‘Like a horror': A Harvard scientist studied the mysteries of aging. Now her future is in peril.
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Petrova's future has hung in the balance since Feb. 16,
Advertisement
The desk of Kseniia Petrova,at Harvard in Boston on April 3.
LUCY LU/NYT
Those actions have sent chills through the scientific community at Harvard and in her home country of Russia, where her family and former research colleagues say they fear she will be persecuted for her past political activism.
Advertisement
'Every day it was like a horror,' said Petrova's mother, Irina Petrova, from their home near Moscow, in the family's first public comments since her ordeal began. 'Something is wrong with this world if such a thing is possible.'
Petrova was r
To many, both in the US and in Russia, Petrova's case has come to symbolize President Trump's hard-line stance on immigration and his sharply expanded
'The rule of law does not have a carveout for educated individuals with pedigree,' US Attorney Leah B. Foley
Now, as her legal case drags into its sixth month, Petrova spends most of her days confined to a small apartment near Fenway Park, where she leads a hermit-like existence, reading biology textbooks and playing the guitar, her friends and lab partners say. She did not respond to multiple requests for an interview.
Inside the fifth-floor Harvard Medical School lab where she worked, Petrova's prolonged absence is strongly felt.
Advertisement
Petrova (right) and Cora Anderson, a research assistant, dressed up for a Halloween party in 2023 at the Harvard Medical School laboratory where they work.
Cora Anderson
Her colleagues described Petrova as a 'super nerd,' who once dressed up as a dead cell for Halloween and is so committed to her research that she sometimes collapsed on a couch after working through the night.
A specialist in bioinformatics, a field that uses computer tools and statistics to analyze large sets of biological data, Petrova was a core member of a team working to turn back the clock on aging cells and develop treatments for age-related diseases.
The laboratory, named after its founder and director,
Petrova proved to be a quick and versatile learner, immersing herself not only in bioinformatics but also in experiments involving tissue samples, despite having little background in biology, Kirschner said.
'She really wanted to be a full scientist, which I fully agree with,' Kirschner said.
Harvard Medical School's 'frog palace' at the college in Boston on April 3.
LUCY LU/NYT
Like much of biology, the Kirschner laboratory is fixated on frogs — it even has a giant tank known as the 'frog palace' — because the amphibians share many of the same genes and biological processes as humans. The goal was to develop a comprehensive map of embryonic frog cells, which the researchers hoped would be useful for scientists worldwide.
Petrova's determination to pursue her interest in the natural world began early in life and was nurtured by her scientific-minded parents.
Advertisement
She grew up in Moscow as the second child of two engineers. Her father, Dmitry Petrov, is a computer engineer and her mother, Irina, a specialist in radio antennas.
Speaking from their summer home in Kuchino, a village in a forested area west of Moscow, Petrova's parents described their daughter as an adventurous, free-spirited girl and gifted musician. Photos and videoes shared by her family show her playing the flute and
Kseniia Petrova (left) with her parents, Dmitry and Irina, at their home in Kuchimo, Russia. A Harvard Medical School scientist, Petrova, now 31, faces possible deportation to Russia for attempting to bring undeclared biological samples into the country.
Vladimir Mazin
The family's log cabin-style summer home in the forest was a refuge for Petrova to nurture her creativity, her parents said. Friends and scientists would gather at their home in the woods, often discussing books and playing music until late at night, her parents said. Sometimes she was so immersed in her studies that she would bring her laptop or book outside and read on a tree stump while her family foraged for mushrooms or berries, recalled Vladimir Mazin, a scientist and longtime family friend.
In a sign of her early resolve, Petrova decided at age 13 that she would transfer from a focus on English studies to biology and chemistry. She completed the paperwork herself and switched programs without consulting her parents.
'Kseniia was a very determined child. She would make a decision and stand by it at a very early age,' Mazin said.
Petrova, as a child, carried a log through the woods near their home in Kuchimo, Russia.
