The Purpose-Energy Connection

Self-Determination Theory, one of the most validated frameworks in motivational psychology, shows that sustainable motivation comes from three elements: autonomy (control over your choices), competence (feeling effective), and relatedness (connection to meaningful outcomes) ^[11].

When your energy management aligns with these three, it becomes self-sustaining. When it doesn’t, it feels like another obligation draining your already-depleted reserves.

Autonomy: You need control over how you manage your energy. Cookie-cutter programs fail because they remove autonomy. “Do these 12 steps exactly as prescribed” triggers resistance. “Here are principles—design your system” creates ownership.

Competence: You need to see that your efforts work. This requires measurable feedback loops showing that your energy interventions actually improve your performance and life quality.

Relatedness: You need to connect energy management to outcomes you care about. “Have more energy” is vague. “Have energy to be fully present when my kids get home from school” or “Have cognitive capacity for the strategic work that actually grows my business” creates meaning.

Identifying Energy-Giving vs. Energy-Draining Activities

Not all work depletes energy equally. Some activities, even challenging ones, leave you energized. Others drain you disproportionately to their difficulty.

The difference often comes down to alignment with your strengths and values. When you’re working in your zone of genius on something that matters, the work itself generates energy. When you’re grinding through tasks that feel meaningless or misaligned, every minute costs double.

Energy-value matrix: Create four quadrants. High value + energizing (your zone of genius—maximize this). High value + draining (necessary evil—minimize or systematize). Low value + energizing (pleasant distraction—time-box it). Low value + draining (eliminate ruthlessly).

Most high-achievers spend 60-70% of their time in the “high value + draining” quadrant. They’re doing important work that exhausts them. The goal isn’t to eliminate draining work entirely (impossible), but to strategically increase the ratio of energizing high-value work.

Practical implementation: Track one week of activities and energy impact. Note what leaves you energized vs. depleted. Look for surprises. Sometimes tasks you thought were valuable are actually low-impact energy drains. Sometimes challenging work you’ve been avoiding is actually energizing.

Aligning High-Value Work with Peak Energy

You have roughly 3-4 hours of peak cognitive energy per day. Maybe 6-8 hours of decent energy. The rest is low-grade functioning where you can execute routine tasks but not create breakthrough thinking.

Most professionals waste their peak energy on low-value work because it’s easier or more urgent. They answer emails during their freshest hours, then attempt strategic planning when they’re cognitively fried.

Strategic alignment: Identify your single highest-leverage activity—the work that disproportionately drives results. For me, it’s product strategy and key content creation. For you, it might be sales conversations, creative problem-solving, or strategic partnerships.

Schedule this work during your absolute peak energy window. Protect it like your life depends on it (your career growth probably does). Everything else gets scheduled around this priority.

Progress Tracking and Feedback Loops

Motivation dies without visible progress. You need to measure energy ROI on your interventions.

Simple tracking protocol: – Daily energy score (1-10) at three time points: morning, midday, evening – Weekly qualitative notes: what worked, what didn’t, how you felt – Monthly review: patterns, improvements, adjustments needed

The goal isn’t perfect data. It’s sufficient feedback to show whether your changes are working. When you see that protecting your sleep improved your decision quality, or that batching meetings reduced your afternoon fatigue, the data creates motivation to continue.

Your Energy Dashboard Metrics

Choose 3-5 personal metrics that matter to you: – Subjective energy levels (how you feel) – Performance indicators (output, decision quality, creative ideas generated) – Health markers (sleep quality, HRV, resting heart rate) – Presence quality (how often you’re fully engaged vs. going through motions) – Recovery efficiency (how quickly you bounce back from depletion)

Track these monthly. The specific metrics matter less than having some feedback mechanism showing whether your energy management is improving your life.

When I started tracking presence with my sons instead of just “time spent,” it shifted everything. I realized I was physically present but mentally absent during peak depletion times. That data motivated me to restructure my evening energy architecture more than any generic “work-life balance” advice ever could.

Motivation isn’t about wanting it more. It’s about creating systems that align energy management with autonomy, competence, and what actually matters to you. Make it personal, make it measurable, and make it meaningful.

The Rapid Recovery Protocol: When You Need Energy NOW

Immediate Energy Boosters (0-15 minutes)

Sometimes you don’t have time for systemic energy management. You need a functional boost right now. These aren’t long-term solutions, but they’ll get you through the next few hours without destroying your energy reserves for tomorrow.

Physiological Sigh: The Fastest Stress Reset

This breathing technique, researched extensively by Stanford neuroscientist Andrew Huberman, activates your parasympathetic nervous system and reduces cortisol faster than almost any other intervention ^[12].

Protocol: Double inhale through your nose (one deep breath, then a sharp second inhale to fully expand lungs), followed by a long, slow exhale through your mouth. Repeat 1-3 times.

This takes 30 seconds and immediately shifts your nervous system from sympathetic (stress/alert) to parasympathetic (calm/restore). Use it before high-stakes meetings, when you notice energy crashing, or when stress is amplifying perceived fatigue.

Strategic Movement (Not Generic Exercise)

You don’t need a workout. You need targeted movement that reactivates your system without depleting it further.

For cognitive fatigue: 2-minute rapid walking or stair climbing increases blood flow to the brain and provides an immediate alertness boost.

For physical fatigue: Gentle stretching or mobility work (cat-cow, spinal twists, hip openers) releases tension and activates parasympathetic recovery.

For emotional fatigue: Expressive movement—shaking out your limbs, dancing for 60 seconds, or doing power poses—shifts emotional state through embodied cognition.

The key is matching movement type to fatigue type. When your brain is fried, don’t do yoga. Move fast. When your body is tense, don’t do cardio. Stretch and breathe.

Sensory Reset Practices

Your nervous system responds powerfully to sensory input. Strategic sensory interventions can override fatigue signals and reset attention.

Cold exposure: Splash cold water on your face or run cold water over your wrists for 30 seconds. This triggers a dive reflex that immediately increases alertness and activates your sympathetic nervous system. (Use this for acute energy crashes, not before sleep.)

Scent: Peppermint and citrus scents increase alertness and cognitive performance. Keep essential oils at your desk for a 10-second reset.

Music: Up-tempo instrumental music (120-140 BPM) increases dopamine and physical energy. Avoid lyrics if you need to focus; they compete for linguistic processing resources.

Cognitive Offloading for Immediate Relief

When your brain feels overloaded and exhausted, it’s often because you’re trying to hold too much in working memory. External offloading creates instant relief.

Brain dump protocol: Take 3 minutes to write down everything consuming mental bandwidth—tasks, worries, ideas, reminders, decisions. Don’t organize, just dump. The act of externalizing cognitive load frees up working memory and reduces perceived fatigue by 20-30%.

Close incomplete loops: That nagging feeling of exhaustion often comes from unfinished tasks cycling in the background. Spend 5 minutes either completing small tasks or explicitly scheduling when you’ll address them. Your brain can relax once it trusts the system.

These rapid recovery techniques won’t fix chronic depletion, but they’ll prevent acute crashes from derailing your day. Use them strategically, not constantly. If you need them every 90 minutes, that’s a signal your foundational energy management needs work.

Daily Energy Restoration Practices (15-60 minutes)

Beyond quick fixes, you need daily restoration practices that rebuild depleted reserves. These aren’t luxuries or self-care indulgences. They’re performance requirements for sustained high achievement.

Strategic Napping for Cognitive Recovery

Naps have a PR problem. They’re seen as weakness or laziness. In reality, strategic napping is one of the most efficient cognitive recovery tools available.

Research on professional performance shows that a 20-minute nap improves alertness, working memory, and decision quality for 2-3 hours ^[13]. NASA studies with pilots found that a 26-minute nap improved performance by 34% and alertness by 54%.

The key is timing and duration. Sleep cycles move through stages. If you nap for 10 minutes, you barely enter light sleep—minimal benefit. If you nap for 45 minutes, you enter deep sleep, and waking up mid-cycle creates sleep inertia (that groggy, disoriented feeling). The sweet spot: 20-30 minutes for light sleep refreshment, or 90 minutes for a full cycle with REM benefits.

Practical protocol: If you have afternoon cognitive fatigue (nearly universal for knowledge workers), schedule a 20-minute nap between 1-3 PM. Set an alarm for 25 minutes (5 minutes to fall asleep, 20 asleep). Don’t feel guilty. You’ll reclaim the time through improved performance.

Can’t nap at work? Non-sleep deep rest (NSDR) protocols—lying down with eyes closed, doing guided body scans or yoga nidra—provide 60-70% of napping benefits without actually sleeping.

Attention Restoration Through Soft Fascination

Remember the Attention Restoration Theory from earlier? Your directed attention (focused work) depletes throughout the day. Soft fascination activities restore it.

Soft fascination is engagement that captures attention without requiring concentration. Nature exposure is the gold standard. A 20-minute walk in a park or natural setting restores cognitive capacity as effectively as a nap. Even looking at nature photos for 5 minutes provides measurable restoration benefits ^[14].

Other soft fascination activities: watching aquariums, listening to ambient nature sounds, gentle instrumental music, observing art, casual conversation with friends (not work-related problem-solving).

The contrast with screen time is crucial. Scrolling social media or watching high-stimulation content doesn’t restore attention; it depletes a different pool through constant micro-decisions and dopamine hits.

Practical implementation: Build one 20-30 minute soft fascination block into your daily schedule. Ideally outdoors. If that’s impossible, even a window view of trees provides restoration benefits. This isn’t downtime; it’s recovery infrastructure.

Social Energy Management

For introverts, social interaction depletes energy. For extroverts, isolation depletes energy. Most people are ambiverts—social energy impact depends on context, quality, and current reserves.

Strategic social recovery means intentionally scheduling energizing interactions when you’re depleted, and protecting yourself from draining interactions when reserves are low.

Energy-giving social activities: Authentic connection with people you trust. Laughter. Shared experiences without performance pressure. Physical presence (not video calls). Conversations about topics you’re passionate about.

Energy-draining social activities: Performative interactions. Networking with strangers when you’re already depleted. Conflict resolution. Managing difficult personalities. Video meetings (require more cognitive effort than in-person due to lack of non-verbal cues).

Track which relationships and interaction types energize vs. drain you. Then intentionally design your social environment to maximize restoration and minimize unnecessary depletion.

End-of-Day Energy Transition Rituals

How you end your workday determines how you start your evening and next morning. Most people crash from work straight into home life without transition, carrying stress and depletion into their personal time.

Transition ritual components:

Physical transition: Change clothes, even if you work from home. Shower. Take a walk. Signal to your body that work is over.

Cognitive closure: Spend 5 minutes reviewing what you accomplished, noting incomplete tasks for tomorrow (so they stop cycling in your head), and celebrating small wins.

Environmental reset: Close your computer completely. Put your phone in a specific place (not your pocket). If possible, physically leave your workspace.

Sensory shift: Music, scent, lighting change—something that creates clear delineation between work and not-work.

I walk around the block between shutting down work and greeting my family. Ten minutes. That small ritual transforms my energy availability for the people who matter most. Without it, I’m physically home but mentally still in CEO mode—depleted, distracted, and unavailable.

These aren’t optional nice-to-haves. They’re required infrastructure for sustainable high performance. Build them into your day the same way you schedule meetings. Non-negotiable.

Building Your Personalized Energy Management System

The 4-Week Energy Rebuild Plan

You can’t rebuild your energy overnight, but you can create sustainable improvement in four weeks. This isn’t about perfection. It’s about progressive optimization with real data guiding your decisions.

Week 1: Assessment and Baseline

Before you change anything, you need to understand your current patterns. Most people skip this step and jump straight to interventions, which means they have no idea what’s actually working.

Energy tracking journal: Rate your energy three times daily (morning, midday, evening) on a 1-10 scale. Note what you were doing, what you ate, how you slept, and any significant factors (stress, exercise, social interactions). Do this for 7 days without changing your behavior.

Identify your energy type and patterns: Are you a lark (morning person) or owl (evening person)? When do you consistently crash? Which days are worst? What activities drain you most? What naturally energizes you?

Baseline measurements: Track sleep quality (hours and how rested you feel), cognitive performance (note when you’re sharp vs. foggy), emotional state (mood, stress levels), and one physical metric (could be HRV, resting heart rate, or simply how your body feels).

The goal isn’t comprehensive data science. It’s sufficient information to spot patterns and measure progress. At week’s end, you should be able to identify your top 3 energy drains and your most depleted time windows.

Week 2: Foundation Building

Now you make targeted changes to physical infrastructure based on week 1 data.

Sleep optimization: Based on when you naturally fall asleep and when you must wake up, calculate your optimal sleep window (in 90-minute cycle increments). Implement one sleep improvement: consistent bedtime, screen cutoff 1 hour before sleep, or temperature optimization (cool room, 65-68°F).

Nutrition timing experiments: Try the protein-front-loaded breakfast for 3 days. Track afternoon energy. Try the light lunch approach for 3 days. Track cognitive performance. Keep what works, discard what doesn’t.

Movement integration: Add one 10-minute movement break midday when energy typically crashes. Walk, stretch, or do light mobility. Track the impact on afternoon productivity.

Don’t try to optimize everything simultaneously. Pick one intervention per category and run the experiment. The goal is finding what actually moves your needle, not implementing generic best practices.

Week 3: System Design

With foundation work underway, now you redesign your environment and schedule.

Schedule restructuring: Based on your chronotype and energy patterns from week 1, map your week. Block your peak 2-3 hours for high-value cognitive work. Batch meetings into specific days or afternoon blocks. Create buffers between energy-intensive activities.

Environment modifications: Make one physical workspace change (lighting, temperature, ergonomics). Make one digital environment change (notification elimination, browser tab management, app organization).

Decision-making protocols: Identify your three biggest sources of decision fatigue from week 1. Create systems to eliminate or automate those decisions. This might mean meal planning Sunday, creating a work uniform, or pre-deciding when you’ll check email.

Track the same metrics as week 1 and 2. You should start seeing measurable improvements in energy levels and productivity by mid-week 3.

Week 4: Fine-Tuning and Sustainability

The final week is about refinement and building systems that survive contact with real life.

Strategy refinement: Review your four weeks of data. What interventions had the biggest impact? Which felt sustainable? Which created more stress than benefit? Double down on what works, eliminate what doesn’t.

Creating maintenance systems: Build your energy interventions into non-negotiable routines. Calendar block your peak work hours. Set reminders for movement breaks. Create evening shutdown rituals. Make the invisible visible in your schedule.

Building in flexibility: Perfect systems break. You need protocols for disruption. What’s your minimum viable energy management when travel disrupts sleep? When emergencies blow up your schedule? When you’re sick? Define your fallback protocols before you need them.

Measuring success: Compare week 4 metrics to week 1. You should see improvements in energy scores, sleep quality, cognitive performance, or mood. If you don’t, either your interventions aren’t working (try different strategies) or you need professional help (see previous section).

Your Four-Week Commitment

Four weeks isn’t long enough to transform everything, but it’s long enough to establish whether this approach works for you. Commit to the full protocol. Track honestly. Adjust strategically. By the end, you’ll have a personalized energy management system built on your actual data, not generic advice.

Download this as a worksheet so you can track progress week by week. Turn vague “I should take better care of myself” into specific, measurable, improvable interventions.

Advanced Strategies for Sustained High Performance

Once you’ve built your foundation, these advanced strategies will take your energy management from functional to exceptional.

Biofeedback and Self-Tracking Tools

Data-driven energy management removes guesswork. Modern wearables and tracking tools provide objective metrics that correlate with subjective energy experience.

Heart Rate Variability (HRV): Measures your autonomic nervous system balance. High HRV indicates good recovery and resilience. Low HRV signals stress, poor recovery, or impending illness. Track HRV trends to know when to push hard and when to recover. Devices like Oura Ring, Whoop, or even Apple Watch provide HRV data.

Sleep cycle tracking: Monitors sleep stages and quality. Helps you optimize bedtime, identify sleep disruptors, and validate whether your sleep interventions actually improve restoration.

Productivity metrics: Time tracking tools (RescueTime, Toggl) show when you’re actually productive vs. when you’re spinning wheels. Correlate this with energy data to validate that your peak energy windows align with peak output.

The goal isn’t obsessive tracking. It’s creating feedback loops that show whether your energy interventions translate to real performance improvements.

Conclusion

If you’re asking yourself “why do I have no energy,” you now know the answer isn’t simple. It’s not just that you need more sleep (though you might). It’s not just stress (though that’s part of it). It’s not weakness or failure on your part.

Your energy depletion is a predictable result of how modern high-performance work intersects with human biology. You’re experiencing some combination of physical fatigue (body-level exhaustion), cognitive fatigue (mental depletion from decisions and focus), and emotional fatigue (psychological drain from managing relationships and stress). Often all three simultaneously.

The gap between how tired you feel and how tired you actually are gets amplified by stress, creating unnecessary suffering and poor decisions. And hidden energy drains—decision fatigue, context switching, invisible load, information overload—constantly deplete your reserves in ways you don’t even see.

But here’s the good news: energy management is a solvable problem with a clear framework.

The COM-B model gives you structure. Build your Capability through sleep architecture optimization, strategic nutrition timing, and cognitive capacity development. Create Opportunity by restructuring your environment—time architecture that respects your chronotype, workspace design that supports sustained energy, and social arrangements that restore rather than drain you. Align your Motivation by connecting energy management to what actually matters to you and tracking progress that proves it works.

You have tools for immediate relief when you need energy now—physiological sigh breathing, strategic movement, sensory resets, cognitive offloading. You have daily restoration practices that rebuild reserves—napping, attention restoration through soft fascination, social energy management, and transition rituals. And you know when your fatigue signals medical or psychological issues that need professional help.

The four-week energy rebuild plan gives you a concrete starting point. Week 1: assess your patterns. Week 2: build physical foundation. Week 3: design your system. Week 4: refine and create sustainability. Advanced strategies take you from functional to exceptional. And when you hit roadblocks—time constraints, interventions that don’t work, guilt about resting, unpredictable schedules—you have protocols to navigate them.

Your Action Steps Right Now:

1. Start with an energy audit. Track your patterns for one week to understand what’s actually depleting you.

2. Choose ONE area to optimize first. Don’t try to fix everything. Pick the intervention with the highest return: protect your sleep, eliminate major decision fatigue sources, or restructure your peak energy windows.

3. Track and adjust based on real data, not generic advice. Your energy patterns are unique to you.

4. Remember: energy management is performance strategy, not weakness. Rest isn’t opposed to achievement; it’s required for sustainable success.

You’re not broken. Your body and brain are responding exactly as they should to the demands you’re placing on them. The fatigue is the signal. This framework is the solution.

The goal isn’t superhuman stamina or working 80-hour weeks indefinitely. It’s strategic energy investment that allows you to show up fully for the work and people that matter—not just this week, but for decades.

Your energy crisis brought you here. The framework in this article gives you a way forward. The only question left is: what will you do with the energy you’re about to reclaim?

The post Why Do I Have No Energy? The Science-Backed Energy Management Framework for Overwhelmed High-Achievers appeared first on LifeHack.

Introduction

You’re deep in thought working on an important presentation when your boss interrupts with an “urgent” request. Twenty minutes later, when you return to your presentation, your mind feels scattered and unfocused. You can’t quite get back into the flow you had before. Sound familiar?

That mental fog isn’t just regular distraction. It’s attention residue, a scientifically-proven phenomenon that’s quietly destroying your productivity every single day. First identified by researcher Sophie Leroy in 2009, attention residue explains why your brain feels so scrambled after task switching, even when you think you’ve “moved on” to the next thing.

Here’s the reality: every time you check your email mid-project, jump on an “urgent” call, or toggle between browser tabs, part of your brain stays stuck on the previous task. Those cognitive remnants pile up throughout your day, costing you up to 40% of your productive time ^[1].

In this article, you’ll discover what attention residue really is, why it happens at the neurological level, and most importantly, seven proven strategies to manage it. By understanding this hidden focus killer, you’ll reclaim your concentration and dramatically improve your productivity without working longer hours.

What Is Attention Residue? The Science Behind Mental Leftovers

Definition and Core Concept

Attention residue is the cognitive remnant that persists when you switch from one task to another. Think of it like mental leftovers, bits of your attention that remain stuck on the previous task even when you’ve physically moved on to something new.