Dmitry Petrov
Petrova's interest in politics long preceded the invasion of Ukraine, her parents said. In 2011, while she was still a teenager, Petrova and her older brother became official election observers on a commission tasked with certifying the local results of Russia's parliamentary election. The 2011 election was marred by
Advertisement
Then, on the day after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Petrova and her friends joined protesters on the streets of Moscow. The following day, Petrova protested again and was arrested, charged with an administrative offense, and released, her parents said. That incident, her parents said, made it difficult for her to find a job in scientific research in Russia and contributed to her decision to leave the country for a job at Harvard.
After graduating in 2022 from the prestigious
an important step to identifying and treating hereditary diseases.
But
suggested that she rethink her outspoken support of the opposition movement to Putin so she could get through the security clearance process, Severinov said. When she refused, Severinov brought Petrova on as a consultant rather than an employee.
Advertisement
'I would say it was partly naivete, but it was also about her being a principled person,' Severinov said. 'There's an irony to the fact that Kseniia is someone who suffered here [in Russia] because of her political views, and now she's suffering where she's presumably on the good side. It turns out this is all like [the novel] '1984.''
Petrova's family and colleagues are now worried for her future, which looks precarious, given the nature of her alleged
offense and her history of political activism in Russia.
After stopping Petrova, a federal customs officer at Logan reviewed her phone and uncovered a series of text messages suggesting Petrova knew she was supposed to declare biological material when entering the United States — and then misled authorities,
according to
While sitting on the tarmac, Petrova fired back in a text, 'No plan yet. I won't be able to swallow them,' according to the criminal complaint.
A container of frog embryos in the Kirschner Lab at Harvard Medical School in Boston on April 3.
LUCY LU/NYT
When Petrova was questioned by the customs official, she denied carrying any biological material in her luggage and said she didn't know she was supposed to declare the frog embryos, prosecutors allege.
Yet Petrova's attorneys maintain there was no legal basis for detaining and charging her, arguing the frog eggs in her luggage were not biological material as classified
In interviews, four immigration law experts
Yet if she is deported back to Russia, several immigration experts said, it is highly likely she would be arrested and imprisoned for her outspoken opposition to Putin's policies.
'There is no worse place that [Petrova] could go than Russia,' said
Inside his lab office, decorated with framed images of frogs, Kirschner looked crestfallen as he discussed the loss of one of his star researchers. He recalled how, decades ago, he brought intact live frogs from Switzerland through US customs at an airport with little hassle.
'I definitely feel emotional about this,' Kirschner said. 'It makes me realize that, with all these changes, that we're moving toward more of a police state.'
Petrova left federal court in Boston on June 12.
Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff
Petrova's parents said they talk to their daughter via video feed two or three times a week, and remain anxious about her fate if she is deported to Russia. 'We have brutal repressions in this country,' said her father, looking downcast. 'We don't know if they will forget about [Kseniia] or they will brutally put her to trial.' He added, 'In Russia, authorities act as they wish.'
On June 12, Petrova was released from ICE custody, emerging from the front doors of the Boston courthouse wearing a T-shirt that said 'Hakunka matata,' or 'no worries.'
Since then, Petrova has taken up several new hobbies, her parents and friends said, including wood etching and baking bread.
She's also planted more vegetable seeds, which have begun to sprout around her apartment.
Chris Serres can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Harvard Vs. Trump: The Battle Over Tax-Exempt Status
In this episode of Tax Notes Talk, Ellen Aprill of UCLA discusses the legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration over the university's tax-exempt status and the recourses that an exempt organization may have if its status is revoked. Tax Notes Talk is a podcast produced by Tax Notes. This transcript has been edited for clarity. David D. Stewart: Welcome to the podcast. I'm David Stewart, editor in chief of Tax Notes Today International. This week: status change. Charitable and educational organizations have long enjoyed tax-exempt status as set out in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). But lately, the tax status of some nonprofits has come under national scrutiny, as the Trump administration has called for Harvard University to lose its tax-exempt status and has cut the institution off from sources of federal funding. Harvard has responded with a lawsuit accusing the administration of violating its First Amendment rights and illegally revoking its grant funding. And now, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as acting IRS commissioner, there are concerns that a member of Trump's cabinet leading the agency could affect its operations and stability. So how does a nonprofit's tax-exempt status get revoked, and what legal recourse might an organization stripped of its status have? Ellen Aprill, a senior scholar in residence at the UCLA School of Law, explores these questions in her recently published paper, "Revoking Tax Exemption for Pursuit of DEI and Other Alleged Forms of Discrimination." She joins me now to delve into that paper and more. Ellen, welcome to the podcast. Ellen Aprill: Oh, thank you so much. It's a pleasure to talk to you. David D. Stewart: So let's start with a base level of knowledge: What does a nonprofit institution need to do to maintain its status, and in general, what are they prohibited from doing? Ellen Aprill: So all tax-exempt organizations, of which there are 29 categories, not just 501(c)(3) charities — although we often talk about nonprofits and mean only 501(c)(3)s — all of them, with some exceptions, such as churches, have to file a [Form]So again, 501(c)(3)s, charities, unlike other categories of tax-exempt organizations, have to apply for exemption and get a determination from the IRS that they qualify for pursuing one of the listed charitable purposes and 501(c)(3), and on their application do not say that they will lobby too much, engage in campaign intervention. And then they have to file the 990 every year. And if they make any major changes, they have to describe them in the 990. There's a favorite old article, "Could Harvard Become a Soup Kitchen?" So they could both be 501(c)(3)s. Would Harvard be able to, over time, change its activities to be a (c)(3) soup kitchen? Not that I'm predicting they will. And something that Congress enacted a few years ago is that entities automatically lose their exemption if they fail to file 990s for three years in a row. This does not generally affect the big, even the medium-sized exempt organizations. Now, even the tiniest ones have to file an electronic postcard called a 990-N, and they can in fact lose exemption if they fail to file 990s for three years. What we often see for revocation is that maybe there's too much campaign intervention, maybe there's more than substantial lobbying, although I haven't seen that one in a while. There may be too much private inurement, too much benefit going to insiders. Under current law, if you're already existing as a 501(c)(3) and your excess benefit to insiders isn't extraordinary, there's only an excise tax. But you still see denial of exemption for insiders getting too much benefit for private inurement. So those are some of the things we would usually see. David D. Stewart: OK. Well, turning to a subject that you mentioned: Harvard. What is the current situation going between Harvard and the Trump administration? Ellen Aprill: Well, there are a bunch of things going on with Harvard and the Trump administration. I think the two biggest ones are not directly having to do with tax exemption; they have to do with cancellation of enormous amounts of funds for scientific research on the grounds of violation of Title VI for antisemitism, and also challenges to visas for their international students. And on the first one, on the funding issue, there was a hearing. David D. Stewart: So did we get a sense of what went on at the July 21 hearing? Ellen Aprill: Based only on media reports, it seemed to me pretty interesting. The government lawyer appears to be making some new arguments — arguments I hadn't seen before. One, that Harvard was obligated to follow President Trump's executive orders. I'm sorry, executive orders are not the law; they are a statement of administration position. They can issue directives to others in the administration, cabinet officers, etc. So that one was a bit of a surprise. And the government lawyer, again, according to press reports, also argued that Harvard should have read the small print — that the government always has the ability to cancel contracts involving funding if the institution is not following the policies of the government. And that's not how I read the law, so I found that interesting. Harvard argued that it had violations of the First Amendment for some of what the government was trying to do, and also argued against the application of Title VI. And the judge — again, according to press reports — seemed to ask several times, "How would accusation of antisemitism be connected to these funds for scientific research?" Because part of the requirements under Title VI is that the cancellation