Sophie Leroy’s groundbreaking 2009 research defined it precisely: when you transition between tasks, particularly if the first task is incomplete or unresolved, part of your attention stays behind ^[2]. Your brain essentially keeps a background process running on the old task while trying to focus on the new one.

This isn’t the same as regular distraction or mind-wandering. With distraction, something external pulls your attention away. With attention residue, your own cognitive system creates the interference. The more unfinished or emotionally charged the previous task, the stronger the residue.

It’s related to the Zeigarnik Effect, a psychological phenomenon where your brain remembers incomplete tasks better than completed ones. Your mind keeps these open loops active, consuming mental resources you need for new work.

The Neuroscience Behind It

Your brain isn’t wired for multitasking. What we call multitasking is actually rapid task switching, and each switch comes with a neurological cost.

When you work on a task, your prefrontal cortex creates what neuroscientists call a “mental set,” a collection of task-specific information, rules, and contextual details stored in working memory. Switching tasks requires you to drop one mental set and activate another. This process isn’t instantaneous.

Research shows it takes an average of 9.5 minutes to fully return to productive workflow after switching between digital applications ^[3]. During this recovery period, your cognitive performance is measurably impaired.

Your working memory has limited capacity. When you’re juggling multiple mental sets simultaneously, you overload this system, leading to mental fatigue and reduced performance. The American Psychological Association reports that even brief mental blocks from task switching can cost up to 40% of productive time ^[4].

The cognitive load doesn’t just slow you down. It actually changes how your brain processes information, reducing your ability to think creatively, solve complex problems, and make sound decisions.

Real-World Examples

Attention residue shows up everywhere in modern work life, though we rarely recognize it for what it is.

You’re writing a report when an email notification pops up. You spend two minutes reading and responding to it, then return to your report. But now you’re mentally replaying the email conversation instead of focusing on your writing. That’s attention residue.

You’re in a strategy meeting when you get a Slack message about an urgent client issue. You handle it quickly and tune back into the meeting. Except you’re not really present anymore. Part of your mind is still thinking about that client problem, wondering if you resolved it properly. You miss key points from the discussion and have to ask people to repeat themselves.

You’re studying for an exam with ten browser tabs open. You switch between reading an article, checking Reddit, reviewing notes, and watching a tutorial video. Each tab switch leaves cognitive breadcrumbs scattered across your attention span. After an hour, you realize you’ve absorbed almost nothing.

Or consider this: you finish a difficult phone call with a frustrated stakeholder. You immediately jump into working on a detailed financial model. Your work on the model is sloppy and error-prone because part of your brain is still processing the emotional weight of that conversation.

The common thread? Incomplete mental transitions. Your attention gets fragmented across multiple cognitive threads, and performance suffers across all of them.

The Hidden Costs: How Attention Residue Destroys Your Day

Productivity Impacts

The numbers are staggering. The average digital worker toggles between applications and websites nearly 1,200 times per day, spending roughly 4 hours per week just reorienting after switching apps. That’s 9% of your annual work time lost to mental transition costs.

When you manage five concurrent projects, only 20% of your time goes to actual productive work. The other 80%? Lost to the switching process itself ^[5].

But it’s not just about time. Quality suffers dramatically. Leroy’s research demonstrated that people who switched tasks mid-stream performed significantly worse on subsequent work compared to those who finished their first task before moving on. The work you produce under attention residue contains more errors, lacks depth, and requires more revision cycles.

Decision fatigue compounds the problem. Every task switch requires micro-decisions: Where was I? What was I doing? What do I need to do next? These small cognitive loads accumulate throughout the day, depleting your mental resources for the decisions that actually matter.

Globally, productivity losses from context switching cost an estimated $450 billion per year ^[6]. That’s not just an organizational problem. It’s your career capital evaporating one task switch at a time.

Cognitive Consequences

Attention residue creates a cascade of cognitive impairments that extend far beyond simple distraction.

Your working memory becomes overloaded. Think of it like having too many apps running simultaneously on your phone. Eventually, everything slows down. Your brain experiences the same performance degradation when managing multiple mental sets at once.

Creative thinking shuts down almost completely. Breakthrough insights and novel connections require sustained focus and mental space. When your attention is fragmented, your brain never enters the deeper cognitive states where creativity flourishes. You end up producing derivative, surface-level work instead of innovative solutions.

Problem-solving ability plummets. Complex challenges require you to hold multiple variables in mind simultaneously, test hypotheses, and follow logical chains of reasoning. Attention residue disrupts this process, causing you to lose track of your reasoning, forget key constraints, or overlook critical details.

Memory retention suffers too. Information processed while under attention residue doesn’t encode properly into long-term memory. You might sit through an entire meeting or read a full article and retain almost nothing, because your brain was simultaneously processing residue from previous tasks.

About 45% of workers report that constant task switching makes them less productive, and 43% experience mental fatigue directly attributable to it. That fatigue isn’t just feeling tired. It’s genuine cognitive impairment that accumulates throughout your workday.

Long-Term Effects on Well-being

The damage from chronic attention residue extends well beyond your immediate productivity. Over time, it takes a serious toll on your mental health and quality of life.

Anxiety increases dramatically. When your attention is constantly fragmented, you never have the mental space to truly relax. Your nervous system stays in a heightened state, consuming cortisol and adrenaline. You feel perpetually stressed and overwhelmed, not because your workload is necessarily excessive, but because you’re never fully present in any single task. Your brain never gets the signal that a task is truly complete.

Sleep quality deteriorates. Your mind carries unfinished mental business into bed. Those open loops from attention residue continue running in the background, preventing deep sleep. You wake up feeling unrefreshed, and the cycle continues the next day.

Burnout becomes inevitable. The combination of reduced productivity, increased errors, constant anxiety, and poor sleep creates a perfect storm for burnout. You’re working harder, producing less, and feeling worse about it all. The logical response – “I need to work even harder” – only makes the problem worse.

Relationships suffer too. When you’re mentally fragmented, you bring that fragmentation into your personal life. You’re present with your family or friends, but only partially. The people closest to you sense that you’re distracted, even if you don’t realize it yourself. Over time, chronic attention residue damages the quality of your personal relationships.

The neuroscience is clear: chronic task switching literally changes your brain structure. Studies using fMRI imaging show that people who regularly multitask have less gray matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex, the region responsible for decision-making and emotional control. You’re not just less productive. You’re actually rewiring your brain in ways that reduce your capacity for focus and emotional regulation.

How To Manage and Prevent Attention Residue: 7 Proven Strategies

Strategy 1: The Task Completion Ritual

The first defense against attention residue is to deliberately close mental loops before moving on to your next task. This is where a simple ritual makes an enormous difference.

The ritual doesn’t need to be complicated. It might be as simple as:

– Writing down what you just accomplished
– Noting what the next steps are for the current project
– Saying “task complete” out loud
– Taking three deep breaths
– Standing up and physically moving to a new location

The specific action matters less than the intention. You’re signaling to your brain that the previous task is done. This creates closure. It tells your brain to shut down the mental processes running in the background on that task.

Research on “closure” in psychology shows that explicit completion rituals reduce cognitive interference from previous tasks by up to 25%. Leroy’s own follow-up studies demonstrated that people who used a simple written closing ritual (jotting down remaining tasks and next steps for a project) showed significantly lower attention residue when switching to new tasks.

The ritual essentially provides your brain with permission to stop thinking about the previous task. Without that signal, your subconscious continues trying to resolve it, continuing to consume cognitive resources even as you’ve moved on.

Strategy 2: Single-Tasking Blocks with Transition Time

Instead of jumping directly from one task to another, insert a 5-10 minute transition buffer. This is not a break in the relaxation sense. It’s a cognitive reset.

During this transition time:

– Walk away from your desk
– Don’t check email or messages
– Don’t start thinking about the next task
– Engage in something that occupies your physical attention without demanding cognitive effort

Take a walk, refill your water, stretch, or reorganize your desk. The key is to give your brain a chance to completely disengage from the previous task before diving into the next one.

This simple practice is surprisingly effective because it creates what cognitive scientists call a “context boundary.” Your brain needs a clear demarcation between task blocks. Without it, attention residue from one task bleeds into the next, compounding cognitive load.

Studies on attention switching show that even a 5-minute transition break reduces attention residue by 30-40%. The break doesn’t need to involve relaxation; it just needs to be different from both the task you just finished and the one you’re about to start.

The worst transition? Jumping from one digital task straight to another. Your brain never gets a true reset. The neurotransmitters involved in your previous mental state are still active.

Strategy 3: Task Batching and Time-Blocking

Instead of randomly task switching throughout your day, group similar tasks together in dedicated time blocks.

For example:

– Email block: 10 AM – 10:30 AM
– Deep work: 10:45 AM – 1 PM
– Meetings: 1 PM – 2 PM
– Administrative tasks: 2 PM – 2:45 PM
– Creative work: 3 PM – 5 PM

This approach dramatically reduces attention residue because you’re not switching between fundamentally different cognitive modes. If you do multiple emails in a single block, the context switch is minimal. Your mental set stays largely the same.

You’re also leveraging task batching efficiency gains. Rather than checking email fifteen times per day, you check it twice. That alone reduces switching events from 15 to just 2. The mental savings are enormous.

Time-blocking also creates psychological closure. You know exactly when your email block ends, which signals to your brain that it can fully disengage from email at that point. You’re not sitting at your desk wondering, “Should I check email again?” That uncertainty itself creates cognitive load.

The specific schedule matters less than consistency. Your brain adapts to predictable patterns. After a few days of consistent time-blocks, your brain automatically shifts into the appropriate mental state for each block.

One warning: time-blocking only works if you stick to the boundaries. If you’re in your deep work block and you “quickly check Slack,” you’ve destroyed the benefit. The cognitive switching cost from that brief interruption will persist for several minutes, contaminating your deep work time.

Strategy 4: The Two-Minute Shutdown Ritual

At the end of your workday, spend two minutes on a shutdown ritual. This is different from the task completion ritual. This is your brain’s signal that work is over.

Your shutdown ritual might be:

– Review what you accomplished today
– Make a prioritized list for tomorrow
– Close all browser tabs and applications
– Clear your desk
– Say something like, “Work is done for today”

The ritual itself matters far less than the intention and consistency. You’re creating a clear mental boundary between work and personal time.

This practice is critical because it prevents work-related attention residue from infiltrating your personal time and sleep. If you skip the shutdown ritual, your brain doesn’t receive a signal that work is complete. You carry work-related mental loops into dinner, into conversations with family, and into bed. Your nervous system stays in a work-activation state, preventing deep relaxation and quality sleep.

Research on “attention transitions” shows that people who use a consistent shutdown ritual sleep better, have lower anxiety, and report better work-life balance. The ritual essentially gives your brain permission to shift out of work mode.

The ritual doesn’t need to be long. Two minutes is actually ideal. Long shutdown routines can feel like additional work. The brevity is part of what makes it effective.

Strategy 5: Ruthless Interruption Management

Attention residue doesn’t just come from task switching you choose to do. It comes from interruptions.

An unexpected email notification, a Slack message, a colleague stopping by your desk – these create even stronger attention residue than self-initiated task switches because they’re involuntary. Your brain is yanked away from its current focus.

To manage this:

– Turn off all notifications during deep work blocks
– Set your Slack status to “Do Not Disturb”
– Close your email application
– If you have an office door, close it
– Use “focus mode” or “do not disturb” settings on your computer
– If you work in an open office, use noise-canceling headphones as a visual signal

The goal is to make interruptions physically impossible, not just mentally resistible. If you’re sitting at your desk trying to resist checking Slack, you’ve already lost. Every moment of resistance is cognitive effort. Better to eliminate the possibility entirely.

For your colleagues and team members, set expectations about communication. Let them know:

– When you’re available for synchronous communication
– When you’re doing deep work
– How to reach you for true emergencies
– That non-urgent messages can wait for your communication blocks

This protects you and also respects your team’s time. They don’t have to wonder whether they should interrupt you.

Research on workplace interruptions shows that the average worker is interrupted every 3-5 minutes. Each interruption creates attention residue that persists for 10-25 minutes after the interruption is resolved. Mathematically, that means most knowledge workers spend more time recovering from interruptions than actually working.

Ruthless interruption management is the single biggest leverage point for reducing attention residue in your day.

Strategy 6: Single-Tasking During High-Leverage Work

Some tasks deserve your full, undivided attention. These are usually the highest-leverage activities – the work that creates the most value or moves the needle on what matters.

Identify these tasks and protect them fiercely.

For a writer, it’s writing time. For an executive, it’s strategic thinking time. For a developer, it’s coding time. For a parent, it’s quality time with your kids.

During these blocks:

– Nothing else gets access to your attention
– Physical phone is in another room (not just silenced)
– All digital distractions are eliminated
– You’ve told your team you’re unavailable
– Your door is closed if you have one
– You’ve prepared everything you might need before starting

These blocks are where deep work happens. These are where your brain enters the flow state where your best thinking occurs. Attention residue is death to deep work.

Cal Newport’s research on “deep work” demonstrates that knowledge workers who protect 4+ hours of uninterrupted deep work time per day produce dramatically better quality work in less total time than people who fragment their focus throughout the day.

The counterintuitive reality: protecting deep work time doesn’t make you less available to your team. It makes you more valuable. You produce better work. You solve problems faster. You’re more thoughtful in your interactions. The time you “lose” to deep work blocks is recouped many times over in the quality of what you produce.

Strategy 7: Strategic Use of Attention Residue as an Asset

We’ve discussed attention residue primarily as a liability. But here’s the secret: you can flip the script and use attention residue strategically as a productivity advantage.

When you engage in extended deep work sessions on a single complex project, you build what you might call “productive attention residue.” Your mind becomes so saturated with the problem space that even when you step away briefly, your subconscious continues processing. You’re not fragmenting your attention across multiple priorities. You’re achieving such deep immersion that the residue itself becomes an asset.

The Zeigarnik Effect becomes your ally here. Deliberately leaving a complex problem incomplete before a break can trigger productive rumination. Your mind works on it unconsciously, often delivering breakthrough insights when you return.

Let’s say you’re working on a difficult design problem. You work intensely for two hours, then step away for lunch. During lunch, you’re not actively thinking about the problem. You’re talking with colleagues or reading a book. But your brain is unconsciously processing the design challenge in the background. You return from lunch with three novel solutions you hadn’t considered before.

During these focused periods, even your “breaks” become productive. When you go for a walk or grab lunch, your mind continues processing the project. You return with fresh perspectives and novel solutions because your full cognitive capacity has been oriented toward one challenge.

Cal Newport calls this concept “deep work,” professional activities performed in sustained, distraction-free concentration that push cognitive capabilities to their limits ^[7]. When you achieve this state, attention residue shifts from liability to asset.

The strategic use requires discipline. You must ruthlessly protect these deep work periods from interruption. Every task switch, no matter how brief, fractures the productive residue you’re cultivating. One “quick” email check can destroy hours of accumulated cognitive momentum.

You can also use attention residue strategically for complex, multi-stage processes. If you’re working on a presentation, spend Monday deeply researching, Tuesday outlining, and Wednesday writing. Each day builds on productive residue from the previous session. Your mind stays in “presentation mode” across multiple days, avoiding the cognitive reset that comes from task switching.

Bill Gates exemplifies what productive attention residue looks like at its extreme.

During Microsoft’s early years, Gates was famous for marathon coding sessions. He would stay in the office for days at a time, barely sleeping, completely immersed in the software he was developing. In 2014, he reflected: “20 years ago I would stay in the office for days at a time and not think twice about it” ^[8].

This wasn’t reckless workaholism. It was strategic deployment of sustained attention. By maintaining continuous focus on a single complex problem for extended periods, Gates built such deep immersion that even his sleep cycles contributed to problem-solving. He leveraged attention residue as a tool for breakthrough productivity.

Beyond Attention Residue: The Bigger Picture

Attention residue is one piece of the larger productivity puzzle. But understanding and managing it gives you disproportionate leverage over your time and effectiveness.

The strategies we’ve covered address the symptom (attention residue). But the root cause is usually a mismatch between how you’re working and how your brain actually works.

Your brain evolved for sustained focus on threats and opportunities in your immediate environment. It’s not wired for the constant context switching of modern digital work. It’s not designed to manage eight email accounts, fifteen Slack channels, a calendar filled with back-to-back meetings, and simultaneous work on five different projects.

The companies and individuals who recognize this mismatch and structure their work accordingly gain an enormous competitive advantage. They’re not working harder. They’re working in alignment with their neurobiology.

This is why companies like Google, Meta, and Apple protect deep work time for their engineers. It’s why writers go on retreat to finish books. It’s why great thinkers throughout history have structured their lives to minimize interruptions and maximize sustained focus.

You don’t need to redesign your entire life to benefit from understanding attention residue. Small changes – a shutdown ritual, ruthless interruption management, task batching, protected deep work blocks – compound over months and years.

Start with one strategy. Master it. Then add another. Your future self will thank you for each hour of genuine focus you reclaim from attention residue.

Conclusion

Attention residue is the hidden productivity killer that most people never recognize. Part of your brain stays stuck on your previous task, draining cognitive resources, reducing the quality of your work, and preventing you from entering the flow state where your best thinking happens.

But here’s the good news: you can manage it.

By implementing task completion rituals, protecting deep work time, managing interruptions ruthlessly, and strategically using attention residue as an asset for complex work, you can reclaim up to 40% of your productive time and substantially improve your work quality.

The strategies are simple. The implementation is straightforward. The results are transformative.

Your attention is your most valuable resource. Start protecting it like you mean it.

The post What Is Attention Residue? The Hidden Focus Killer That’s Sabotaging Your Productivity appeared first on LifeHack.

Picture this: You’re on a video call, nodding along while secretly checking emails, mentally calculating if you have enough pasta for dinner, and half-listening to your kids arguing about whose turn it is on the iPad. Sound familiar? You’re not alone and you’re not imagining that life feels more overwhelming than ever. These are classic cognitive overload symptoms that millions experience daily.

Here’s why: Back in 2008, researchers found Americans were already processing 34GB of information daily. Today? We’re swimming in an estimated 75-100GB of data every single day. That’s like downloading your entire brain’s storage capacity, twice. Our digital interactions have exploded from 298 daily touches in 2010 to a mind-boggling 4,909 expected by 2025. We’re consuming 105,000 words daily, roughly 23 words per second during every waking hour.

Your brain wasn’t designed for this. It’s like running fifty browser tabs on a computer built for dial-up internet. The result? Cognitive overload and it’s wreaking havoc on your focus, health, and happiness. In this article, I’ll walk you through the 15 warning signs of cognitive overload your brain is experiencing and share science-backed solutions to reclaim your mental clarity.

What Is Cognitive Overload?

Ever felt like your brain is a browser with 47 tabs open, and they’re all playing videos? That’s cognitive overload in a nutshell. It happens when the information processing demands placed on your brain exceed its limited working memory capacity. Essentially, when you’re trying to juggle more mental balls than your brain can handle.

Here’s the science: Our working memory, managed by the prefrontal cortex, can only hold about 7±2 pieces of information at once. When we exceed this limit, our brain doesn’t just slow down. It starts dropping balls. The stress this creates is what researchers call “extraneous cognitive load,” and it’s become the defining feature of our always-on culture. No wonder “brain rot” was Oxford’s Word of the Year for 2024. Understanding these symptoms of cognitive overload is the first step to recovery, especially when combined with effective time management strategies and mindfulness practices.

Cognitive scientists break this down into three types: Intrinsic load (how hard the task itself is), Extraneous load (unnecessary complexity from poor design or distractions), and Germane load (the good kind of effort that helps you learn). In our technostress-filled world, we’re drowning in extraneous load while starving for germane load. Every notification, every context switch, every “quick check” of social media adds another weight to an already overloaded system.

The 15 Warning Signs of Cognitive Overload

Mental & Cognitive Symptoms

Ever walked into a room and completely forgotten why? When cognitive overload strikes, your brain essentially throws up its hands and says, “I’m done.” These mental cognitive overload symptoms are often the first red flags we notice.