of funding can only apply to matters connected to the violation. So that was a surprise. I didn't see as much in the oral arguments at least about procedures that should be followed when you cancel funding under Title VI — notice and hearings. Didn't see that. And I didn't see any basic questioning about whether Title VI in fact applies to religion. By its terms, Title VI, unlike Title VII for employment, does not include religion as one of the categories for its basis. David D. Stewart: All right, well, turning to the question of tax status. What is the process? How can someone's 501(c)(3) status be revoked? How does that work? Ellen Aprill: So anybody in the public can file a complaint with the IRS if they think that there are violations of the laws applying to tax status. I once was at an ABA tax section meeting, and someone from the IRS at that time — this is six years ago — said they do reserve a certain amount of their audit activity to reply to such public complaints. The other way that it would seem to be most likely is if the IRS finds issues on the 990. But if the IRS decides to start a revocation process, it is a long process involving a lot of give and take between the entity and the IRS. If at the end of that initial process the IRS issues a proposed adverse determination letter, the entity can then go to the IRS Office of Independent Appeals. And if at the end of the appeals process, which would again involve a lot of give and take, if the organization is unhappy, it can ask for a declaratory judgment action, usually from the Tax Court, but also it can file that in the district court of D.C. or in the court of claims. David D. Stewart: So this process doesn't seem to be following that line. What is the effect of having a president come out and say, "We're going to revoke their tax status"? Ellen Aprill: So there is a specific statute that says that can't happen. The IRS cannot respond to any executive department pressure to have revocation. After the president made the statement, White House officials said, "Yes, yes, yes, it's up to the IRS." There is an outstanding question as to whether this statute that applies to the president would still be constitutional after the Trump immunity case. Some people think that that part of it's unconstitutional, but if other members of the executive branch were to pressure the IRS to do revocation, that violates the statute. Disclosing any revocation process violates another statute. But enforcing these statutes require action on a bunch of people: The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has to take action; the Department of Justice has to take action. I don't think I have ever seen an actual case under it, although I have seen interviews, particularly with former Commissioner Rettig, about how important they consider those limitations in the IRS and how everyone was always briefed on those requirements. David D. Stewart: So as we're recording on August 13 in the afternoon, we have seen some reporting this week about a deal potentially in the works between the administration and Harvard. What are we seeing on that? Ellen Aprill: What we are seeing is that — from The New York Times, that's the reporting we know, and other reporting relies on it — that there is a potential deal for Harvard to spend $500 million to get back billions, and that that money would not go directly to the federal government, but to vocational and educational programs and research. We don't know where that stands; there seems to be some sticking point, maybe on how much Harvard would be willing to share admissions data or not. So it may get settled. I think if this gets settled, there is unlikely to be any follow-up with attempt to revoke its exempt status. I think that the threat to revoke exempt status is simply another cudgel to get these universities to settle. David D. Stewart: What would happen to a university that lost its tax-exempt status? Ellen Aprill: Other of my colleagues — Harvey Dale, Jill Manny, and Daniel Hemel — have written a really good article in Tax Notes about what would happen to Harvard. It's surprisingly less than you might think. It is less than most of the media coverage has speculated. For one thing, there's quite good authority that donations, gifts would continue to be nontaxable income to Harvard under section 102, simply as a gift. The other aspect that would be particularly important to Harvard and many other 501(c)(3)s is property tax. And in Massachusetts and many other states, property tax has a long independent history and does not depend on federal exemption. I think a big concern would be whether they still got donations, because if they were no longer tax exempt, donations directly to Harvard would not be deductible as charitable contributions. Some of the superrich seldom take the charitable contribution deduction; their wealth is so much greater than their income that the deduction doesn't work for them. Some very rich donors, again, have private foundations that could still make donations so long as they exercised oversight known as expenditure responsibility. The same would be donations from donor-advised funds. And as was the case with Bob Jones University, Harvard is likely to have other arms that are independently tax exempt, and donations could still be made to them. Exemption also has a bit of a halo. How much that halo would be tarnished in this day and age, I can't say. David D. Stewart: Are there particular areas of Harvard's work that could be more affected than others? Ellen Aprill: I think the big concern is with the scientific funding, and that's somewhat independent from tax exemption. So the case that's going on with the billions and billions of dollars involved in scientific funding is a very big concern. There may be areas — and this I do not know — there may be areas where Harvard's colleges or programs depend in particular on charitable donations from more the middle class and the ordinarily wealthy, not the superwealthy. And if those donations ceased, that could possibly be a very big problem. And there may be very big donors who just don't want to donate anymore, even if there were ways for them to do it, if it was not to a tax-exempt institution. David D. Stewart: So in the case of Harvard, let's say the administration did pursue revoking its 501(c)(3) status. What would that process look like? What arguments would be made internally about why Harvard doesn't deserve this status anymore? Ellen Aprill: So I think that two big arguments would be that it violates fundamental public policy under Bob Jones because Harvard engages in what we might call reverse discrimination — diversity, equity, and inclusion — which would be harmful to students who are not members of a minority. So that would be one. And the other would be substantial illegal purpose, which I think would turn largely on the Title VI arguments we are hearing being made in the funding case. So if Harvard ended up losing that case and they said, "You are violating Title VI," there would be a better argument for revoking Harvard's exemption for substantial illegal purpose. I note that most of the cases involving substantial illegal purpose have involved criminal violations. There is a continuing professional education text from the EO division that says the government is not interested in subsidizing criminals. OK. But the examples were for the most part involving robbing banks, things like that. David D. Stewart: If this went badly for Harvard, is this a permanent decision, or is there a way back? Ellen Aprill: Interesting. Very interesting. First of all, remember that Harvard could challenge it. And even if they lost the declaratory action at the first level, at the trial court level, it could keep appealing if Harvard so chose. In addition, Harvard's arguments that we saw in the hearing said that the government was violating its First Amendment rights. There is a case called Z Street in which a group was told that organizations that took a different position on Israeli policy than the Obama administration — one of the IRS employees told their lawyers they were getting a harder look if they didn't agree with the administration's position. And they took an immediate action, not waiting for a final determination, because of violation of their constitutional rights, and they were able to have the case heard at that point. So depending on what would happen and what Harvard heard about why, they couldn't possibly challenge this decision or this procedure even before they got a final adverse determination letter, and that could slow the process even more. Could they reconstitute and file again? Wow. It would involve a lot. Let me give you an example: the one case we know of of a church having its exemption revoked for too much campaign activity, Branch Ministries. In that case, the church ran ads in two national newspapers saying "Don't vote for Clinton" and accepted charitable contributions at the same time. The D.C. Circuit upheld revocation of its exemption, but at least in the case of a church, we said, so what? They could reconstitute, form a new church. Churches don't have to apply for exemption or file 990s, and they could start all over again. We do get new 501(c)(3) educational institutions all the time. It would be an enormous task to start all over again, but I think it would be possible. I hope they don't ask me to restructure it, which they won't, because I'm no longer a member of the bar. At one point, my former institution, Loyola Law School, for complicated reasons decided it had to have its own exemption and not be part of the Catholic Church's group exemption. And in order to do that, the university had to show it did not discriminate on the basis of race under Bob Jones, and one of my friends in town did that work. And the amount of research and paper that they had to go in to just get their own exemption was incredible and enormous. So if Harvard were to do this, what a good question. My thought is they might do it separately for different parts of it. That would be something that would be more feasible than starting all over for the whole university. David D. Stewart: So coming back to what we expect, what would it look like if Harvard lost its exemptions? What would we see from the outside? Ellen Aprill: We would see an adverse determination letter. They would receive an adverse determination letter. They would be taken off the list of organizations eligible to receive charitable donations that the IRS publishes — it used to be called Publication 78 when it was in hard copy, but nothing's in hard copy anymore, so it would be on the IRS website. So that would be what we would see initially. It would get a lot of press. David D. Stewart: Do you think Harvard would change anything that they're doing in response? Ellen Aprill: Well, part of the argument that we heard is that to the extent that the revocation would be based on antisemitism, Harvard has already undertaken a number of actions and intends to take further actions. Harvard settled two suits that alleged harassment and discrimination against Jewish students, and they have changed their antidiscrimination policy on their web page. They have taken other actions. So part of the difficulty with the argument about revocation is if you're complaining about what Harvard used to do and now it's changed it, why is that not enough? So part of it is the period of time at which the procedure — what they would look at, what years. I personally don't think there's a good argument for revoking Harvard's