Difficulty concentrating becomes your new normal. Simple tasks feel like climbing Everest. Your mind wanders mid-sentence, and what should take minutes stretches into hours. Research confirms this isn’t just in your head. Studies show high cognitive load significantly delays decision-making ^[1]. Learning how to improve focus and concentration can help combat these symptoms.

Memory turns unreliable, like a phone with a dying battery. Deadlines vanish from your mental calendar. Appointments? What appointments? Your brain, overwhelmed with processing current information, simply can’t encode new memories properly. Both short-term and long-term memory take a hit.

Then comes decision paralysis. Choosing between two lunch options feels monumental. You default to “good enough” choices because your mental energy is depleted. Analysis paralysis sets in. You can see all the options but can’t evaluate them properly.

Mental fog descends like thinking through thick soup. Following conversations becomes exhausting. Simple information that you’d normally process instantly now requires multiple reads. I once spent ten minutes rereading the same email paragraph, understanding less with each attempt.

Finally, your problem-solving skills plummet. Challenges that you’d typically tackle creatively now seem insurmountable. You find yourself relying on familiar patterns, unable to think outside the box. Innovation? That requires mental bandwidth you simply don’t have.

These cognitive overload warning signs compound each other, creating a vicious cycle where decreased cognitive function leads to more stress, which further impairs your mental capabilities. If left unchecked, this can lead to burnout and chronic stress.

Emotional & Behavioral Symptoms

Have you ever felt like your emotions are on a hair trigger, ready to explode at the slightest provocation? When symptoms of cognitive overload set in, they don’t just affect how we think. They fundamentally change how we feel and behave.

The stress response goes into overdrive. Your body pumps out cortisol like it’s preparing for battle, even during routine activities. Heart racing while checking emails? Sweating through a simple phone call? That’s your overloaded system triggering a physiological alarm that won’t shut off.

Irritability becomes your default setting. Remember Sarah, the marketing manager who used to be known for her patience? Now she snaps at colleagues who suggest alternative strategies. When information doesn’t align with her fixed beliefs, frustration boils over. A minor scheduling change sends her into an emotional tailspin that leaves everyone walking on eggshells.

The sense of being overwhelmed creeps in like fog. Too many choices, too many demands, too much everything. You stare at your to-do list, paralyzed, unable to prioritize because your brain can’t shift gears between tasks. Simple decisions feel monumentally exhausting.

Motivation drains away like water through cupped hands. You find yourself going along with others’ plans, not because you agree, but because initiating anything feels impossible. Procrastination becomes a protective shell. If you don’t start, you can’t fail, right?

Social withdrawal completes the cycle. Declining invitations becomes automatic. Netflix and endless scrolling replace human connection. Why venture out when staying in your comfort zone requires zero cognitive flexibility? The couch becomes both refuge and prison, keeping you safe from challenges but isolated from growth.

These emotional cognitive overload symptoms don’t just affect you. They ripple outward, impacting relationships, work performance, and overall life satisfaction.

Physical Symptoms

Let’s talk about something that might surprise you: cognitive overload symptoms don’t just mess with your mind. They literally show up in your body. I learned this the hard way when I started getting mysterious headaches every afternoon, only to realize they coincided perfectly with my marathon work sessions, trying to process endless streams of information.

Digital eye strain hits hard when your brain is overloaded. We’re the ones staring at screens for hours, jumping between documents, emails, and websites. The result? Blurred vision, eyes so dry they feel like sandpaper, and a peculiar sensitivity to light that makes you feel like a vampire emerging from a cave. Those tension headaches that start behind your eyes and wrap around your skull? Classic signs of cognitive overload.

Then there’s the sleep saga. You finally crawl into bed, exhausted, but your brain decides it’s the perfect time to replay every task, email, and decision from the day. Even when you do drift off, it’s that restless, surface-level sleep that leaves you feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck the next morning. Research shows that people experiencing cognitive overload get significantly less REM sleep. The restorative kind your brain desperately needs.

The physical restlessness is real too. That jittery, “wired but tired” feeling where your leg won’t stop bouncing under the desk? Your body is literally vibrating with unspent mental energy. Fine motor tremors in your hands, constant fidgeting, feeling like you need to move but being too exhausted to actually do it.

And don’t get me started on the stomach issues. Cognitive overload turns your digestive system into a rollercoaster. One day you’re too stressed to eat, the next you’re stress-eating everything in sight. Nausea, digestive irregularities, that constant knot in your stomach during high-pressure periods.

Meanwhile, despite all this hyperactivity, you’re perpetually exhausted. Chronic fatigue sets in. It’s like running a marathon while sitting at your desk, leaving you drained by 3 PM despite doing nothing physically demanding. Your body keeps the score of every mental overload, and eventually, it presents the bill. These physical cognitive overload warning signs shouldn’t be ignored.

The Hidden Causes in Modern Life

Ever feel like your brain is a browser with 47 tabs open? You’re not imagining it. Modern life has engineered a perfect storm that triggers cognitive overload symptoms our ancestors couldn’t have dreamed of. While we’ve gained incredible conveniences, we’ve also unknowingly signed up for a 24/7 mental marathon that’s reshaping how our brains function.

Digital Overload: The Invisible Tax on Your Mind

Your phone buzzes. A Slack notification pops up. Three emails arrive simultaneously. Sound familiar? The average knowledge worker switches between apps and websites over 300 times per day. That’s not productivity. It’s mental whiplash. Each ping triggers a micro-decision: respond now, later, or ignore? These constant interruptions create what researchers call “attention residue,” where part of your mind stays stuck on the previous task even after switching.

Take poorly designed apps that bury simple functions under layers of menus. Or platforms that auto-play videos while you’re trying to read an article. These aren’t accidents. They’re features designed to capture and monetize your attention.

Workplace Factors: The New Normal That Isn’t

Remember when “working from home” meant actually working from home? Now it means juggling Zoom, Teams, Slack, email, and project management tools, often simultaneously. Hybrid workers report spending 2.5 hours daily just managing communication tools. Meeting overload has exploded too, with the average employee attending 62% more meetings than pre-2020.

The “always-on” expectation means your boss might message at 9 PM, and you feel obligated to respond. Boundaries? What boundaries?

Information Diet Quality: Junk Food for Your Brain

We’re consuming information like it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet of anxiety. Breaking news alerts interrupt dinner. Twitter debates rage while you’re trying to sleep. LinkedIn makes everyone else’s career look impossibly perfect. This fragmented, low-quality information diet creates chronic FOMO and decision paralysis. You know staying informed matters, but when “staying informed” means drowning in hot takes and doom-scrolling, your brain never gets a chance to properly process anything.

Lifestyle Factors: The Missing Ingredients

When did you last sit quietly without reaching for your phone? Cognitive downtime isn’t laziness. It’s maintenance. Yet we’ve eliminated every pocket of mental rest. Waiting in line? Check Instagram. Commercial break? Quick email scan. Even our “breaks” involve consuming more content.

Poor work-life boundaries mean your living room is your office is your gym is your relaxation space. Everything blurs together until nothing feels truly restful.

The COVID Case Study: When Everything Went Digital

The pandemic forced a massive, unplanned experiment in rapid digitalization. Research from MIT found that when restaurants switched to touchscreen kiosks and QR code menus, cognitive errors increased by 35%, particularly among adults over 50 ^[2]. Simple tasks like ordering coffee became complex digital interactions requiring multiple decisions: download app, create account, navigate menu, customize order, select pickup time.

These systems, designed for efficiency, actually increased mental load. Older adults reported feeling “exhausted from ordinary tasks” as familiar routines suddenly required new digital skills. The study revealed what we’re all experiencing: technology meant to simplify our lives often complicates them instead.

The truth is, these hidden causes compound each other. Digital overload at work leads to poor-quality information consumption during breaks, which prevents cognitive rest, creating a vicious cycle that intensifies symptoms of cognitive overload. Recognizing these patterns is the first step toward reclaiming your mental space.

The Long-Term Health Consequences

Ignoring cognitive overload symptoms isn’t just about having a few bad days. It’s like running your car engine at redline continuously. Eventually, something breaks.

Neurological Impact: Chronic mental overwhelm literally reshapes your brain, and not for the better. Studies show prolonged cognitive overload impairs neuroplasticity, your brain’s ability to form new neural connections. This means reduced learning capacity, weakened memory consolidation, and decreased cognitive flexibility. Think of it as your brain becoming rigid instead of adaptable—a devastating blow to long-term mental performance.

Mental Health: The psychological toll accumulates rapidly. Research indicates that individuals experiencing chronic cognitive overload are 73% more likely to develop anxiety disorders and depression. Burnout rates skyrocket, emotional exhaustion becomes the norm, and many develop learned helplessness—a state where you stop trying because nothing seems to help.

Physical Health: Your body keeps the score. Chronic stress hormone dysregulation leads to a cascade of physical problems: a weakened immune system that leaves you vulnerable to illness, increased risk of metabolic disorders including diabetes, and significant cardiovascular strain. The constant flood of cortisol literally ages your body faster. Understanding stress management techniques becomes crucial for long-term health.

Professional/Personal Impact: The ripple effects touch every life area. Job performance plummets, relationships strain under emotional unavailability, and overall quality of life deteriorates. It’s a slow-motion crisis that compounds daily.

The message is clear: addressing cognitive overload warning signs isn’t optional. It’s essential for your future self.

9 Science-Backed Solutions to Overcome Cognitive Overload

Ready to tackle those cognitive overload symptoms head-on? Here are proven strategies that actually work.

Immediate Relief Strategies

1. Cognitive Offloading

Research from UCLA shows that writing down worries reduces cognitive load by 40%. Start with a daily “brain dump”. Spend 10 minutes transferring every thought onto paper. Use external tools like calendars, task apps, or simple sticky notes to free up mental RAM. This simple act activates your brain’s executive function, allowing clearer thinking.

2. Information Chunking

Our brains process information best in chunks of 7±2 items, according to Miller’s Law. Break complex projects into 5-7 subtasks. When learning, group related concepts together. For example, instead of memorizing 20 random facts, organize them into 4 categories of 5 facts each. Studies show this improves retention by 60%.

3. Single-Tasking Focus

Stanford research reveals multitasking reduces productivity by 25% and increases errors by 50%. Implement time-blocking: dedicate 90-minute chunks to single tasks. Turn off notifications, close unnecessary tabs, and use apps like Freedom or Cold Turkey to block distractions. You’ll complete tasks 40% faster with focused attention.

Long-Term Management Strategies

4. Digital Boundaries

Create device-free zones: no phones during meals or the first hour after waking. Research indicates checking email less frequently (3 times daily versus constantly) reduces stress by 23%. Set specific “communication windows” and stick to them. Your brain needs downtime to process and consolidate information.

5. Mindfulness and Meditation

Just 10 minutes of daily meditation increases focus by 14% and reduces mind-wandering by 22%, per a Harvard study. Start with simple breath awareness: inhale for 4 counts, hold for 4, exhale for 6. Apps like Headspace offer guided sessions specifically for cognitive overload.

6. Optimize Information Architecture

A Princeton study found cluttered environments impair focus and processing capacity. Organize both digital and physical spaces using the “one-touch rule”, handle items once and file them immediately. Create designated spaces for different activities. This environmental clarity translates to mental clarity.

Lifestyle Interventions

7. Prioritization Systems

The Eisenhower Matrix helps identify truly important tasks. Plot activities on urgent/important axes. Focus 80% of energy on important-but-not-urgent tasks (Quadrant 2). Research shows this approach reduces overwhelm by 35% while increasing meaningful progress by 50%.

8. Regular Mental Breaks

The Draugiem Group study found top performers work 52 minutes, then break for 17. At minimum, take 5-10 minute breaks hourly. Follow the 20-20-20 rule: every 20 minutes, look at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. This reduces eye strain and mental fatigue by 40%.

9. Sleep and Recovery

Cognitive function drops 40% with less than 7 hours of sleep. Establish a wind-down routine: dim lights 2 hours before bed, maintain 65-68°F room temperature, and enforce a screen-free hour before sleep. Quality sleep consolidates memories and clears mental debris through the brain’s glymphatic system.

Success Story

Sarah, a marketing executive, felt constantly overwhelmed managing 15 client accounts. After implementing these strategies, particularly time-blocking, the Eisenhower Matrix, and strict 8pm digital boundaries. She reduced her work hours from 60 to 45 weekly while increasing client satisfaction scores by 30%. “I thought I needed more time,” she reflects. “I actually needed better systems.”

Remember: experiencing cognitive overload symptoms isn’t a personal failing. It’s a systemic challenge requiring systematic solutions. Start with one strategy today. Your brain will thank you.

When to Seek Professional Help

While many cognitive overload symptoms can be managed with self-care strategies, it’s important to recognize when professional support might be beneficial. If you’ve been experiencing persistent signs of cognitive overload despite trying various coping techniques, or if your symptoms are significantly interfering with your work performance and personal relationships, it may be time to reach out for help.

Pay particular attention to physical manifestations like chronic headaches, persistent sleep disorders, or digestive issues that don’t respond to typical remedies. Additionally, if you notice signs of depression, such as persistent sadness, loss of interest in activities, or feelings of hopelessness, or anxiety symptoms like constant worry or panic attacks, professional intervention can be invaluable.

Several types of professionals can assist with cognitive overload. Cognitive-behavioral therapists specialize in helping you develop effective stress management techniques and restructure unhelpful thought patterns. Occupational therapists can work with you to create workplace accommodations that reduce cognitive demands. Medical professionals can evaluate whether underlying conditions might be contributing to your symptoms, while executive coaches can help you develop organizational systems tailored to your specific needs. Treatment options range from CBT and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs to neurofeedback therapy and comprehensive medical evaluations.

Conclusion

Cognitive overload has become a modern epidemic, affecting millions of people trying to navigate our information-rich, always-connected world. The 15 cognitive overload warning signs we’ve explored aren’t character flaws or personal failures. They’re your brain’s intelligent signals that it needs relief from an unsustainable pace. From the mental fog that clouds your mornings to the decision fatigue that leaves you paralyzed by simple choices, each of these symptoms of cognitive overload is a message worth heeding.

The encouraging news is that cognitive overload is entirely manageable with the right strategies. You don’t need to implement every technique at once or transform your entire life overnight. Start small. Perhaps choose just one or two strategies that resonate with you. Maybe it’s setting boundaries with technology, practicing a brief daily meditation, or simply giving yourself permission to say “no” more often. Small changes can create ripple effects that significantly improve your mental clarity and overall well-being.

Remember, your brain is remarkably adaptable and resilient. By respecting its capabilities and limitations, you’re not admitting defeat. You’re practicing wisdom. In a world that constantly demands more, choosing to protect your cognitive resources is an act of self-respect and intelligence. Your mind deserves the same care you’d give any valuable tool, and with patience and practice, you can find your way back to mental clarity and peace.

The post Cognitive Overload Symptoms: 15 Warning Signs Your Brain Is Overwhelmed (And How to Fix It) appeared first on LifeHack.

You’ve spent three hours researching the ‘perfect’ project management tool, created spreadsheets comparing 15 different options, and yet… you still haven’t made a decision. Sound familiar? Welcome to the frustrating world of analysis paralysis, where your brain becomes your biggest roadblock.

Here’s what’s maddening: you know exactly what needs to be done. The path forward is clear, the next steps are obvious, but something keeps you stuck in an endless loop of research, comparison, and second-guessing. This knowing-doing gap hits high achievers particularly hard because we’re wired to make informed decisions. We want to be thorough, responsible, strategic. But somewhere along the way, our strength becomes our weakness. According to an IDC study, knowledge workers now spend over 50% of their workweek just processing information rather than taking meaningful action. That’s half your professional life lost to the hamster wheel of analysis.

Look, this isn’t another pep talk filled with “just do it” platitudes. You’re too smart for that, and frankly, if it were that simple, you’d have solved this already. What you’ll find here is different—strategies specifically designed for intelligent, capable professionals who overthink, backed by neuroscience and proven through real-world application. By the end of this article, you’ll have 7 actionable strategies to break free from analysis paralysis and a simple framework you can start using today.

What Analysis Paralysis Really Is (And Why Smart People Suffer Most)

Let’s get one thing straight: analysis paralysis isn’t just “overthinking.” It’s a full-blown cognitive overload pattern that traps your brain in an endless loop of what-ifs and maybes.

Here’s the cruel irony—the smarter you are, the worse it gets. Why? Because intelligence gives you the superpower of seeing multiple angles, spotting potential pitfalls, and imagining countless scenarios. Your brain becomes a master at generating options. Ten ways to approach that project. Twenty potential outcomes. Fifty things that could go wrong. Before you know it, you’re drowning in possibilities, unable to move forward because every path seems equally valid—or equally risky.

Research by Beilock and Carr revealed something fascinating about our working memory: it has hard limits ^[1]. When faced with complex decisions, your brain tries to juggle too many variables at once, like a computer running too many programs. The system crashes.

But here’s where it gets worse. Anxiety enters the chat. When you’re stressed about making the “perfect” decision, your amygdala hijacks your prefrontal cortex—the brain’s CEO. Suddenly, the part of your brain responsible for rational decision-making is offline, leaving you in fight-or-flight mode over choosing a project management tool.

High achievers? You’re especially screwed. Your track record of success has trained you to expect perfection. Every decision feels like it could make or break your reputation.

Let’s talk numbers. Each delayed decision costs you more than time—it costs opportunities. That business idea you’ve been “researching” for six months? Someone else just launched it. The promotion you’re “preparing” for? Your colleague who took imperfect action got it.

But the energy drain might be worse. Decision fatigue isn’t just tired—it’s the mental equivalent of running a marathon while juggling flaming torches. Your brain burns glucose like crazy when stuck in analysis mode, leaving you exhausted without accomplishing anything.

Then there’s the imposter syndrome reinforcement cycle. Every time you delay, that inner critic whispers, “See? A real expert would know what to do immediately.” Your team starts noticing too. They begin routing decisions around you, eroding your leadership credibility one hesitation at a time.

Time for brutal honesty. Answer these five questions:

1. Do you spend more time researching than implementing? (If your browser has 47 tabs open for one decision, that’s a yes.)

2. Have you ever abandoned a decision entirely due to overwhelm? (That domain name you never bought because you couldn’t pick the “perfect” one?)

3. Do you seek input from 5+ people before making decisions? (Polling everyone from your mom to your mailman doesn’t make the choice easier.)

4. Does the fear of making the “wrong” choice keep you up at night? (3 AM anxiety spirals about hypothetical failures count.)

5. Do you have multiple unfinished projects due to perfectionism? (That half-written book, abandoned course, or “almost ready” product launch?)

If you answered yes to three or more, congratulations—you’re officially in the analysis paralysis club. The good news? Recognizing it is the first step to breaking free.

The Root Causes (Why You’re Stuck)

Let’s get real about why you’re stuck. It’s not because you’re lazy or incapable—it’s because your brain is working overtime trying to protect you from… well, everything.

Fear of Failure Disguised as Perfectionism

Here’s the truth: perfectionism is just fear wearing a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase. When you say “I just want to make sure it’s perfect,” what you’re really saying is “I’m terrified of messing this up.”

That “What if I’m wrong?” loop playing in your head? It’s not wisdom—it’s fear on repeat. I once spent three months “perfecting” a business proposal that could have been good enough after two weeks. The client? They just wanted to see something concrete. My perfectionism cost me the deal.

Information Overload in the Digital Age

Remember the famous jam study? When a grocery store offered 24 jam varieties, only 3% of customers bought. When they offered just 6? Sales jumped to 30% ^[2].

Now multiply that by every decision in your life. You’re not choosing between 6 jams—you’re choosing between 147 project management tools, 83 marketing strategies, and infinite “expert” opinions on LinkedIn. No wonder your brain short-circuits.

The Competence Trap

Here’s the paradox: the better you are at analysis, the worse your paralysis gets. If you’re an entrepreneur, executive, or just naturally analytical, you’ve trained yourself to see every angle, every risk, every possibility.

Your strength becomes your kryptonite. You can build a 50-tab spreadsheet comparing options, but can’t pull the trigger on row 1.

Past Experiences Creating Future Hesitation

One “bad” decision can haunt you for years. Maybe you hired the wrong person, chose the wrong vendor, or launched the wrong product. Now every decision feels like it could be “that decision” all over again.