exemption; I can't guarantee that it wouldn't happen, of course. David D. Stewart: Well, assuming that it did go forward, it would likely end up in the courts. And what do you think would happen if it found its way into litigation? Ellen Aprill: It would take a very, very, very long time. It would go on for years and years and years. Bob Jones went on forever. But part of the reason we now have this way for organizations to quickly file declaratory judgment actions is to avoid the problem that Bob Jones encountered. Bob Jones had to pay a tax and then file for refund before it could get into court to review the revocation of its exemption. It ultimately lost in the case involving fundamental public policy. We don't know what would happen if that reached the Supreme Court. We don't know what the Supreme Court would look like. We don't know what they would say about the Bob Jones case and fundamental public policy. We don't know whether they would read the language in Bob Jones saying no discrimination in education — which at the time clearly meant discrimination against Blacks — whether they would take that more generally and include discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students to already be encompassed by Bob Jones and say they did violate fundamental public policy. David D. Stewart: So Harvard's not the only university dealing with scrutiny from the federal government right now. What is happening with UCLA? Ellen Aprill: So I am now an employee of UCLA — I'm a senior scholar in residence at the nonprofit center — and the administration is asking UCLA for $1 billion to settle. That's a very big number, so much bigger than any other of the numbers we have seen, even for Harvard. We don't know whether UCLA is going to settle; I have no inside information on that. We do know that Governor Newsom has said that he would want to fight. I assume this is a decision for the regents. I do not know what would happen. The consequences for UCLA to lose funding are enormous — all of the medical and scientific research. It is a little different from anything else we have seen because UCLA is a public university and not a private university. All of the UC campuses back to 1939 actually filed and received 501(c)(3) status, so they are currently a 501(c)(3). Their [status] could be revoked. Even if their [status] were revoked, however, they would still be a governmental entity, and governmental entities are not subject to income tax, but losing any funding is still the big issue in front of them. David D. Stewart: So now I understand that this is a unique case, but in this current dynamic of scrutiny for exempt organizations, what should advisers be telling their clients? How should people respond? Ellen Aprill: So one thing that everyone is telling — and indeed, I've had two different organizations ask me to do webinars on this issue — is to make sure they have taken care of all low-hanging fruit, that they are doing all their filings right, that their web page is up to date, that their 990s are being filed timely and are up to date, that they're doing all their state filings appropriately. So that's one thing to do. They then have to decide, some of them, whether they want to make any changes. So one group filed a complaint with the IRS against the Gates Foundation, among others. They said that the Gates Foundation had one scholarship program that was for minority students, and the complaint said that this violated Bob Jones fundamental public policy. And I had trouble with the complaint, myself. So one of the things that Bob Jones said is that we needed long-standing action by all three branches of government before we say something is fundamental public policy, the violation of which would mean no exemption. So this complaint relied in part on Students for Fair Admissions, and it read that case broadly. That case only said no affirmative action in college admissions. If, under Bob Jones, you have to be super clear and super careful before you say something's a fundamental public policy, I would not read the case in that way. And the complaint relied on President Trump's executive orders. Those are too recent; one administration cannot establish fundamental public policy. I used to get questions all the time, every time there was a new administration with a different State Department policy. And they would ask, well, don't all these organizations lose their exemption? No. Administrations are free to establish public policy, but that doesn't mean it becomes fundamental public policy. We cannot have exempt organizations gaining their exemption, losing it when one president is elected, and then gaining it again when another one is elected. So I didn't find that there was enough evidence for fundamental public policy. Maybe by the time it got to a Supreme Court it would. But the Gates Foundation changed its policy. Now they're noticing that they were now going to give these scholarships to all Pell Grant recipients, so not looking directly at race. They said that had been under consideration for quite some time and that the change wasn't because of the filing of this complaint two weeks earlier. So that was something that the Gates Foundation felt they could do in good conscience, staying true to their purpose and mission. And there are groups that may feel that they could do the same. David D. Stewart: Well, Ellen, it's been great talking to you, and I'm sure this is an issue we're going to have to keep an eye on over the next, at least three-and-a-half years. So thank you for being here to talk to us about it. Ellen Aprill: Thank you so much. Such good questions you asked.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Can Beau Bayh and that 'incredible surname' reignite the hopes of Indiana Democrats?