Our brains are wired to remember negative experiences 5x more strongly than positive ones. So that one failure overshadows your 20 successes, creating a decision-making shadow that follows you everywhere.

Strategy #1: The 10-10-10 Rule

Here’s a mind trick that’ll snap you out of overthinking faster than a cold shower. Ask yourself: How will I feel about this decision in 10 minutes? 10 months? 10 years?

That email you’ve rewritten twelve times? In 10 minutes, you’ll feel relief it’s sent. In 10 months, you won’t even remember it. In 10 years? Please.

This framework, popularized by Suzy Welch, works because it forces perspective. Most decisions that paralyze us are embarrassingly insignificant in the grand scheme of life.

The 10-10-10 rule hijacks your brain’s tendency to catastrophize. When you’re stuck in analysis paralysis, your mind treats every decision like it’s life-or-death. This simple question breaks that spell.

It also helps you distinguish between reversible and irreversible decisions. That job offer? Significant in 10 years. Which task management app to use? Not so much. Once you see the difference, the pressure evaporates.

Email response: “Should I push back on this request?” 10 minutes: relieved you stood your ground. 10 months: established better boundaries. 10 years: completely irrelevant.

Project selection: “Should I take on this extra project?” 10 minutes: anxious about workload. 10 months: either great portfolio piece or forgotten. 10 years: only matters if it led to major career shift.

Career decision: “Should I leave for that startup?” 10 minutes: terrified. 10 months: adjusting to new reality. 10 years: grateful you took the risk (or learned from it).

Action Step

Create your personal 10-10-10 template. List your five most common decision types. For each, pre-write how they typically play out across all three timeframes. Next time you’re stuck, pull out your template. Watch how quickly clarity emerges.

Strategy #2: The “Good Enough” Decision Framework

Psychologist Barry Schwartz discovered something counterintuitive: people who seek “good enough” (satisficers) are consistently happier than those who seek “the best” (maximizers). Why? Maximizers exhaust themselves comparing endless options, then second-guess their choices. Satisficers pick the first option that meets their criteria and move on with life.

The 80/20 rule applies beautifully here. An 80% good decision made today beats a 95% perfect decision made next month. That extra 15% rarely justifies the time, energy, and opportunity cost.

Borrow from the startup world: make minimum viable decisions. Just as startups launch imperfect products to learn and iterate, you can make imperfect decisions and refine them based on real feedback.

Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s founder, famously said, “If you’re not embarrassed by your first version, you launched too late.” Same principle applies to decisions. Your first choice doesn’t need to be your final choice.

Sara Blakely started Spanx by cutting the feet off her pantyhose. Not perfect, but good enough to test the concept. Now she’s a billionaire. She didn’t analyze hosiery materials for six months—she acted on “good enough.”

Before you research anything, write down: – Three must-haves (non-negotiable) – Three nice-to-haves (bonus points) – Maximum research time (set a timer)

Once you find the first option meeting all must-haves, stop. Yes, stop. Even if option #47 might be 5% better, it’s not worth the analysis paralysis.

Practical Exercise

Pick one decision you’re currently overthinking. Right now. Apply this framework:

1. List must-haves (maximum 3): What absolutely needs to be true?
2. List nice-to-haves (maximum 3): What would be bonus features?
3. Set 30-minute timer: Research starts now.
4. Choose first option meeting must-haves: No looking back.

The relief you’ll feel isn’t just psychological—it’s your brain thanking you for finally letting it move on to something that actually matters.

Strategy #3: The Two-Option Shortcut

Cognitive load research shows our brains handle binary choices best. When faced with two options, we can hold both in working memory, compare directly, and decide efficiently. Add a third option? Complexity increases exponentially. By option five, your brain essentially gives up.

This isn’t about limiting yourself—it’s about working with your brain’s natural capacity instead of against it. Professional chess players don’t analyze every possible move; they quickly narrow to the two best options and choose between them.

Start with your full list—seven restaurants, five job offers, twelve potential solutions. Now, eliminate ruthlessly using one key criterion. For restaurants: closest location. For jobs: salary. For solutions: implementation speed.

Don’t overthink the elimination criterion. Pick one that matters and cut everything that doesn’t make the top tier. You’re not choosing the final winner yet—just getting to a manageable choice set.

The “gut check” method: When you have two finalists, imagine you’ve already chosen option A. How does your body react? Relief? Disappointment? That physical response tells you more than any spreadsheet.

The coin flip technique isn’t about letting chance decide—it’s about recognizing your preference. When the coin is in the air, you’ll suddenly know which outcome you’re hoping for.

1. List all options: Brain dump everything you’re considering.
2. Pick one elimination criterion: Something measurable and meaningful.
3. Cut to top 3: Be ruthless. No “but what ifs.”
4. Compare top 2 head-to-head: Ignore everything else.
5. Decide within 24 hours: Set a deadline and stick to it.

Case Study

When Satya Nadella became Microsoft’s CEO, he faced five major strategic directions the company could pursue. Instead of analyzing all five equally, he used the two-option shortcut. First, he eliminated options that didn’t align with mobile and cloud (his key criterion). That left two: double down on cloud infrastructure or focus on productivity software.

He compared these two directly: Which played to Microsoft’s strengths? Which had more growth potential? Which would employees rally behind? Within weeks, not months, he chose cloud-first. That “quick” decision transformed Microsoft into a trillion-dollar company.

The lesson? Even billion-dollar decisions benefit from simplification. If it works for Microsoft, it’ll work for your project management tool selection.

Strategy #4: Time Boxing Your Decisions

The Parkinson’s Law Application

Ever notice how a simple lunch choice can somehow stretch into a 30-minute debate? That’s Parkinson’s Law in action—decisions expand to fill whatever time we give them. Just like that college essay you started the night before (and somehow finished), your brain works more efficiently under constraint.

Creating artificial time limits forces your mind to focus on what truly matters. Instead of endlessly weighing pros and cons, you’re pushed to identify the core factors that actually drive your decision.

Here’s your new decision-making speed limit:

• Minor decisions: 5 minutes max – What to wear today – Which coffee shop to visit – What to order for lunch
• Moderate decisions: 1 hour max – Which software tool to use for a project – Whether to attend that networking event – Which gym membership to choose
• Major decisions: 1 week max – Job offer evaluation – Major purchase decisions – Relationship commitments

Set a timer on your phone—seriously, right now. When facing a decision, start that countdown. Use calendar blocking to schedule “decision time” just like you would a meeting. For bigger choices, add decision deadlines to your project management tool. Treat them as seriously as any other deadline.

One CEO I know uses a kitchen timer on her desk. When someone brings her a decision, she sets it for 5 minutes. “If we can’t decide by then,” she says, “we probably need more data or it doesn’t matter enough.”

Repeat after me: “Done is better than perfect.” Your first decision doesn’t have to be your last. Think of decisions as experiments, not life sentences.

Embrace the iteration mindset—make a choice, learn from it, adjust. Give yourself explicit permission to pivot. That restaurant you chose? If it’s terrible, you’ve learned something for next time. That software tool? Most have free trials or refund periods.

The goal isn’t to make perfect decisions; it’s to make decisions that move you forward.

Strategy #5: The Trusted Advisor Limit

You know that friend who asks everyone for relationship advice? By the time they’ve consulted their mom, three best friends, two coworkers, and a random stranger at the coffee shop, they’re more confused than when they started.

Too many cooks don’t just spoil the broth—they turn it into an inedible mess of conflicting flavors. Each person brings their own biases, experiences, and agendas. What starts as seeking wisdom becomes analysis paralysis by committee.

The Rule of Three

Cap your advisors at three people, each serving a different purpose:

1. The Mentor: Someone who’s been where you’re going 2. The Peer: Someone at your level who gets your current reality 3. The Domain Expert: Someone with specific knowledge about your decision area

For a career decision, this might be your former boss (mentor), a colleague in a similar role (peer), and a recruiter in your industry (expert). Notice what’s missing? Your anxious aunt who “just wants what’s best for you.”

Map out your go-to advisors by decision type:

• – Career moves: Industry mentor + trusted colleague + career coach
• – Financial decisions: Financial advisor + financially savvy friend + someone who’s made similar purchases
• – Personal life: Close friend + therapist/counselor + someone who shares your values

Set boundaries on advice-seeking. One conversation per advisor, 30 minutes max. No polling the entire group chat. No asking the same question repeatedly hoping for different answers.

Here’s your copy-paste template: “I’m deciding between [specific option A] and [specific option B]. Based on [your expertise in X/your experience with Y], which would you choose and why? I need to decide by [specific date].”

This framework prevents rambling advice sessions and focuses your advisors on giving actionable input, not philosophical musings about life choices.

Strategy #6: The Pre-Decision Protocol

Think of your brain like a computer—sometimes you need to clear the cache before running a big program. Before tackling any significant decision, spend 5 minutes in meditation, take a walk, or do breathing exercises. You can’t make clear decisions with a cluttered mind.

Next, define the actual problem. “Should I take this job?” isn’t the real question. The real question might be “How do I balance career growth with family time?” or “Is stability or challenge more important to me right now?” Dig deeper.

Set your success criteria upfront. What would a “good” outcome look like in 6 months? In 2 years? If you don’t know what success means, you’ll never know if you’ve achieved it.

Start tracking your decisions like a scientist tracks experiments. Create a simple spreadsheet:

• – Date
• – Decision made
• – Options considered
• – Why you chose what you chose
• – Predicted outcome
• – Actual outcome (fill in later)

After three months, you’ll see patterns. Maybe you consistently overestimate risks. Maybe your gut feelings are actually spot-on. This evidence builds decision-making confidence better than any self-help book.

Develop your own decision-making rubric:

Values Alignment Check: Does this choice reflect who I want to be?

Resource Availability Assessment: Do I have the time, money, and energy this requires?

Opportunity Cost Evaluation: What am I giving up? Is it worth it?

Gut Feeling Validator: On a scale of 1-10, how does this feel? (Below 7? Dig deeper.)

The Pre-Decision Checklist

Before you spiral into analysis mode, run through this list:

□ Is this decision reversible? (Most are!)

□ What’s the real deadline? (Not the fake urgency one)

□ Who else does this affect? (Have I talked to them?)

□ What would I advise a friend? (Remove your emotional attachment)

□ What would happen if I didn’t decide? (Sometimes nothing!)

This checklist alone will eliminate 50% of your analysis paralysis moments.

Strategy #7: The Action Momentum Method

Decision-making is like a muscle—you need to build it gradually. Start your day by making three quick decisions before your brain can object. What to wear (10 seconds). What to eat (20 seconds). What to tackle first (30 seconds).

These micro-decisions create momentum. By 9 AM, you’ve already proven you can decide without the world ending. That confidence carries into bigger choices throughout the day.

Here’s a radical idea: if researching a decision takes longer than actually implementing it, stop researching. This applies to: – Which app to download (just try the top-rated one) – Which book to read next (grab the one calling to you) – Which restaurant to try (pick the closest well-reviewed option)

For reversible decisions, bias toward action. You can always course-correct, but you can’t get back the hours spent researching the “perfect” choice that doesn’t exist.

Design specific responses to paralysis moments. “When I feel paralyzed, I will…”

– Set a 5-minute timer and choose when it rings – Flip a coin and notice my reaction (often reveals your true preference)

– Choose the option that scares me a little (growth lives there)

– Pick the one I’d regret NOT trying

Set up your environment for quick decisions. Keep a “decision coin” on your desk. Create a “quick pick” list of go-to restaurants, activities, and solutions. Remove friction wherever possible.

Morning: Before email hijacks your brain, make 3 quick decisions. Today’s workout. Today’s main priority. Today’s lunch plan. No deliberation allowed.

Afternoon: Make one “good enough” decision about something you’ve been postponing. That software tool you’ve been researching for weeks? Pick one. That course you might take? Enroll or delete the bookmark.

Evening: Spend 5 minutes reflecting on decisions made—not their outcomes. Did you decide quickly? Did the world end? (Spoiler: it didn’t.) Celebrate the act of deciding, not just the results.

Remember: motion beats meditation when you’re stuck in analysis paralysis.

Your Personal Action Plan

Enough theory. Here’s your roadmap out of paralysis prison.

The 7-Day Challenge

Day 1-2: Identify your paralysis triggers Track every decision that takes more than 10 minutes. Note what stopped you.

Day 3-4: Practice the 10-10-10 rule For each stuck decision, ask: How will I feel in 10 minutes, 10 months, 10 years?

Day 5-6: Implement time boxing Set a timer. When it rings, decide. Period.

Day 7: Create your ongoing system Pick your favorite strategies and build them into your routine.

– Choose 2-3 strategies that resonate. Don’t try to use all 10—that’s just more paralysis.

– Create templates and checklists. Decision fatigue is real. Automate what you can.

– Set up accountability. Tell someone your decision deadline. Better yet, bet them $20 you’ll stick to it.

You’re in paralysis territory when: – You’ve been “researching” the same decision for over a week – You’ve asked more than 5 people for their input (and they’re all saying different things) – You have 3+ projects in “almost decided” limbo

Stop reading. Pick ONE decision you’ve been postponing. Use the Two-Option Shortcut: narrow it down to two choices, flip a coin if you must, but decide within the next 24 hours. Your future self will thank you.

Conclusion

Here’s what I want you to remember: Analysis paralysis isn’t about lacking information—it’s about lacking confidence in your ability to handle imperfect outcomes.

You’ve handled imperfect outcomes before. You’re still here, aren’t you?

Old mindset: “I need to make the perfect decision” New mindset: “I need to make a decision and perfect it along the way”

The difference? One keeps you stuck at the starting line. The other gets you in the race.

Listen, you’re more capable than you think. Most decisions are like haircuts—even the bad ones grow out. They’re reversible, adjustable, or at worst, educational.

Action creates clarity that analysis never will. You can’t steer a parked car, no matter how much you study the map.

Ready to break free? Here’s your next move:

1. Choose your top 2 strategies from this article. Not 10. Just 2.

2. Download the Decision-Making Toolkit (it’s free, and it’ll save you hours of overthinking)

3. Share your biggest decision-making win in the comments. Seriously, I read every single one.

Remember: The decision you’re avoiding is probably not as life-changing as you think. But avoiding it? That actually might be.

The post How to Overcome Analysis Paralysis: 7 Proven Strategies to Start Taking Action Today appeared first on LifeHack.

Whenever Vice President Kamala Harris mentions Project 2025 — the Heritage Foundation’s now-toxic blueprint for the next Republican administration — blood starts throbbing in the temples of certain conservative Heritage veterans. Like think tank leaders across the spectrum, the professionals are cringing at the tone-deaf naivete of an organization that touted such a polarizing document as an election-year gospel without realizing it might blow up on their own side.

“We now have a very good example of what not to do,” said Heritage alum Tim Chapman, who leads Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom nonprofit and is a former chief of staff to Heritage founder Ed Feulner.

“I cannot think of a study that has done more damage,” said Ken Weinstein, a one-time former President Donald Trump appointee and former head of the conservative Hudson Institute. “It’s the exact opposite of the Harris approach of don’t say anything about what you’re doing.”

Not long ago, the current Heritage president, Kevin Roberts, was triumphantly promising a “second American revolution” and darkly declaring that it would be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.” Steve Bannon floated him as a possible White House chief of staff.

That was before Project 2025 was turned into a campaign issue by Harris — and disavowed by Trump. Last weekend, the 922-page playbook became quite possibly the first think tank paper in American history to appear in TV spots during NFL games, naturally via a scathing negative ad.

For the Heritage old guard, the bill of complaints against Project 2025 dovetails with broader gripes about Roberts, a culture-war intellectual who has dramatically reoriented the foundation in a populist, pro-Trump direction.

Instead of just sniffing about Roberts’ deviations on trade or foreign affairs, the bitterness these days focuses on a new house style that allegedly enabled the current embarrassment: an elevation of marketing over research; a chest-thumping tendency to assert dominance within the Trump-era right; an inability to distinguish partisan agitation from policy advocacy because “engagement on X, positive feedback from Slack channels or mentions in their news feeds” have become paramount, in the words of one conservative activist who watched Project 2025 take shape.

In this telling, the sequence of events that turned a white paper into a scarlet letter has little to do with the document’s contents. Think tanks across the spectrum propose stuff all the time that a crafty oppo researcher could use to rile up voters. Yet those other organizations somehow manage to avoid becoming millstones around the necks of their favorite pols.

To critics in the old Heritage diaspora, it’s all a byproduct of how the foundation operates under Roberts: While other policy outfits claim to be devoted to an abstract idea, Heritage has increasingly tied its image to a specific person. Roberts told an interviewer earlier this year that the mission was “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Heritage fundraising bragged about the large percentage of the think tank’s previous ideas that were implemented by Trump. Roberts also claimed Project 2025 spoke for the movement, boasting that “never before has the American conservative movement been this unified around a set of possible policy prescriptions.”

This vibe added up to a problem because no politician, especially Trump, enjoys being talked about like a trained monkey for some policy group, no matter how fervent its support.

“For six months before this came out, I knew more than several people who were nervous about the press that was out there,” one former Heritage staffer said, referencing Trump world’s anxieties about Project 2025’s media image. “They were like, ‘They’re not listening to the signals’” telling its sponsors to quit claiming to call the shots. “It’s in their DNA, a real desire to prove you’re at the center of things.”

Anyone who needs to raise money for a think tank, of course, knows that telling people you’re at the center of things is how you get folks to write checks. And it’s particularly important at Heritage, which is proud of not being funded by big corporate donors. When you solicit from the grassroots, you need to keep them excited — by, say, having a leader who makes ferocious statements about impending revolutions, or by larding your policy book with red-meat items that inflame the other side.

For the broader public, meanwhile, those very same imperatives helped turn Project 2025 into a big, fat “kick me” sign.

There was also the matter of timing. Notably, the hugely influential original version of Heritage’s quadrennial Mandate for Leadership, which laid out ideas for Ronald Reagan’s presidency and served as a model for Project 2025’s book of the same name, was published in January 1981 — after Reagan had won the 1980 election but before he’d taken over. That’s a logical timetable if you want to sway policy, but not if you’re trying to swagger around and play election-year kingmaker.

“Putting it out there as they did, as early as they did, is what allowed oppo researchers to create a brand around it as you saw in the DNC,” according to a former Heritage employee.

This is especially true in a year when neither campaign has offered a lot of detail. “It’s not been a policy heavy campaign cycle, to say the least,” said Abigail Ball, the executive director of American Compass, an economic policy organization associated with the populist right. “So I think that the Project 2025 thing filled that hole. Given the fact that there wasn’t a ton else to focus on, this was the thing to pin to the campaign. I don’t blame anyone — it’s just a strange quirk of history.”

A Heritage spokesperson told me that the notoriety around Project 2025 is the work of Democratic strategists.

“It doesn’t have anything to do with Heritage and has everything to do with the Democrats and the left creating a bogeyman,” the spokesperson said. “They came up with a plan to lie about the project and say we call for a nationwide abortion ban or ending birthright citizenship, and then they went on to lie and say Trump’s behind it.”

As for the timing, Heritage says they released the blueprint early in order to shape the Republican primary campaign at a time when Trump’s renomination was not at all obvious.

Feulner, who founded Heritage in 1973, didn’t speak with me and hasn’t joined in any dissing of his successors. But his contribution to the public debate this summer was telling: In July, he and Pence co-wrote a Washington Post essay about the importance of defending Taiwan, saying that “we cannot give in to the isolationists.” Opposing China may be a widely shared cause, including within Heritage, but the subtext — an old-fashioned call for American global steadfastness — made for quite the contrast to the Trumpy rhetoric of the current Heritage leadership.

In a way, Heritage has already lost, at least in terms of the one currency Beltway policy shops most crave: influence.

When Trump rolled out his transition team soon after the scary Project 2025 headlines, Roberts and crew were not front and center. So much for Bannon’s chief of staff speculation: The effort will instead be led by Linda McMahon, board chair at the rival America First Policy Institute. Founded by Trump administration veterans, the organization is just as odious to lefties as Heritage — but considerably less of a campaign-season refrain. My colleagues Hailey Fuchs and Meridith McGraw reported last month that America First Policy Institute’s CEO, Brooke Rollins, is working closely on transition plans.

“If you compare and contrast the Project 2025 stuff with what the AFPI has done, you haven’t seen the same level of rhetoric being used against AFPI and Brooke Rollins,” said Avik Roy, the president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity think tank and a longtime conservative policy wonk from the non-MAGA right. “Brooke Rollins had much more of a heads-down approach where they didn’t make those kinds of boasts and where they didn’t seek publicity.”

Like denizens of policy organizations right, left and center, Roy was bemused by the irony of the fracas: For any think tank chief, the idea of publishing a paper that three-quarters of likely voters have heard of would seem like a dream come true, not a PR disaster.

“AEI published one for 2020,” said Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to his own think tank’s guide for whoever won that year’s election. A bulwark of non-Trumpy conservatism, the organization was unlikely to emerge as the agenda-setter for either of the candidates. And, in fact, it didn’t: “I don’t think you noticed it,” Levin joked.

But now that one wonky what-to-do compendium has become a campaign-season bludgeon, is he worried that some other think tank might be next? Not so much. “We were trying to persuade the candidates. We weren’t speaking for them,” Levin said. Heritage “always ran this risk, and they were warned of it, of seeming to lead him.”

Indeed, in conversations with think tank graybeards, one theme that emerged across the spectrum was a kind of professional amazement that any serious policy organization could put itself in a position of becoming the story.

“It’s not just that they were thumping their chest, but they were sticking out their chins,” said Patrick Gaspard, who runs the liberal Center for American Progress, an organization that was famously close to the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns — but never a household name that could be bogeymanned to a mass audience.

Gaspard told me he’s not worried about some future CAP project earning similar headlines. “None of us are calling for a second American Revolution at the point of violence,” he said. “We are working squarely in the space of crafting policy proposals, crafting theories of the case for how those policies can be communicated and might be able to take root. … That’s how the vast majority of think tanks work, on both the left and the right. And once upon a time, it’s how the Heritage Foundation used to work.”

In fact, the confounding thing about Project 2025 is that it actually is full of policy ideas about even obscure corners of the federal government. Some of them are shockingly radical, like the idea of replacing thousands of professional public servants with political loyalists, but many of them are familiar conservative boilerplate.

The problem is, the wonkery coexists with an organizational public image — complete with an aggressive stream of not-very-scholarly political-attack tweets and sketchy operative-style output like misleading election-fraud videos — that creates a dynamic more like a GOP political campaign than a conservative policy shop. Throw in the embrace of Trump and it helps create a situation where the candidate gets asked to answer for Heritage’s work.

“The best thing for us to do as conservative policy advocates is to discuss policies, build support and not get involved with any campaigns,” said Chapman.

In the long run, that’s probably good for the campaigns as well as the think tanks.

Mario Cuomo famously said that you campaign in poetry but govern in prose. But the upshot of Project 2025 was that it managed to tie Trump to 922 pages of often radioactive prose right when the moment called for something lyrical.

“It was like a think tank equivalent of a neutron bomb,” one longtime conservative policy intellectual told me. “It left the campaign standing but it did a huge amount of damage.”

For a moment, it seemed like Donald Trump was using his Tucson, Arizona, rally to return to his typical immigration programming after a shaky debate performance. Then he went there — again.

Trump repeated the baseless claim that Haitian migrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio — remarks that became the stuff of endless social media memes soon after his debate.

“A recording of 911 calls show that residents are reporting that the migrants are walking off with the town’s geese. They’re taking the geese. You know where the geese are? In the park, in the lake. And even walking off with their pets. ‘My dog’s been taken. My dog’s been stolen," Trump said Thursday night in Arizona.

The former president spent much of his campaign stop in the border state warning about an influx of migrants and the threats he says immigration poses to the country. He said he won in 2016 because of his message about the border — and that he knows it’s one of his top issues this year. He encouraged GOP candidates running in Arizona to talk about little else besides the border.

But after two days of unflattering headlines and Republicans squabbling over him pushing an anti-immigrant conspiracy theory, Trump once again couldn’t resist veering off into the outrageous.

Thursday marked Trump’s first rally since his Tuesday debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, during which he strayed from his usual talking points on an issue that has long been seen as a political sweet spot for the Republican, made all the more relevant by voters’ heightened concerns around border security. But instead of capturing headlines for his dominance on one of his more politically favorable subjects, the former president again elevated the false claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio.

And instead of reversing course, Trump is further attaching himself to the pet hoax. On Thursday, he posted five digitally doctored photos on Truth Social depicting cats supporting or being rescued by Trump — including a cat at a Trump rally holding a sign that read “Kamala hates me.”

Now, some Republicans say Trump’s embrace of a social media conspiracy about migrants is an example of how he could aid Harris on one of her greatest political vulnerabilities, while potentially turning off undecided voters he could capture with a consistent, steady message on immigration and crime. Prior to his pushing of the pet-eating hoax, Trump had begun to regularly mention the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter as he discussed immigration at his rallies.

Trump, said Barrett Marson, a Republican strategist in Arizona, “has an uncanny ability to take a popular issue that he can really score points on, and turn it into wild conspiracy theories that make voters scratch their head.”

“He just can’t help himself by veering into conspiracy theory territory,” Marson said, “when he actually has some really good examples that could scare people and make people question Harris’ commitment to a secure border.”

For some Democrats, Trump’s fixation on pets in Ohio this week has come as a relief. First, it allowed Harris to walk away mostly unscathed from Tuesday’s debate on an issue that has long vexed the Biden administration — and a topic Harris prepared for heavily during debate prep. Instead, she was able to hit Trump for his role in killing the bipartisan border deal, while mostly avoiding having to play defense on immigration. On Thursday, he raised it again, even as he appeared in a battleground border state.

“He just became so discombobulated from the get go that it wasn’t the challenge that I think we were all expecting it was going to be,” said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, speaking of the debate.

And “instead of being concise and direct on his strongest issue,” said Mike Madrid, a political consultant with expertise on Latino voting trends, who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, Trump is muddling the issue by “playing into this delusional area of a policy that he actually has a decided advantage on.”

In an acknowledgment of how challenging the issue remains for Democrats, Harris has been more aggressive on the border since the launch of her campaign, highlighting Trump’s role in the collapse of the border security bill, while also attacking some of the more controversial policies he supported as president, including family separation. It’s part of her team’s effort to lure in undecided voters worried about the border and eager for policy solutions, even as voters trust Trump more to handle immigration.

“[Undecided voters] see one candidate in Harris who is talking about bipartisan solutions, and they see another candidate in Trump who is just rambling about racist, unproven conspiracy theories. That doesn’t look very presidential to an undecided voter,” said Matt Barreto, president of BSP Research, which conducts Latino polling for the Harris campaign.

Still, Harris did not discuss immigration on Thursday as she kicked off her post-debate swing with two rallies in North Carolina. Instead, she dinged the former president on the economy, abortion and Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s controversial blueprint for the next Republican administration that Trump has sought to distance himself from. She said the candidates “owe it to the voters to have another debate,” as her opponent declared there won’t be another face-off.

In the months since President Joe Biden’s clampdown on asylum, border crossing numbers are now lower than during Trump’s last month in office. This hasn’t fully broken through to voters, said Celinda Lake, who did polling for the Biden campaign. But it does help Democrats, she said, that the news isn’t filled with footage of an overwhelmed southern border, and that Republican governors aren’t busing migrants to Democrat-led cities. Instead, Trump is focusing the public on conspiracy theories.

While conservative media figures and some Republican elected officials have pushed blatant misinformation about Haitian migrants in Springfield stealing and eating local residents’ household pets, the city is, in many ways, facing a strain on resources due to an influx of immigrants.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine this week deployed state troopers to the city, where he said there has been a surge of traffic problems and “dangerous driving in Springfield by inexperienced Haitian drivers.” DeWine is also allocating $2.5 million in state funds to boost healthcare services in the city, while saying the “federal government has not demonstrated that they have any kind of plan to deal with the issue.” Local officials have welcomed the migrants, saying they are helping to revitalize the economy of what had been a shrinking city, while asking for help to pay for the strain on schools and other resources.

“There’s a place called Springfield, Ohio you’ve been reading about,” Trump said at his rally Thursday. “Twenty thousand illegal Haitian immigrants have descended upon the town of 58,000 people, destroying their entire way of life. This was a beautiful community, and now it’s horrible what’s happening.”

DeWine and local officials in Springfield have said there is no evidence, however, of Haitian migrants there eating dogs or cats — allegations that may have been conflated with the arrest of an Ohio-born woman in Canton after allegedly eating a cat, or a photo taken of an unidentified man in Columbus carrying a dead goose.

Instead of shouting about Haitians eating pets, Marson said Trump should stick to talking about things like the high-profile killings of innocent people by migrants in the country illegally — victims like Lakin Riley of Georgia and Rachel Morin of Maryland, whom Trump has repeatedly discussed.

“Besides there not being any evidence of this,” Marson said of the pet-eating claim, “it’s just weird and crazy to discuss. The normal people don’t want to talk about this.”

Some Republicans have continued to defend Trump and his running mate’s discussion of debunked claims, arguing that the actual details matter less than the overarching themes — including that some American cities are facing strain from illegal immigration.

“In broad terms, if you are talking about the immigration situation, if that is what people are talking about, then you are winning,” said Gregg Keller, a Republican strategist and former executive director of the American Conservative Union, speculating that some viewers at home Googled the city name when Trump mentioned there was a problem.

“There are now millions of Americans who are learning for the first time what’s going on in Springfield, Ohio,” Keller said.

Donald Trump will not debate Kamala Harris again, the former president said Thursday.

“THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!,” Trump wrote in all caps on Truth Social, referencing the first as his June debate with President Joe Biden and the second as his debate with Harris on Tuesday.

Harris’ campaign, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, had challenged Trump to an additional debate immediately following their showdown earlier this week, and Fox News offered to host it.

“We owe it to the voters to have another debate,” Harris said Thursday at a rally in North Carolina minutes after Trump’s announcement.

But Trump on Wednesday told “Fox & Friends” he “probably” would not agree to another debate with the network and on Thursday confirmed he would not debate the vice president again at all, citing what he characterized as a decisive victory in a contest widely viewed as having gone favorably for Harris.

“When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH,”” Trump wrote Thursday.

Both campaigns claimed they won Tuesday’s face off, during which Harris largely managed to sidestep questions about the Biden administration’s records and her own past positions by getting under Trump’s skin, spurring the former president to go on meandering rants about crowd sizes and unsubstantiated claims that Haitian migrants in Ohio are eating people’s pets.

Immediately following the debate, Trump told reporters in the spin room “this was my best debate.” But he has bashed ABC News for what he called “a rigged deal,” citing a handful of times moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-checked him live. But even some Republicans acknowledged that Trump’s performance had been lackluster, with Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) calling it “a missed opportunity” and some GOP strategists telling POLITICO they were not impressed.

Asked Wednesday on “Fox & Friends” about Fox’s offer of a debate moderated by Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier, he derided those anchors and offered Fox opinion pundits Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham instead.

Trump’s team was uncertain about whether or not the former president would be willing to commit to another debate.

On Wednesday morning, Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump who helped with negotiations for the ABC News debate, told CNN the Trump campaign had already committed to a debate with NBC on September 25.

And later that day, Lara Trump, the RNC co-chair, said her father in law would be open to another.

“I think he’s very open, I think the American people deserve to see these two people and hear their ideas,” she told Fox News.

Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio, released a memo after the debate claiming the former president actually received a boost after his debate performance, which was widely panned by Republicans as a missed opportunity.

“We found that despite the best efforts of Kamala Harris and media to portray the debate as some kind of overwhelming win for her, voters did not see it this way as support for her remained flat,” Fabrizio wrote in a “confidential memorandum” that was sent to reporters. “The only change we saw was a 2-point bump for President Trump in both ballot configurations.”

Harris’ campaign on Wednesday posted to X a full recording of the debate, calling it “our newest ad.”

JD Vance’s political career has been defined by an apparent paradox. On the one hand, Vance is a member of the upper echelon of America’s ruling elite — a graduate of Yale Law School, a New York Times best-selling author, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and a United States senator. On the other hand, he has become a vociferous conservative critic of that same elite on behalf of disaffected Middle Americans, a role he can claim by virtue of his upbringing in post-industrial Ohio and his family’s roots in eastern Appalachia. At various points throughout his career, Vance has acknowledged this tension — without really trying to resolve it.

“It’s the great privilege of my life that I’m deep enough into the American elite that I can indulge a little anti-elitism,” Vance said in one of his first major interviews in 2016, on the heels of the publication on Hillbilly Elegy.

Now that Vance is accompanying Trump on the top of the Republican ticket, this paradox has opened Republicans up to fresh criticisms. How populist can Vance really be while cozying up to billionaires in Silicon Valley? What does a Yale-educated attorney and ex-venture capitalist understand about the lives of Trump’s blue-collar voters? Is a guy who owns not one but two million-dollar houses a credible mouthpiece for the GOP’s fledgling economic populism?

But the deeper I’ve dug into the conservative world Vance comes from — often referred to as the “New Right” — the more I’ve come to see Vance’s split identity as a feature rather than a bug for his ideological supporters.

In fact, Vance embodies an archetype that has been theorized about at length in New Right-adjacent books and podcasts (many of which Vance has read and listened to). By forging an alliance between the elite “New Right” and the MAGA masses, Vance, according to this reading, could serve as the leader of a new movement to institute an illiberal and explicitly reactionary political order. Though adopting the rhetoric of conservatism populism, this new order would be a fundamentally elitist one: It would expel America’s current ruling elite in order to replace it with a new, more conservative one, drawn from the ranks of the New Right.

The details of this plan differ between the various writers and thinkers that have influenced Vance — people like the Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen, the internet philosopher Curtis Yarvin and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. But taken together, their prescriptions amount to a kind of three-step plan for the New Right’s project: Identify a member of the New Right elite who can tap into the energies of an ascendant right-wing populist movement, ride those energies to political power, and then carry out a top-down transformation of American society along illiberal lines. It is, in effect, a plan to accomplish through elite rule what even the MAGA movement has failed to accomplish through democratic control: The creation of a social order built around conservative values, even if those values remain broadly unpopular with the American people.

In fact, Vance has articulated his own political strategy in terms that closely echo those found in the pages of the New Right thinkers who have influenced him.

“One of the ways in which I’m very much populist is that I think people need to have elected representatives [who] try to channel their frustrations into solutions that will make their lives better,” Vance told me when I interviewed him in his Senate office in December 2023. “One of the ways I’m very much not a populist is that I think every populist movement that has ever existed has failed unless it’s captured some subset of the people who are professionally in government.”

He added: “You can’t just run a political movement purely with voters — you need voters, you need bureaucrats, you need lawyers, you need business leaders, you need the whole thing.”

As Vance hits the campaign trail, parsing this blueprint is essential for understanding his political trajectory — and what underlies his support for Trump. Given his past criticisms of Trump, Vance’s new-found affection for Trumpism and the MAGA movement has been chalked up to a “moral collapse” or rank opportunism. But read against the ideas found in the writings of the conservative intellectuals close to Vance, it begins to appear like something else: the first step in a much broader plan.

On a summer evening in 2023, Vance strode into a marble-lined ballroom at the Catholic University of America, where a crowd of 250 had gathered for the launch of a new book by the Catholic philosopher Patrick Deneen, a political theorist at the University of Notre Dame, hosted by the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Vance, then just a few months into his first term as a United States senator, made a beeline for Deneen and wrapped him in a big hug, both men smiling as they greeted each other like old friends.

That hug served as a vivid metaphor for Vance and the New Right’s embrace of Deneen’s work as a kind of intellectual roadmap for their emerging political movement — a process that Deneen spoke to me about at length for a POLITICO Magazine profile in 2023.

In his breakout book Why Liberalism Failed, published in 2018, Deneen argued that small-L liberalism is inevitably self-destructive; that a political system predicated on the expansion of individual rights and autonomy will eventually undermine the collective institutions — like family, organized religion and local communities — that make political life possible in the first place.

In his next book, Regime Change, Deneen doesn’t embrace the term “illiberal” but lays out a vision of an ideal “postliberal order” that would jettison liberalism’s protection of individual rights in favor of a social order that promotes “the common good” — a purportedly objective set of social conditions, borrowed from Catholic social teaching, that “undergird human flourishing.” According to Deneen, liberalism’s phony commitment to egalitarianism currently provides cover for a corrupt (and left-leaning) elite to pursue its own interests at the expense of the interests of the downtrodden (and right-leaning) masses. In Deneen’s postliberal order, by contrast, a new ruling elite would foster collaboration between “the few” and “the many” in pursuit of the common good. This new order would look the same and be governed by the same institutions as the current one, but it would be infused by a “fundamentally different ethos.”

In practice, Deneen’s policy prescriptions for fostering the common good would be even more far-reaching than Trump’s: sweeping protectionist trade measures to promote domestic industries; aggressive trust-busting of corporate monopolies; a robust “pro-family” welfare policy to promote the formation of traditional families; strict limits on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

The crux of Deneen’s book is his plan for the transition from the liberal order to the postliberal order. This “peaceful” transition, Deneen argued, would not happen on its own. It would require the creation of “a new elite” — a “self-conscious aristoi” (or aristocracy) who could enter the halls of government, academia and the media, take them over and repurpose them toward conservative and illiberal ends. While drawn from the upper echelons of society, this new elite would effectively act as class traitors: Having replaced the old, corrupt liberal elite, they would ally with and rule in the interests of the “many,” using their power to foster conservative values like “stability, order [and] continuity.” Deneen calls this political arrangement “aristopopulism” — an alliance between a “genuinely noble elite” (the “aristoi”) and the populist masses, working together to replace secular liberalism with a postliberal system grounded in a “forthright acknowledgment and renewal of the Christian roots of our civilization.”

Vance — whose background and biography make him a living embodiment of Deneen’s “aristopopulist” vision — has not hid his interest in Deneen’s ideas. During a panel discussion at the launch event for Deneen’s book, Vance — appearing alongside Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts — identified himself as a member of the “postliberal right,” adding that he “sees[s] his role and his voice” in Congress as “explicitly anti-regime.”

In response to a question from the moderator about how he balances the interests of “the few” and “the many” in practice, he answered like a card-carrying member of Deneen’s new elite: “Things in American society are so tilted toward the ‘few’ that I just focus on the ‘many,’” he said, “and let the rest of it figure itself out.”

Curtis Yarvin’s ideas do not garner formal discussions in the marble-lined halls of America’s universities, but they are no less influential in the intellectual ecosystem that has shaped Vance’s worldview.

Yarvin rose to prominence on the online right in the early 2000s as the leading voice of the “neo-reactionary” movement — or what came to be called “NRx” — while blogging under the pseudonym “Mencius Moldbug.” The premise of the movement, which Yarvin unspooled in his signature meandering and irony-laden prose style, was that “democracy is bunk” — both as a philosophical system and as a principle for organizing modern society.

According to Yarvin, America in the 21st century is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense. Instead, it has degenerated into a corrupt oligarchy run by an interconnected network of academics, media elites and government bureaucrats that Yarvin calls “the Cathedral.” Although most Americans have carried on believing the elections and the popular will continue to be the source of political power and legitimacy, Yarvin argues that the real decision-making in America — including the critical power to determine what is true and what is false — rests with the Cathedral, regardless of who occupies the White House or which party holds a majority in Congress. (At the National Conservatism Conference in 2022, Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities are the Enemy” that was effectively a layman’s explanation of “the Cathedral.”)

To a point, Yarvin’s critique of this system can sound like a more traditional libertarian or conservative critique of the “administrative state” or “the deep state” — the notion that a set of unelected bureaucrats have usurped power from the sovereign American people. But unlike traditional conservatives, Yarvin does not advocate for a return to small or limited government. Instead, he argues that America needs a “national CEO, [or] what’s called ‘a dictator’,’’ who could implement a type of centralized American monarchy, run on the model of a Silicon Valley tech start-up. (Yarvin’s model for this style of leadership is, half ironically, FDR, whose presidency he as described as “a personal executive monarchy.”) Yarvin has laid out an extensive (though not always clear) playbook explaining how a democratically elected president could claim monarchical power — a process that would involve a smartphone app to organize voting, reinforced by police forces in red armbands.