Beau Bayh has reentered the chat. Bayh has been in Indiana's spotlight since he and his twin brother were born to a sitting Indiana governor: Evan Bayh. Their mom, the late former Indiana First Lady Susan Bayh, even gave a post-delivery interview from the hospital in 1995. Now, all grown up at age 29, some Indiana Democrats hope the younger Bayh is their best hope to regain a shred of the political power and relevance they had when the elder Bayh was in office. Beau Bayh isn't quite ready to share his plans, but he looks and sounds lately like he's about to run for political office here. Speaking to a room of about 175 Indiana Democrats down near French Lick over the weekend, Bayh spoke of standing up to the powers that be. Rebuilding the middle class. The broken bonds between the people and politicians. The Harvard graduate and U.S. military member told IndyStar he's currently moving back to Indianapolis from Bloomington, following his judicial clerkship for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But he signaled more could be coming soon. 'I'm going to take the next month or so to get settled,' he told IndyStar over text. 'But I'm sure of one thing: we need a change in our politics. More unity, less division. More progress, less partisanship. More elected officials who represent the public interest and not the special interests or themselves.' Meanwhile, speculation is high that he's considering waging a bid against Secretary of State Diego Morales, and if Bayh could make inroads for Democrats as they keep losing statewide elections. 'If you can get someone at the top of the ticket people are excited about, it's easier to ask people to write a check, knock on doors or go to this and that event,' said Greg Shufeldt, a University of Indianapolis political science professor, when asked about the prospect of Bayh running. 'Those are all good things for the Democratic party even if the on-the-ground reality makes it a tough fight for any Democrat.' Getting people excited doesn't appear to be out of reach for Bayh, if the reception at a recent Orange County Democratic Party event translates statewide. County Chairman Larry Hollan had to add two extra tables to the American Legion hall where Bayh served as keynote speaker on Aug. 15 due to an increase in ticket sales that he thinks was driven by interest in Bayh. 'They hung onto his every word,' Hollan said. 'You could hear a pin drop when he was speaking. He held the audience in the palm of his hand.' Bayh didn't make any announcements at the dinner, but did show up with two heavyweight supporters: his dad and Mayor Joe Hogsett. 'It was a mini reunion, you might say,' Hollan said. '(The elder Bayh) also felt welcome but … Beau was the star of the show.' Could Beau Bayh turn around Democrats' chances in Indiana? Even for a Bayh, running for a statewide seat in Indiana is going to be an uphill battle, according to political analysts contacted by IndyStar. The fundamentals of the state are just so heavily tilted against Democrats at this point, said Shufeldt. 'Our politics have become increasingly nationalized and candidate attributes, including last name, matter less and less,' Shufeldt said. 'The letter for the party after your name tends to matter a whole lot more. Devoid of anything specific to his candidacy, any Democrat faces an intense uphill fight.' Democrats thought state races could be close, but Republicans clobbered. What happened? Shufeldt said that, on paper, Democrats have run some good candidates recently. All got handily defeated electorally. Republicans haven't won a statewide race since U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly squeezed out a win against Richard Mourdock in 2012. 'Evan Bayh lost quite comfortably to Todd Young, and I think people thought that would be a lot closer,' Shufeldt said, harkening back to the 2016 U.S. Senate race featuring Beau Bayh's dad. Still, Republicans have seemed eager to pounce on Bayh's candidacy. "The guy seems genuinely nice and I appreciate his military service… but this is the secret weapon we've heard about for 6+ years that's going to save the Indiana Dems?" state Rep. Kyle Pierce, R-Anderson, posted on X after Bayh's recent appearance on a liberal podcast. "Bayh barely wants to talk policy, avoids sharing his ideological beliefs and barely shares any vision of public service besides his personal desire to do it." 'Incredible surname' A win for a Democrat statewide now would require a fortuitous confluence of events for the candidate, Shufeldt said. 