Here and elsewhere, Yarvin’s plans diverge sharply from Deneen’s — and neither Deneen nor Vance have endorsed the explicitly monarchic parts of Yarvin’s vision. But they share one essential element: Like Deneen and Vance, Yarvin believes that the transition away from progressive liberal democracy will be led by a self-conscious cadre of conservative elites who gain power through an alliance with the popular masses — yielding, in Yarvin’s vision, to the rule of a single “national CEO.”

Yarvin’s description of this dynamic is much stranger than Deneen’s. Borrowing from the universe of JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, Yarvin describes American society as divided into several classes: “Elves,” (the highly educated ruling class); “hobbits,” (the average middle-class red-state American) and “dwarves, orcs and zombies” (the working- and lower-classes). These groupings, Yarvin has written, describe different roles in society, not races or fixed classes: The elves are the people who run the powerful institutions of politics and culture, while the hobbits just “want to grill and raise kids.” (“These roles tend to be hereditary, but do not need to be,” Yarvin has written.)

The elves are almost uniformly liberal, but Yarvin believes that mixed in among the elves are “dark elves” — reactionary elites like Yarvin who oppose “the regime,” sympathize with the plight of the hobbits and understand democracy for what it really is: a cover for a corrupt oligarchy. The only way to realize a “pro-hobbit” regime, Yarvin argues, is for hobbits to form an alliance with the dark elves to defeat the normal elves, and then to allow the dark elves — and eventually a single dark elf — to rule on their behalf.

This is, in effect, a more extreme description of Deneen’s “aristopopulism” in dorkier terms. On a popular conservative podcast in 2021, Vance cited Yarvin — whom he has called “a friend” — in support of his view that a second-term Trump should “fire every mid-level level bureaucrat and every civil servant in the administrative state and replace them with our people,” thereby allowing conservatives to “seize the administrative state for our own purposes.” (Yarvin has recently distanced himself from Vance, calling him “a random normie [politician] whom I’ve barely even met.”)

Vance’s citation of Yarvin has attracted much attention since he landed on the top of the Republican ticket — especially Vance’s suggestion that Trump should ignore the Supreme Court if they step in to block the mass firings. But the public scrutiny has overlooked one critical part of Vance’s plan. When Vance is talking about installing “our people” in the government, it’s fair to assume that he’s not talking about enlisting the hobbits. He’s talking about promoting the dark elves.

All of these threads come together in the thinking of Vance’s primary political patron and close personal friend Peter Thiel.

Thiel and Vance met in 2011 after Vance attended a talk by Thiel at Yale Law School — an encounter that Vance later called “the most important moment of my time at Yale.” Vance later went to work for Thiel’s venture capital firm, Mithril Capital — the VC company is, fittingly, named after Lord of the Rings — and later founded his own fund with Thiel’s backing. Along the way, though, Thiel became a sort of tutor to Vance, introducing Vance to the intellectual influences shaping the politics of Silicon Valley’s right-leaning cohort.

One of those influences was the Austrian libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises and two of his American disciples, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. That trio formed the core of a group of thinkers known as the “paleolibertarians”: For von Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe, real political freedom required shrinking — and eventually abolishing — the centralized state, making way for an “anarcho-capitalist” system governed exclusively by markets and the forces of social competition.

Even as libertarians gained political momentum and support throughout the 1970s, the paleolibertarians remained relatively marginal on the right, and their followers knew that the program wasn’t popular enough to gain widespread support. By the 1990s, Rothbard in particular had given up on building a broad-based electoral movement based purely on libertarian principles. Instead, he began calling for libertarians to devote their energy to a new style of “right-wing populism,” based on an alliance between libertarian intellectual elites and the middle- and lower-class masses who felt oppressed and disillusioned by contemporary American life. “This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-molders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites,” Rothbard wrote in a 1992 essay titled “Right-Wing Populism,” which the writer John Ganz has called “the Ur-Text of Trumpism.”

Over time, this coalition would consolidate behind “inspiring and charismatic political leadership … who will be knowledgeable, courageous, dynamic, exciting and effective in mobilizing and building a movement,” Rothbard wrote. (The rabid anti-communist Joseph McCarthy offered one historical example of what this leadership might look like, Rothbard argued — but looking to the future, he pinned his hopes on Pat Buchanan.) Once this movement had concentrated power under its charismatic leader, it could seize political control from “the unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites,” dismantle the American state and usher in a new hyper-libertarian order.

Under this new order, Rothbard presumed, a natural elite — the people who could win out in a world of unfettered competition — would inevitably rise to the top.

Although the paleolibertarians’ goal was in theory the opposite of a strong centralized state or reactionary monarchy, it nevertheless proved attractive to thinkers with authoritarian inclinations, in part because it espoused a frank skepticism of liberal democracy. For the paleolibertarians, democracy existed to protect markets, and once it had ceased to do that, it became expendable. (Yarvin, for instance, has cited Rothbard and Hoppe as major influences, as have key figures on the alt-right.) This view had a decisive influence to Thiel, who has spoken at an organization founded by Hoppe, and who infamously declared in 2009 that he “no longer believe[d] that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

On the surface, Deneen, Yarvin and Thiel want different things — a postliberal order grounded in Catholic social teaching; a monarchy styled after a tech startup; a stateless techno-libertarian paradise in which the only rights are property rights. But they are united both by their opposition to liberal democracy and by their fundamental elitism — their shared belief that America is and always will be run by elites, but that it is currently ruled by the wrong type of elite. Their goal is not to abolish elite rule but to replace America’s current elite with a purportedly different, more conservative one, and they share a blueprint for doing so. Implicitly recognizing that their ideas are not popular enough to win broad-based political support, they advocate for an alliance between reactionary elites and the alienated masses, channeling popular frustration against the democratic order they hope to eventually replace. The “hobbits” are the engine of this transformation, but they are never its leaders.

Forging this alliance, all these thinkers agree, will take time — but the crucial first step is identifying and cultivating a new conservative elite. This new elite must be made up of people who are steeped in elite culture and reactionary ideas but who understand “the people” and can credibly claim to govern on their behalf. They must have one foot in the world of the elite and one foot in the heartland. They must think like elves but be able to talk like hobbits.

In other words, they must look like JD Vance — and their first task is to build a bridge between the elite reactionary circles and the right-leaning masses.

“Maybe the most important role that I have to play from the New Right’s perspective is to help build institutions and to get people engaged in politics who weren’t previously engaged in politics,” Vance told me when we spoke earlier this year, referring to his role in founding a handful of new institutions devoted to the nationalist-populist cause.

“It’s definitely an interesting thing,” he said, “but it’s going to take a long time.”

For the first time, both major parties’ presidential candidates have families that have been knit together by divorce. It's a sign that politics is finally catching up with America.

The historic nature of the two first families-in-waiting comes after a half-century of dramatic shifts in American family life. And though there has been a long running tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats over which party is the most “pro-family,” that political fight is more heated than ever.

Many conservatives have embraced former President Donald Trump despite his personal life and family structure, rather than because of it; important figures on the right, including Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, are pushing for a return to the traditional family structure as a salve for social ills, like declining birth rates, student achievement and crime. Democrats, meanwhile, are articulating a vision of families that includes same-sex couples, blended families, adoptive families and single parents or grandparents — one they argue is reflected in Vice President Kamala Harris’ family.

“It tells the honest story of America and that we’re doing the work of building a more just America where everyone can sit at this table, however you show up, in whatever kind of family model,” said Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who is among the two dozen members of Congress who are stepparents. “Whether you’re talking about two mommies, two daddies, bonus moms — this is reflective of today’s American modern family.”

Harris, herself a child of divorce, has a blended family that includes her husband, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, and her stepchildren, Cole and Ella. Trump, who has been divorced twice, has five children, half-siblings with each other from three moms.

It’s a notable sea change since Nelson Rockefeller’s divorce and subsequent remarriage helped sink his 1964 presidential bid. More than a third of children don’t live with two married parents, and nearly one in six kids live in a blended family household with stepparents, stepsiblings or half siblings, according to the Pew Research Center. And 78 percent of people now think single-parent households are acceptable, while 58 percent support married gay or lesbian couples raising children together, according to Pew.

Until Trump, Ronald Reagan was the only president who had ever been divorced. And, as recently as 2008, John McCain’s first “broken marriage” to Carol McCain, his first wife, was the source of media speculation and titillation. President Joe Biden also has a blended family, though because of the death of his first wife Neilia, not from divorce. (First Lady Jill Biden is stepmom to the late Beau Biden and his brother Hunter, and Ashley Biden is their half-sister.)

“We’re a long way from the nuclear family,” said Rick Davis, McCain’s presidential campaign manager, calling Harris' family the “classic new nuclear family.”

“That looks more like America these days than a traditional nuclear family that’s been married for 25 years and has two kids,” he added. “I don’t think that’s the America we live in anymore.”

For many communities of color, blended and extended families have long been a part of family life, said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter.

“The whole ‘Leave It to Beaver’ family structure has never been the family structure for many communities,” Brown said. The blended family structure “has always been the backbone of so many communities, that their greatest economic security and infrastructure was the way that we actually saw family.”

Affairs, which were once kryptonite to a presidential bid, also don’t appear to have the same impact they used to. Kerstin Emhoff, Doug's ex-wife, quashed an early attack on an affair he had during their marriage, calling him “a great father” and “a great friend,” and is a vocal Harris booster. And Democrats have attacked Trump for his felony convictions related to hush money payments — rather than the alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels. (Trump denies the affair took place.)

Strategists on both sides of the aisle attribute the lack of stickiness of attacks on candidates’ marriages to changing standards about what’s fair game in a presidential campaign as cultural attitudes shift.

“Donald Trump is on his third marriage. Certainly, on my side of the aisle, I don’t see anything wrong with that — because that’s life,” said Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Still, as much as social norms have changed, Trump’s decision to pick Vance as his running mate has elevated the discussion about traditional families, which the New Right sees as the solution to many modern problems — with a populist twist. They argue that small-government programs have failed to beget traditional families and instead favor more government intervention, like the child tax credits and paid family leave Trump pushed as president.

“The marriage rate has come down to record lows, and fertility rates hit record lows last year," said Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. "Whatever was the kind of standard Republican agenda — limited government, low taxes — that hasn’t really done much to revise the fortunes of the American family.”

Vance's proposal to raise the child tax credit to $5,000 per child is an example of the kinds of pro-government intervention policies once more traditionally aligned with Democrats now being advocated for as part of a new conservative pro-family agenda. But Vance, who was raised by his grandparents and has a collection of half and stepsiblings, has said this policy would apply to all families — whether kids are being raised by same-sex couples, grandparents or heterosexual couples — suggesting a desire to help more than just traditional families.

“Senator Vance supports policies that will make life better for all kinds of American families: lower prices, a stronger economy, safer streets, and a closed border to stop the deadly flow of fentanyl,” said Luke Schroeder, a Vance spokesperson. “All kids in America, whether they’re raised in a ‘traditional’ family or a ‘nontraditional’ family as JD was, deserve to achieve their American dream.”

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged free in vitro fertilization treatments to all Americans, paid for either by insurance companies or the federal government. His campaign has defended the proposal — which is angering social conservatives and deficit hawks alike — as a necessary long-term investment in light of the country’s record-low birth rate.

The former president also suggested last week that the federal costs of making child care more affordable in the U.S. would be “small” compared to the money that would be generated through his proposed tariffs on imported goods to the U.S.

At the same time, Democrats see their bevy of social safety net programs as a means of pushing a “pro-family” platform. Harris has pitched restoring the expanded child tax credit, as well as adding an additional $6,000 tax credit for children in their first year of life, a variation on the proposal Vance has put forward — all regardless of family structure. Democrats have also couched proposals to offer paid parental leave and expand health care access as similarly “pro-family.”

It’s part of their effort to counter that there is more than one way to build a happy family in the 21st century. That sentiment was underscored by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s comments last month at the Democratic National Convention, highlighting his relationship with his husband, Chasten, and their two kids.

"The makeup of our kitchen table, the existence of my family, is just one example of something that was literally impossible as recently as 25 years ago," he said. “This kind of life went from impossible to possible, from possible to real, from real to almost ordinary in less than half a lifetime.”

NEW YORK — Business nearly tripled at Verdi cannabis dispensary, one of dozens of legal weed shops in New York, after state and city officials started cracking down on unlicensed retailers in May.

Then the operator of a nearby competitor cut the fresh padlock on its doors and got right back to selling its unregulated pot. Verdi immediately saw a 10 to 15 percent decline in sales, founder Ellis Soodak said.

“It’s really disheartening to see people flying in the face of the law,” Soodak said in an interview. “People assume these unlicensed stores are mom-and-pop shops. … Most of these stores are owned by conglomerates.”

Cannabis companies have been eyeing the Empire State as a potentially massive market since the state legalized marijuana in 2021. But more than three years later, there are only 182 licensed dispensaries in a state of 20 million people. Michigan, with half the population, has more than 800 dispensaries.

Without enough licensed dispensaries to serve demand, thousands of unlicensed sellers stepped in, often flouting rules by popping up near schools and selling weed in colorful packaging. In response, lawmakers granted state and local authorities more enforcement power earlier this year to close these shops.

The ensuing crackdown is yielding results: The New York State Illicit Cannabis Enforcement Task Force has padlocked at least 345 locations across New York, while New York City authorities have shuttered about 1,000 locations in the city alone.

But New York City was home to an estimated 4,000 unlicensed sellers before the crackdown started, so there are likely thousands more still operating, and legal challenges are threatening to derail enforcement efforts.

Illicit Chains

One reason why enforcement agents don’t immediately punish unlicensed cannabis retailers is because it takes time to investigate connected ownership groups, explained Dan Haughney, the director of enforcement for the state’s Office of Cannabis Management.

“If we know that there’s an operator that has a store on one corner and another one three blocks away, we’ll try to hit those stores that are connected at the same time,” Haughney said in an interview on a recent August afternoon while his team was inspecting stores in Queens.

State enforcement officials are also responding to changing practices of illicit sellers. Some are altering their operating hours — for example, only opening up in the evenings, prompting the state to send investigators out at night. Many storefronts are keeping their inventory elsewhere so that they’re carrying less cannabis that can be seized during an inspection.

The majority of unlicensed cannabis sellers that the task force inspects are also conducting some sort of processing on site. This could be anything from making cannabis pre-rolls to manufacturing weed-infused gummies, Haughney said.

These activities would not be allowed in licensed cannabis dispensaries, since they’re prohibited from holding processing licenses in New York.

Haughney wishes consumers could see the “unsanitary and disgusting” conditions that some of these products are manufactured in.

His other main concern is illicit products with packaging that would appeal to children: bright colors, bubble fonts and cartoon characters.

“When they have the cartoon characters on there, that would entice a kid to grab it,” Haughney said. “When I see this stuff … we’re going to do everything we can to padlock.”

Haughney’s team also frequently sees cannabis products from brands like Stiizy and Jeeter that have seemingly been diverted from California’s regulated market.

Haughney said that Stiizy executives have told him that those products are illicit cannabis in counterfeit packaging. But he believes the Stiizy products he sees are actually sourced from the legal California market, which he has traced back there by collaborating with his counterparts on West Coast investigations.

Stiizy and other California brands are also facing multiple lawsuits about its involvement in the illicit market in California and the rest of the country.

Stiizy did not respond to a request for comment.

But Stiizy’s illicit market presence is certainly helping its brand recognition. It’s the number one request of customers at Mighty Lucky, a licensed dispensary in Lower Manhattan, said founder Beau Allulli.

Mighty Lucky has seen steady revenue growth since its opening in May, and it hasn’t seen a big sales spike coinciding with tougher enforcement in its neighborhood. But the dispensary has seen an increase in customers who seem to come from the unlicensed market because of their brand requests and expectation to be able to pay with a credit card.

Customers who have frequented licensed dispensaries already know that they won’t be able to pay with credit cards, but unlicensed cannabis sellers will simply classify credit card transactions as other items.

Out of Mighty Lucky’s hundreds of five-star reviews on Google, the only three bad reviews were for the high fees surrounding payment processing.

They think “that we’re keeping the fee and upcharging [them],” Allulli said. “We try to explain it’s federally illegal.”

Enforcement Challenges

The crackdown on illicit sellers has had consequences beyond the shops shuttered by city and state officials: The state task force has found that 136 unlicensed retailers closed up shop on their own as a result of the increase in enforcement.

“Particularly in the city, I think people can see the change in the landscape,” Haughney said.

But it’s clear that the enforcement efforts have a long way to go.

Recently, New York City Mayor Eric Adams stood before four tons of cannabis that the city had seized from illicit operators, which was poised to be incinerated.

Out of the thousand dispensaries the city has been able to close, at least a couple dozen have opened back up, including the one near Soodak’s Verdi dispensary.

Soodak reported the reopening. Less than a week later, city officials were padlocking the location again, he said. It was still closed as of Monday.

And despite a state audit that found issues with OCM’s licensing process in May, said Joe Rossi, head of Park Strategies’ cannabis practice, it’s critical that the pace of licensing has not picked up.

“You can’t just have [182 licensed] stores and thousands of illicit shops,” he said.

In addition, New York City is facing legal challenges over the way it has gone about its cannabis crackdown. A judge recently ruled that a convenience store that was shuttered as part of the ongoing enforcement effort must be allowed to reopen because officers did not follow proper procedures when closing the store.

Lance Lazzaro, the attorney who represented the convenience store, has managed to win a few reopening decisions for his clients in court. Now, he’s setting his sights on the state.

Last week, he filed a similar legal challenge against the OCM, alleging that the sealing order against Shopsmart Convenience in Manhattan violated the business’s due process rights.

“It’s unconstitutional,” Lazzaro said of both the state and city’s new enforcement powers.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — At least 10 university faculty members across Florida have been terminated with dozens more put on notice to improve their work since the state adopted post-tenure review policies championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, according to data compiled by POLITICO.

The results of initial tenure reviews across the state’s public universities show that most faculty in Florida — 91 percent — either met or exceeded the expectations set by their universities, a performance that earned them bonuses or raises. But the outcome was more damaging for a small minority. More than 60 faculty members statewide didn’t meet expectations and were given one year to course correct or else face termination, in addition to the 10 that were shown the door this year.

The reviews are just a part of DeSantis' and Florida Republicans’ goal of reshaping the state’s higher education system. The governor has installed GOP allies in top university and college posts and pushed laws that changed tenure — which DeSantis said was necessary to counteract “unproductive” tenured faculty who were the “most significant deadweight cost” facing universities. Florida Republicans also limited how university professors can teach lessons on race — which is being challenged in court — and even changed how Florida higher education institutions are accredited.

“Governor DeSantis expects universities to focus on pursuing truth and preparing students to be citizens of this republic. Professors who exceed expectations should be proud of their contributions,” DeSantis spokesperson Jeremy Redfern said in a statement. “However, there must also be accountability to ensure that professors at universities continue to perform and contribute to their university's academic success.”

“These audits show that the system is working as designed,” he concluded.

Faculty tenure previously emerged as a banner issue for state Republicans fighting against what they consider a liberal bias or “ideological indoctrination” in higher education, leading to a 2022 law that ushered in significant changes for schools.

A key piece of that law required universities to perform post-tenure reviews for faculty every five years through a process that was carried out for the first time in 2024, reviewing 20 percent of professors statewide.

These faculty members, under a rule crafted by the Board of Governors in charge of Florida’s university system, were graded by school officials based on their level of accomplishment and productivity — judged on “assigned duties in research, teaching, and service” — while also being evaluated for instances of noncompliance with state law, unapproved absences and substantiated student complaints.

Faculty unions fiercely opposed the tenure review law, arguing that it would turn tenure into a 5-year revolving contract and push professors away from Florida. The United Faculty of Florida claims that the policy effectively ends tenure while eroding academic freedom in the state.

Tenure is meant to be a guardrail protecting free speech for faculty that studied, taught and researched for years to earn it, said Robin Goodman, a professor at Florida State University who leads the school’s United Faculty of Florida chapter.

“People outside don’t know how hard it is to get tenure,” Goodman said. “By the time you get it, it’s a way of life.”

In the first year of Florida’s post-tenure review, more than half of professors — 437 out of 861 — exceeded expectations in the eyes of their universities, the data shows. These results earned some faculty one-time bonuses ranging from $10,000 at University of Florida to $5,000 at Florida A&M University and Florida Atlantic University.

Another 350 faculty met expectations according to their schools, a performance mark that is on par with the expected contributions in a professor’s area that nets smaller bonuses or pay increases.

A significantly smaller number of tenured faculty members across Florida — 64 — failed to meet expectations, which requires them to develop “performance improvement plans” with school leaders to ratchet up production or hone their teaching skills over the next year. The state’s post-tenure rule spells out that faculty who don’t meet the requirements detailed in those plans must receive a notice of termination from the university’s chief academic officer.

Further, 10 faculty members were determined to have “unsatisfactory” performance, resulting in automatic notices for termination. The tenure review data does not specify the fields taught by faculty at any performance level.

Some faculty members fear that tenure reviews could be used more as a cloak for political retaliation than rooting out unproductive professors as claimed.

Since the reviews are tied to compliance in state law, a wrinkle some unions attempted to bargain out of faculty contracts, there are concerns professors could face heightened scrutiny in areas broaching instruction on race and gender — culture war issues targeted by Republicans. One key law touted by the GOP, the so-called Stop Woke act meant to prohibit faculty from teaching lessons over issues like “white privilege,” has been blocked by courts for more than two years with an appeal pending. State officials this year have also called upon the university system to review courses that delve into topics including Israel, Palestinians and Zionism on the heels of campus protests.

For faculty members, they worry that if they say or research the wrong thing, it could mean their jobs.

“If I’m a professor and that’s a piece of my course, of course I’m going to be apprehensive going into the process,” said Samique March-Dallas, a professor at FAMU and the president of the school’s UFF chapter. “If my scholarship is focused on an area that’s pretty much under attack, how does that work?”

Faculty unions in some cases are helping terminated professors file grievances — formal complaints alleging collective bargain violations — including two at the University of Florida, the school that was most aggressive in its reviews.

Under recently resigned president Ben Sasse, UF determined that 34 faculty members failed to meet expectations and five were unsatisfactory. Comparatively, 12 professors at University of South Florida didn’t meet expectations and one was unsatisfactory. There were eight professors put on notice to improve and two terminated at University of Central Florida and none of either reported at FSU.

The tenure decisions at UF were not political, nor made because faculty had controversial ideas, according to Scott Angle, who stepped down as the university’s provost last month. Those faculty members who were terminated either fell behind as researchers or teachers and in some cases “should have been fired 10 years ago,” Angle said.

Angle contends that Florida’s budding review policy will ultimately make tenure stronger by rooting out abuses where some faculty are using it to hide poor performance.

“When post-tenure review came along, it gave us the opportunity to clean up the system,” Angle said.

Republican strategist Mike Murphy is the kind of guy who might have been calling the shots if anyone other than Donald Trump had won in 2016.

Murphy’s roster of former clients includes John McCain, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lamar Alexander. Which is to say, a lot of the guys who got pushed aside when Trump took over.

For a while now, Murphy has been a Trump-skeptical wiseguy working private sector gigs in deep-blue Los Angeles.

But fortunately for us, he’s also giving some of the sharpest political commentary out there.

You may recognize Murphy as David Axelrod’s partner on the podcast “Hacks On Tap.” If you’ve heard him there, then you know his skill in blending his personal feelings about Trump’s politics with incisive criticisms about Kamala Harris’ campaign and Murphy’s trademark wit.

I caught up with Murphy on Thursday to talk about what’s coming next in an election that has been, in a word, surprising.

We talked about Tuesday’s debate and why some very strong winds are still at Trump’s back; how Murphy would tweak Kamala Harris’ message; what might become of the Republican Party after Trump and how he, Mike Murphy, almost killed JD Vance’s dream of being a senator back in 2017.

Vice President Kamala Harris is circulating her first detailed goals for rural America in a bid to woo voters the party has been hemorrhaging support among for decades — and who will help determine the outcome of the November elections.

The new document is the furthest Harris has gone in her career to outline how she would approach policy for rural communities and comes as her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, who has been tapped as a sort of special envoy to more rural areas of battleground states in the final sprint, is set to visit Wausau, Wisconsin, Friday. Harris herself is venturing into some of Pennsylvania's largely rural, red counties Friday as part of her battleground blitz over the next few days.

As part of her broad plans, the campaign promises significant new federal investment for rural communities under a Harris-Walz administration and warns that Trump’s policies “will leave rural America behind,” according to the new two-page outline obtained by POLITICO. The document, like similar campaign materials, is meant to help engage and organize voters on the ground with just weeks to go.

The campaign’s new rural outline also pledges to scale up programs to help rural communities access federal funding while expanding small-business financing and other aid. It also attempts to beef up Harris’ limited ties to agriculture and small-town voters, with the document noting both she and Walz are from top agricultural-producing states and “that rural communities are essential to the success and character of our nation.” Harris has yet to release a full policy platform for rural communities, as some Democrats are pressing the campaign to do. Her campaign said the new document isn’t a whole new policy plan for rural America, but is part of their aggressive rural organizing efforts.

Those kinds of details, even small, from Harris’ campaign are critical. Harris, who recently hired her own campaign rural engagement director, is now trying to win over skeptical undecided voters and Democratic-leaning residents in rural regions and small towns who may not otherwise vote. In doing so, she might be able to shave off a few percentage points from Trump’s margins in battleground states in what’s shaping up to be an incredibly tight race.

But Harris is facing steep challenges in driving turnout in rural counties in swing states where Trump threatens to run up the score against her. Some Democratic lawmakers and local organizers fear Harris will do worse than President Joe Biden in rural and rural-adjacent counties, after he managed to claw back some ground in 2020 after Trump’s 2016 blowout.

Harris has grown her lead against Trump in Wisconsin to 5 points among likely voters, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other third-party candidates on the ballot, according to a pre-debate Marquette University Law School poll. Though, that’s just outside the poll’s margin of error, indicating an incredibly close race. Kennedy is still trying to remove his name from the state’s ballot, after dropping out of the race and endorsing Trump in late-August.

Wisconsin is already among the top states in the country for voter turnout, so it’s hard for either Trump or Harris to make significant gains at this point.

“We’re talking about a game of inches, rather than yards,” said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll.

“Walz coming to Wausau makes a lot of sense,” Franklin added, as Democrats are trying to “lose by less” in rural regions. The city of 40,000 people sits in a red county Trump won by 18 points in 2020.

But, Franklin noted, as Trump’s support has fallen off in Wisconsin’s traditionally red, suburban strongholds, the former president is making a more concerted effort to shore up his support in rural counties. The former president recently held a rally in Mosinee, just to the south of Wausau where Walz will be Friday.

The Biden-Harris administration and congressional Democrats have poured billions in federal investments into rural communities, but have had mixed results in rebuilding support among voters there.

Walz is from a small town in Nebraska and represented a largely rural, conservative-leaning congressional district in southern Minnesota. But he’s so far had limited direct interactions with rural voters since Harris tapped him as her running mate, beyond visiting a family farm during a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

While Walz appears more in-tune with small-town voters than other national Democrats, campaign officials understand he too runs the risk of facing less-than-welcoming receptions from Trump supporters in rural areas.

Walz will meet with volunteers in Wausau Friday, where Democrats see several key opportunities to mobilize support among a growing population of Hmong and Native residents in the region, with many being small farmers.

On Saturday, Walz will hold a rally at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, in the port city that largely relies on mining and manufacturing industries and borders Minnesota.

NEW YORK — State Sen. Jessica Ramos is entering the race for mayor of New York — the latest Democratic challenger to take on a weakened Eric Adams next year.

Ramos, a progressive Queens politician, has been among the most outspoken critics of the embattled mayor as his inner circle is embroiled in federal investigations.

But what she boasts in media and political skill she lacks in campaign advantage: She has low name recognition and no money in her city account. Other contenders — Comptroller Brad Lander and his predecessor, Scott Stringer — have already won citywide races and have been raising donations for months.

Ramos says her mayoralty would turn the page on Adams, a centrist Democrat at odds with the political left.

“You’re not going to find me at Zero Bond,” she said in an interview, referring to the mayor’s preferred private club. “You’re not going to find me doing any shenanigans. You’ll find me on the street, talking to New Yorkers. You’ll find me in City Hall in meetings with agencies. And making sure that I am recruiting and hiring the top talent of New York City and trusting them to do their job.”

She filed to open a campaign account Wednesday and will launch with a video Friday and a rally outside City Hall the following day.

Ramos said she began to consider running last year, and reached her decision as she watched “dysfunction at an all time level from City Hall.”

“The city overwhelmingly is in desperate need to feel faith in their institutions again,” she said. “All of the scandals aside, the basic functions of government need to be executed.”

Ramos would make history as the first woman, Latina and mother to become mayor. She was born to undocumented immigrants from Colombia. She would also be the first Queens-born mayor since the 19th century.

She is also the first progressive mayoral hopeful to openly feud with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose coveted endorsement could shape the mayoral primary.

Ramos sniped at Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter in 2022, saying the progressive icon was absent from their shared Western Queens district. In the surprising social media screed, Ramos said her fellow Democrat didn’t return calls and texts.

That was two years ago. Asked if they have a relationship now, Ramos replied, “I wouldn’t say so,” and noted Ocasio-Cortez still doesn’t have a district office in Queens. (Her staff, instead, take constituent appointments out of Tiffany Caban’s City Council office.)

Ramos’ relationship is famously tense with other New York progressives. Assemblymember Catalina Cruz, who shares a district with her, notably posted a photo on X Thursday night drinking with mayoral rival Zellnor Myrie, a state senator, ahead of Ramos’ launch.

“I feel like every politician is divisive by definition. Some people vote for you, and some people don’t,” she said in the interview. “I get that I’m an outspoken woman. I am aggressive in my legislative approach. I try to convey the urgency that my constituents feel in resolving issues.”

Once a communications aide for former Mayor Bill de Blasio, Ramos was elected to the state Senate in 2018, ousting incumbent José Peralta in a progressive wave that unseated a group of Albany Democrats who partnered with Republicans.

She chairs the influential Labor Committee, and has pushed to raise the minimum wage and passed bills extending pandemic-era government benefits to undocumented workers and banning employers’ anti-union “captive audience” meetings.

PHOENIX — The day after Labor Day, swing-state polls were showing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris locked in a “dogfight” or a “showdown” or even a “knife fight in a phone booth,” depending on the news outlet. That morning, a young Harris surrogate named Hadley Duvall was in the battleground state of Arizona, having breakfast with some staffers, looking friendly and serene. She’d been deployed there — as she has to several swing states since delivering a stunning speech to the Democratic National Convention — to tell her story as a survivor of incest.

Three times that day, she would repeat matter-of-factly, in front of different sets of strangers far from her Kentucky home, a secret she’d kept for 10 years as a child. “From the age of five years old,” she would say, “I was sexually abused by my stepfather at the time. When I was 12, I was impregnated from him.” She would explain being told, with Roe v. Wade then still in effect, that she had options and would have had an abortion had she not miscarried. In three different rooms in three different towns, she would offer proof that debates over abortion restrictions, especially ones like Arizona’s that prohibit the procedure after 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest, are not abstract or theoretical exercises.

Before all that, at breakfast in a Phoenix restaurant festooned with owl-related decor, Duvall, now 22, explained to me why she had launched herself into the middle of one of the most divisive issues at the center of an exceptionally divisive election. She wanted to show people, she said, “I could be your neighbor. … Nobody’s safe. And no matter what type of [laws] your state has, no matter what you think is good for your state, no matter how much you feel like this abortion topic doesn’t matter to you or doesn’t affect you, it does.”

Duvall has proven herself particularly effective among the small world of assault survivors who have spoken out against laws that restrict or ban abortion. She is credited with helping lift one Democrat, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear, to reelection in a red state with the viral television ad in which she first stepped into politics after Roe fell. Her story is as shocking as she herself is ordinary. She’s just a recent graduate of a Christian college with a boyfriend and a dog named Honey — “she’s a golden retriever-wiener dog-lab-aussiedoodle” she says proudly, showing a photo of a little mutt in a pumpkin Halloween costume on her phone. She’s got a pleasant Kentucky accent and sports a gold necklace with the letter “H” on it; she is warm and largely at ease discussing one of the most disturbing topics imaginable because, she says, “I’ve already been through the worst.” Thus the Harris campaign’s eagerness to send Duvall to swing states — including places like Arizona with upcoming referenda to protect abortion — hoping to turn out a base motivated by abortion and also try to persuade voters across party lines.

“What we’ve seen is that Hadley’s story, as well as abortion rights, resonates strongly with Democrats, Independents and Republicans across the board,” said Jen Cox, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign in Arizona. Given the state’s narrow margins — Biden won it by less than a percentage point in 2020 with roughly 11,000 votes, and Trump is leading there now by a percent or less in multiple polling averages — Cox said, “in Arizona, we have to do everything. We have to make sure that Democrats and younger voters and voters of color, especially Latino voters, are energized about the campaign, are turning out to vote. We also need to reach out to more moderate voters, Republicans and independents, especially folks in the suburbs.” (In Tuesday’s presidential debate, Harris alluded to Duvall when she assailed Donald Trump for saying people wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. “A 12- or 13-year-old survivor of incest forced to carry a pregnancy to term? They don’t want that.”)

Still, it’s a strange place for Duvall to be, repeating something she once thought she’d never be able to say out loud in a sentence, trying to get a president elected. “I used to always say, like, I don’t argue politics because I don’t know enough about it. I’ve always known my place,” she said at breakfast. But something snapped after Roe fell, and she published the social media post about her abuse that caught the attention of the Beshear campaign, which led to the ad, which led to the DNC speech, which led here.

“I know my place now, and that’s why I’m speaking up now,” she said. “It is my place.” It wasn’t just about politics, either — when she was younger, it would have meant a great deal to her to see someone like the adult version of herself, speaking out and telling her she wasn’t alone. “If not me,” Duvall said, “then who?”

She then walked to an adjacent venue to talk to some Republicans.

Specifically, these were “Republicans for Harris,” some of the aisle-crossing women (and they were all women at the podium) who could help put Harris in the White House. “We are coming together,” Duvall remarked, “not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, because there is too much at stake. Trump brags about overturning Roe v. Wade. He says he’s proud to be responsible for each and every one of the cruel abortion bans, including the one in effect here in Arizona.”

Arizona’s current abortion ban is not among the country’s most restrictive — the 15-week limit is within the time frame that more than 90 percent of abortions take place, according to CDC data and it includes exemptions after that to protect the life and health of the mother. Cindy Dahlgren, the communications director for It Goes Too Far, which opposes Arizona’s upcoming abortion referendum, told me later that “my heart goes out to [Hadley], of course, and every rape victim,” but that current law allows for almost four months to decide whether to have an abortion. “Voters here in Arizona are not voting for either abortion or no abortion,” she said. “They’re voting for abortion at 15 weeks and beyond for qualified medical emergencies … [versus] unlimited and unregulated abortion.”

Yet this spring, the state Supreme Court sparked chaos when it upheld an 1864 law, passed before Arizona was a state and the age of consent was 10 years old, that banned abortion almost entirely. In the political uproar that followed, the state’s Republican-led legislature repealed that ban, with some arguing it would hurt the party in November.

“It is a hot-button issue that certainly paints a picture of Republicans being on the wrong side of it,” said Paul Bentz, an Arizona pollster who is a Republican himself. “It’s basically two-thirds would prefer legal, safe abortions; only about a third or less want criminalization.” And Bentz said the issue was a big factor in the Senate race two years ago, when Democrat Mark Kelly defeated Republican Blake Masters — who called abortion “demonic” and advocated federal limits — for the seat formerly held by Republican John McCain.

In a race that could swing by a few thousand votes, of course, any number of factors could be decisive — and Bentz pointed to election denialism as a particular turnoff for otherwise Republican-leaning voters. But the key swing demographic, Bentz said, is “a portion of crossover individuals, independents and Republicans, generally female, generally higher education attainment, generally higher wage, that are the ones that sort of pick and choose the outcomes of these races.”

Witness the “McCain Republicans,” a fair chunk of whom put a Democrat in the senator’s old seat, and just enough of whom, with Cindy McCain’s backing of Joe Biden in 2020, helped swing the presidential election to the Democrats that year. While the Republicans for Harris event was ongoing, in fact, the late senator’s younger son Jimmy set off a bit of a scramble among the comms staff by endorsing Kamala Harris himself. And Bettina Nava, who worked for McCain for nearly two decades, including as his state director and his presidential campaign manager for the southwest, was among those standing with Duvall at the podium to advocate for Harris.

I caught up with Nava afterward; she called Duvall a “hero.” “I just met her today,” she said. “I care even more than an election, win or lose, that this young woman gets to have a voice, and tell her story, and normalize the fact that what happened to her is not acceptable.”

The Republican Party in its current form, Nava said, was no longer her party. “I’m in no-man’s land, no-woman’s land,” she mused. Then something occurred to her. “Actually, I found a woman” in Kamala Harris, she said. “I’m in woman’s land. And you know what? It’s about time.”

Up in the college town of Flagstaff a few hours later, the heat dissipated with the higher elevation, and Duvall stopped at a community center to address a group largely comprising students, retirees and Democratic leaders. Greeting a young activist by the door, Duvall remarked warmly how much she liked Arizona, and the woman laughed. “You say that to all the swing states.”

Duvall is very much still a youth herself — she just got her degree in psychology with a concentration in drug and alcohol counseling and had been thinking about clinical social work. She had no background in public speaking prior to taking the DNC stage to address millions of people; she doesn’t even do karaoke. But earlier that morning, one former Arizona state representative had urged her to run for office.

And now for her third speech of the day, Duvall was more relaxed and informal, ad libbing off her prepared paper, throwing in improbable moments of levity despite the subject. She got to the part about this election being the “most impactful of our lives” and paused. “I know that the politicians say that every year, but I’m not a politician, so really listen when I say it,” she said to some knowing chuckles. She had a specific appeal to young people as well: “There is not a better time to get educated in politics, especially if you are young. … We’ve seen the power of youth and we need the older generation to help with that. We need the guidance. We need the wisdom. But we also, you know, just need to be taken seriously.”

Sarah Benatar, the Democratic Coconino County treasurer, is a youth in politics too, having been elected the youngest county treasurer in the state 10 years ago at the age of 27. She’s also among those advocates who now get up in front of audiences to tell intensely personal stories about why she feels abortion access is necessary — in her case, she and her young daughter both survived a dangerous pregnancy involving a blood clot in her placenta that necessitated an emergency C-section. She did not contemplate getting an abortion at the time, but given the risks, she is avoiding another pregnancy until Arizona law changes. She tells this story more often than she’d like, she told me later. She believes Duvall will shape the election in her state. “This is a state that does not vote party line,” she said. “We are a state that votes for values. … And so that’s where Hadley coming here is hugely impactful.”

It’s also a state with higher-than-average youth turnout, a figure that’s jumped substantially from a decade ago. A recent study from Arizona State University found that Gen Z voters are even more independent than their over-30 counterparts — nearly half were registered independent. And 70 percent of these voters said they were more likely to vote with an abortion referendum on the ballot.

At the community center in Flagstaff, an older voter told Duvall after the speeches that she’d worked to register college students, some of whom declined, telling her, “You know better than me” about politics. “Like, what do you say to that?” she asked in exasperation. Duvall advised: “Tell them you might know better than they know, but MAGA people do not. …That’s what I tell ’em.”

Donald Trump pitched himself as a “leader” on in vitro fertilization during his Tuesday debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. His plans are angering swaths of the Republican Party.

The former president, eager to deflect attacks that his election would threaten fertility care, has gone so far as to pledge free IVF treatments to all Americans, paid for either by insurance companies or the federal government.

It’s a pitch designed to win back the moderate women who have moved away from Trump and neutralize Democratic attacks on his record on reproductive health that have dogged the GOP since the fall of Roe v. Wade more than two years ago. Harris, during Tuesday’s debate, said that “couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments” because of state restrictions that she frequently refers to as “Trump abortion bans.”

But heading into the final weeks of the election, the proposal is alienating two pillars of the Republican Party: small-government deficit hawks outraged by the idea of a sweeping new federal mandate and religious conservatives who oppose IVF as commonly practiced in the U.S.

“Though we share his desire for Americans to have more babies, Trump's plan to fund in vitro fertilization for all American women is in direct contradiction with that hope,” said Pro-Life Action League President Ann Scheidler. “Hundreds of thousands of embryos — each of them as fully human as you or me — are created and then destroyed or frozen in IVF procedures.”

Trump and the GOP have been on the defensive ever since the Alabama Supreme Court thrust IVF into the spotlight earlier this year with a ruling that frozen embryos should be considered people, citing the Dobbs decision — causing some fertility clinics in the state to suspend treatments until the legislature passed a bill restoring access nearly two weeks later. Trump immediately came out against the Alabama decision, to the dismay of many conservatives.

Trump’s campaign is defending the universal IVF policy as a necessary long-term investment given the country’s record-low birth rate. And aides credit the policy for an increase in support from independents in some battleground states while arguing it has not caused a decline in support from anti-abortion voters.

“We want more babies, to put it very nicely. And for the same reason, we will also allow new parents to deduct major newborn expenses from their taxes,” Trump said in a statement.

The former president’s embrace of IVF comes as he and other Republicans grapple with an issue that has plagued them since the fall of Roe two years ago. He has tried to pitch himself as moderate by arguing that abortion should be decided by states — leaving the procedure accessible in some of the country, and banned in other parts — while stressing his support for rape and incest exceptions, IVF and, more broadly, “reproductive rights.”

“I've been a leader on it. They know that and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF,” he said during the debate.

Many conservatives are outraged — or at least highly skeptical — of his free IVF plan because of its potential cost to taxpayers, what it would mean for the expansion of government involvement in health care, and what they see as an implicit endorsement of practices like the disposal of embryos that they see as morally abhorrent. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, wrote the forward to a 2017 collection of essays from the Heritage Foundation that, among other things, raised concerns about IVF. He also joined earlier this year with nearly all Senate Republicans in blocking consideration of a bill to federally protect access to IVF and other fertility treatments.

The Pro-Life Action League and other anti-abortion groups are calling on Trump “to walk back this IVF funding scheme,” while the editor of National Review Online is arguing that it’s hypocritical for the party that went after the Affordable Care Act to now support additional federal health care mandates. Some conservatives liken Trump’s IVF proposal to former President Barack Obama’s 2012 contraceptive mandate, which was broadly panned by the same conservatives and repeatedly challenged in court.

“There are still bona fide limited-government conservatives in the Republican Party who look at this and say: ‘Think about how expensive IVF is!’” said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “This could be billions of dollars for something that we think has significant moral complications. What is conservative about that?”

The proposal, which would need congressional approval, has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill, nearly all of whom support Trump. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has said that he is open to the idea, while Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the House GOP conference chair, has said the former president’s IVF proposal should be “applauded by the pro-life community as it will further promote the culture of life.”

Other GOP lawmakers have met the idea with a mixture of uncertainty about what Trump is proposing and skepticism about whether he’s serious — and, if so, how much it will cost. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is running to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell as leader of the Senate Republican caucus, told Axios he was unsure “whether or not that's something that you would want to mandate on insurance companies.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was blunter, telling ABC “there's no end” to the cost of the policy, and pitching a means-tested tax credit as an alternative.

According to a person familiar with the plans, Senate Democrats plan to highlight these divisions in the coming weeks by holding another vote on legislation from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who had two children through IVF, that would federally protect access to fertility treatments and guarantee public and private insurance coverage.

Nearly all Senate Republicans voted to block the bill when it first came to the floor in June, arguing that it was too sweeping in its scope. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) drafted an alternative bill that would strip federal Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF services but allow restrictions on how embryos are stored, implanted and disposed, but it has yet to move forward.

Despite the party's struggles to unify around a position on IVF, GOP pollsters and strategists believe that with the upcoming election likely to be decided by a relatively small group of people in a half-dozen battleground states, Trump's policy pitch could help him peel off enough votes to make a difference.

Trump’s former senior counselor, Kellyanne Conway, who remains in close contact with the campaign, has also urged Republicans to support IVF, pointing to polling her firm conducted, which found broad support, including among GOP voters, for “candidates who prioritize increasing the availability of contraceptives and fertility-related treatments.” That survey found that IVF had 78 percent support among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among evangelical Christians.

“Look, he’s never going to win on this issue but if he can chip away at the margins, that’s a potential path for him,” said Stephen Lawson, a Republican strategist in Georgia, a key swing state President Joe Biden narrowly won in 2020 where Harris and Trump are neck-and-neck. “For swing voters who are genuinely undecided or going back and forth, it’s another potential policy tool in the toolkit for them to get comfortable pulling the lever for him.”

Democrats, sensing an opportunity to paint the GOP as extreme, have honed in on the Alabama decision, arguing that IVF access everywhere could come under threat if Trump is elected. That’s prompted Republicans to try to shore up their pro-IVF bona fides — much to the chagrin of many anti-abortion advocates.

Duckworth, who was in the debate spin room Tuesday night in Philadelphia, argued Trump, by helping bring about the fall of Roe, is the only reason IVF access is in jeopardy. Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has also made his own use of fertility treatments a regular part of his stump speech.

Trump’s attempt to neutralize the attacks from Harris, Walz, Duckworth and others with his own pro-IVF plan may, however, undercut his support with some white evangelicals who were already uneasy about voting for Trump this year. Though many of them see the former president as far better on abortion than Harris, some have expressed substantial frustration at Trump’s shifting rhetoricin recent weeks, including his criticism of Florida’s six-week ban on the procedure.

While evangelicals and self-identified “pro-life advocates” remain overwhelmingly supportive of IVF, the tide may be starting to turn, as many social conservatives see opposing the procedure as the next frontier of the “pro-life movement.” The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest and most politically powerful Protestant denomination, voted at their convention in June to oppose IVF, a move that could open the door for other denominations to follow suit.

“Listen, I’m a realist here. I know my position is so unpopular. … But what I found myself just scratching my head at was this idea that there would now be an IVF mandate required by insurers,” said Andrew Walker, a professor of Christian ethics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who opposes IVF and co-authored the resolution Southern Baptists voted on. “I mean, that’s basically somewhat of a facsimile from what Obama was doing with the HHS mandate. You’re going to require faith-based organizations to carry insurance that covers IVF against their conscience?”

“Even if you are for IVF, you ought to be able to say you shouldn’t force an organization to carry insurance coverage that they don’t want to carry,” he added.

Strategists from both parties estimate Trump can’t win without the support of 80 percent of white evangelicals nationally. In 2020, Biden won the second-highest percentage of white evangelicals of any Democrat of this century, behind only Obama in 2008, according to CNN exit polls — and in a close race, those votes could be the difference.

Prominent evangelical leaders have warned that despite Trump’s seeming course corrections after his recent abortion stumbles — particularly his declaration that he would vote against a Florida ballot measure that would expand access — he remains on thin ice with many rank-and-file voters as the Republican Party increasingly abandons socially conservative issues, like abortion and gay marriage. While white evangelicals have for decades been a core Republican constituency, those leaders argue there’s no guarantee that Christians will remain as engaged in politics as they have been in the past.

“Maybe he pays a political price for November,” Brown said. “It's going to be a tight election, and even a handful of demotivated pro-lifers in key swing states can make a difference.”

Liz Cheney is hitting the campaign trail with millions of dollars at her disposal to defeat Donald Trump and down-ballot Republicans, aggressively taking on the MAGA movement that dominates a party where she, and her father, are no longer welcome.

Cheney has pledged to do anything she can to help Kamala Harris, and has resources to back that up — including a PAC that raised more than $3 million in the first six months of the year, according to FEC records.

It’s part of an unprecedented effort by one of the party’s former highest-ranking leaders to not only take down Trump but purge any trace of him from the Republican Party. GOP strategists and elected officials who share her opposition to the former president say Cheney’s campaign — including her and her father’s endorsement of Harris — could pave the way for members of their party to join their cause. A critical mass could be enough to move the needle in a tight election.

“It’s a true reflection of how bad Donald Trump is — to think about a Dick Cheney, who is as time-tested of a conservative Republican as anybody in the roster, to come out and take a stance to support, like myself, Kamala Harris,” said former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican Harris supporter. “Look, the Republican Party loses no matter what. If Donald Trump gets beat by Kamala Harris — like I think is going to happen — the Republican Party loses. But if Donald Trump wins, the Republican Party loses even more: We’ll lose any and all credibility that we’ve got.”

Broadly, there doesn’t appear to be a deluge of Republicans flocking to Harris. An ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 93 percent of likely Republican voters still prefer Trump over Harris — similar margins to where Trump stood in 2020. Yet the campaigns are chasing any movement at the margins in what promises to be among the closest elections in modern political history.

“I think Dick Cheney’s voice is incredibly important, because I think it will draw some more traditional conservatives to pause for a second and kind of take that in,” said former Trump national security official Olivia Troye, a Republican surrogate for Harris who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. She will also be near Mesa, Arizona, Thursday, leading a phone banking operation with Republican Mesa Mayor John Giles.

Cheney, who emerged as a prominent Trump critic in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and served as the vice chair of the House select committee that probed the riot, has in recent days renewed her war against Trump, saying that he “represents unrecoverable catastrophe” and promising in a series of high-profile interviews to do whatever it takes to defeat the former president in order to stamp out the fires of Trumpism. It’s also a bit of payback after Trump and his political operation helped orchestrate the primary that led to Cheney’s ouster from Congress.

In an interview at the Texas Tribune Festival last week, Cheney endorsed Democratic Texas Rep. Colin Allred, and said she would be “in many key battleground states very much focused on how important it is that we defeat him in this cycle,” though she said she wouldn’t be an official Harris campaign surrogate.

“I will continue to be doing everything I can over the course of the next two months here to make sure that people realize, understand, recognize who Donald Trump is and what he did and why he’s so dangerous,” Cheney said.

Her PAC in 2022 spent hundreds of thousands of dollars opposing Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and Republican secretary of state nominee Mark Finchem.

Charlie Sykes, a former conservative radio talk show host in Wisconsin who is now anti-Trump, said the “one-two punch” of Cheney and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s endorsement gives conservatives wavering on Trump consent to back Harris. And while others in Trump’s administration who have broken with the former president have been reluctant to endorse a liberal Democrat, including former Vice President Mike Pence, the endorsement of someone like Dick Cheney carries significant weight.

“Both living Republican ex-vice presidents are now saying they’re not going to vote for Donald Trump. And one of them, a two-term Republican vice president, is saying he’s going to vote for Kamala Harris,” Sykes added. “That clearly creates this permission dynamic.”

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Other Republicans are more skeptical of the impact someone like Cheney could have on the election. The Cheneys’ support is, for instance, unlikely to move the needle with social conservatives for whom abortion remains one of the top issues — if not the top issue — in the election. While Trump has wavered on his views on abortion rights, anti-abortion advocates and their voters still see the former president as better on the issue than Harris, who they fear would uphold the status quo or possibly do more to expand abortion access in the U.S.

Pence, for instance, has said he won’t endorse Trump but hasn’t ruled out voting for him. But even if he does, Republicans who oppose Trump think it’s unlikely that he would make the leap to voting for Harris. (Pence previously said he would “never” vote for President Joe Biden.)

“She certainly appeals to the Never Trumpers,” said Barrett Marson, an Arizona-based GOP strategist. “But they are already in the column.”

The Cheneys’ support for Harris comes as Trump continues to rebuff the support of those who have previously rejected him. Earlier this year, Trump threatened to blacklist donors to Nikki Haley’s campaign, and he said he didn’t want the support of voters who “came back to” him during a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity last week.

“They say you should take everybody, but that’s not the way I’m built,” he said during the town hall.

The Harris campaign isn’t claiming that the Cheneys’ endorsements — or the support of any one Republican — will make a significant difference in the election. But the campaign has been making a concerted appeal to Republicans.

The campaign in August launched a “Republicans for Harris” organizing program, hired a former GOP congressional staffer as its national Republican engagement director and has been targeting anti-Trump Republicans, as well as other conservatives and independents, through paid media and a grassroots digital campaign. The Democratic National Convention also prominently featured several GOP officials, including former Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, former Trump White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham and Duncan.

And a group of 10 retired top military officials endorsed Harris on Monday, calling Trump a “danger to our national security and democracy,” criticizing his previous comments on the military and deriding his “chaotic approach” in Afghanistan before the U.S. withdrawal.

Her campaign has used that support — or at least, opposition to Trump — to get under the former president’s skin. A new ad released in the run-up to Tuesday’s debate features clips of former Trump administration officials — including Pence, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, National Security Adviser John Bolton and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley — talking about their concerns about a second Trump term or their decisions not to endorse him. The ad specifically aired in Palm Beach, the home of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

There have long been signs throughout the cycle that Trump’s GOP support could be softer than advertised. Nikki Haley consistently attracted upwards of a third of Republicans in various primaries weeks and months after she dropped out. In Maryland, Republican Senate candidate Larry Hogan even ran an ad hitting Trump on his involvement in Jan. 6.

Cheney is giving these kinds of Republicans a permission structure to back Harris, said pollster Sarah Longwell, the publisher of the anti-Trump outlet The Bulwark and CEO of Longwell Partners.

“They are people who want to vote for a different Republican, and so they’re always frustrated they don’t have a different Republican to vote for. And so they know they don’t want to vote for Trump, but the question is, can they affirmatively get there on Kamala Harris?” Longwell said. “And that’s where Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney are helpful, because they set the stakes.”

Still, Republicans working to oppose Trump acknowledge that Harris — who tacked to the left on several issues during her 2020 presidential bid — is a harder sell for many Republicans than Joe Biden was. But they say the positions she is taking on a number of economic issues and her backtracking from progressive policies is giving many on the right the comfort they need to consider voting for her.

“Positive messaging on Kamala, not just negative messaging on Trump, showing people how neoconservative she sounded in her acceptance speech, sharing her talking points about small business tax breaks and getting rid of red tape — you can’t argue with that,” said Emily Matthews, co-chair of the Haley Voters Working Group, which has met multiple times with the Harris campaign to talk about how to get Republicans’ support. “It’s on paper.”

Former President Donald Trump would not commit to vetoing a national abortion ban. Vice President Kamala Harris would not say which restrictions she would support on the procedure.

Tuesday night’s debate offered a sharp contrast between the two candidates and their approaches on abortion. But what both had in common — a fear of alienating their bases.

The exchange highlighted the tightrope both candidates feel they must walk — appearing moderate so as not to alienate middle-of-the-road voters who support abortion access with some restrictions, without saying anything that could cause their most ardent supporters’ enthusiasm to wane. It’s been a particular problem for Trump, who has angered anti-abortion-rights advocates on several occasions by suggesting that the federal government has no more role to play in legislating abortion.

Harris used her time to excoriate Trump for appointing the Supreme Court justices key to overturning Roe v. Wade. And she tried to undercut one of Trump’s most-used arguments — that ending Roe and returning it to the states is what most people wanted.

“You want to talk about, this is what people wanted?” Harris said. “A 12- or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. They don't want that.”

It was the starkest and clearest answer Harris has given on the implications of the fall of Roe and emblematic of the way her campaign has used the stories of women — including at the Democratic National Convention last month — to make that argument.

Trump, meanwhile, reiterated his support for his leave-abortion-to-the-states approach, which he said was only possible because of the “great courage” of the Supreme Court. But he wouldn’t weigh in on a veto of a national abortion ban — something Ohio Sen. JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, has said that the former president would do — saying that he “didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness.”

“They can never get this approved so it doesn’t matter,” Trump said. “I’m not signing a ban and there’s no reason to sign a ban.”

The two also had a back and forth on abortions later in pregnancy, with Trump suggesting incorrectly that Harris favors allowing abortion in the “8th or 9th” month of pregnancy. The vice president, who declined to say what limits she would favor on abortion, supports restoring Roe, which would protect abortion access until fetal viability, which is around the 22nd week of pregnancy. States could still restrict abortion beyond that point, though not all do so.

“Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion,” Harris said. “That’s not happening, that’s insulting to the women of America.”

Harris also highlighted the ripple effects of the fall of Roe, nodding to an Alabama Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that said that frozen embryos are people, briefly halting some IVF services in the state. She said women were being denied such services because of “Donald Trump’s abortion bans.”

“Another lie, it’s another lie,” Trump said, calling himself “a leader on IVF.”

Trump has expressed support for IVF, and announced late last month that he would make IVF treatments free, paid for by the government or health insurance companies.

Donald Trump’s sons want to turn their father’s growing bromance with the cryptocurrency industry into the new family business. So far, the project's troubled rollout has succeeded in creating only one thing: a potential political liability for the former president.

Trump’s eldest sons — Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump — have been teasing their plans to unveil a crypto startup called World Liberty Financial for weeks. But the launch has been marred in recent days by a series of apparent scams that have redirected fans to fake pages and compromised the social media accounts of other Trump relatives.

The incidents have begun to rattle some of Trump’s allies within the crypto world. They’re warning that his family should shelve a project that they say creates unnecessary political risks and reflects poorly on the industry.

“This is a huge mistake,” said Nic Carter, a Trump supporter who is a founding partner at the crypto-focused venture capital firm Castle Island Ventures. “It looks like Trump’s inner circle is just cashing in on his recent embrace of crypto in a kind of naive way, and frankly it looks like they’re burning a lot of the good will that’s been built with the industry so far.”

The drama illustrates the risks associated with Trump’s growing embrace of the crypto community, which he’s promised to give a sweeping set of supportive policies if elected. Government watchdogs have also warned the intertwining of politics, policy and the Trump family business poses new conflict of interest concerns as Democrats try to paint him as a “con artist” in the home stretch of the presidential campaign. It comes as major crypto firms face ongoing criticism that the market is rife with scams and consumer abuse.

While the details of the Trump brothers’ crypto project haven’t yet been announced, Trump began promoting World Liberty Financial’s forthcoming launch on social media last month after it opened an official channel on the messaging platform Telegram.

Shortly after, it appeared that fraudsters began to pounce. The X accounts of Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump and Tiffany Trump were compromised late Tuesday, when allegedly unauthorized users posted links to a hoax website for the crypto project featuring fake details about it. World Liberty wrote on its official Telegram channel that the accounts were “hacked” and warned against visiting any links from the posts. Tens of thousands of Telegram users have been lured to a separate unofficial channel posing as World Liberty Financial.

A representative for World Liberty, Zak Folkman, said in an interview that the group is “building a world-class decentralized finance platform with the absolute best of the best in the industry.” He said the unauthorized X posts and the fake Telegram channel were reported to the two platforms. Folkman confirmed that Lara, who is Eric Trump’s wife, and Tiffany Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter, are uninvolved in the project.

“We take security very seriously and put it first and foremost, above anything,” he said, adding that World Liberty works “with the top auditing firms and security specialists in the world.”

But experts say the way the crypto project was rolled out left it susceptible to scams.

“It’s a very typical playbook of smaller operators or more amateur operations in the crypto space to try to generate a lot of hype before revealing the details,” said Austin Campbell, an adjunct professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business who previously led the risk and portfolio management operation at the crypto firm Paxos. “That makes them susceptible to all sorts of nonsense.”

Official details about World Liberty remain scarce. The crypto news outlet CoinDesk reported this week that a white paper for the project describes “a borrowing and lending service strikingly similar to Dough Finance, a recently hacked blockchain app built by four people listed as World Liberty Financial team members.” The Trump brothers' venture is poised to launch a new crypto token, according to CoinDesk.

Folkman, the World Liberty representative, said the startup is creating a "protocol that gives power to the average person to be able to take control of all of the amazing opportunities decentralized finance offers." He declined to answer specific questions about the service.

The early signals haven’t reassured skeptics, including crypto advocates.

One crypto industry representative in Washington, granted anonymity because of sensitivities around criticizing Trump, described having “a laundry list of concerns." A big worry is that that it could reflect poorly on the industry as it pushes for policy changes that would help legitimize the sector.

“Maybe it doesn’t move the needle for most people, but if this thing is hacked or regular folks lose money on it or it opens up the door for the SEC to investigate the team, it only looks like it has downside risk,” Carter said. “It looks to have very little upside risk.”