'It's a lightning in a bottle thing,' he said. However, University of Indianapolis political science professor Laura Merrifield Wilson said Bayh has some key advantages that other Democratic candidates would lack, including that 'incredible surname.' 'You're talking about a great legacy in terms of public service,' Wilson said. 'It's hard not to think 'Evan' and 'Birch.'' Along with that name ID comes access to fundraising, polling and public relations resources that other startup candidates would have to work harder for, Wilson said. Bayh could have access to an impressive war chest right off the bat if his dad is feeling generous: Evan Bayh's Senate campaign committee had about $2 million in the bank as of June, according to FEC records. Federal candidates are permitted to donate to statewide candidates subject to state law. 'It's all of the mechanisms you'd need to have a successful campaign,' Wilson said. 'He'd have a foot in the door to begin that first step. It would be a really good strong start.' Questions about his candidacy remain though, Wilson said. Namely around policy. The younger Bayh is largely undefined. Is he a centrist Democrat like his dad or does he lean more progressive? 'I do wonder policy-wise what he has to bring to the table,' Wilson said. 'That's really the struggle to find what their niche is to attract Hoosier voters. I don't know what he has to offer in terms of that.' Contact senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo at hcolombo@ or follow her on X @hayleighcolombo. Sign up for our free weekly politics newsletter, Checks & Balances, by IndyStar political and government reporters. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: 'Incredible surname': Can Beau Bayh help Indiana Democrats finally win? Solve the daily Crossword
Indianapolis Star
3 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Can Beau Bayh and that 'incredible surname' reignite the hopes of Indiana Democrats?
Beau Bayh has reentered the chat. Bayh has been in Indiana's spotlight since he and his twin brother were born to a sitting Indiana governor: Evan Bayh. Their mom, the late former Indiana First Lady Susan Bayh, even gave a post-delivery interview from the hospital in 1995. Now, all grown up at age 29, some Indiana Democrats hope the younger Bayh is their best hope to regain a shred of the political power and relevance they had when the elder Bayh was in office. Beau Bayh isn't quite ready to share his plans, but he looks and sounds lately like he's about to run for political office here. Speaking to a room of about 175 Indiana Democrats down near French Lick over the weekend, Bayh spoke of standing up to the powers that be. Rebuilding the middle class. The broken bonds between the people and politicians. The Harvard graduate and U.S. military member told IndyStar he's currently moving back to Indianapolis from Bloomington, following his judicial clerkship for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But he signaled more could be coming soon. 'I'm going to take the next month or so to get settled,' he told IndyStar over text. 'But I'm sure of one thing: we need a change in our politics. More unity, less division. More progress, less partisanship. More elected officials who represent the public interest and not the special interests or themselves.' Meanwhile, speculation is high that he's considering waging a bid against Secretary of State Diego Morales, and if Bayh could make inroads for Democrats as they keep losing statewide elections. 'If you can get someone at the top of the ticket people are excited about, it's easier to ask people to write a check, knock on doors or go to this and that event,' said Greg Shufeldt, a University of Indianapolis political science professor, when asked about the prospect of Bayh running. 'Those are all good things for the Democratic party even if the on-the-ground reality makes it a tough fight for any Democrat.' Getting people excited doesn't appear to be out of reach for Bayh, if the reception at a recent Orange County Democratic Party event translates statewide. County Chairman Larry Hollan had to add two extra tables to the American Legion hall where Bayh served as keynote speaker on Aug. 15 due to an increase in ticket sales that he thinks was driven by interest in Bayh. 'They hung onto his every word,' Hollan said. 'You could hear a pin drop when he was speaking. He held the audience in the palm of his hand.' Bayh didn't make any announcements at the dinner, but did show up with two heavyweight supporters: his dad and Mayor Joe Hogsett. 'It was a mini reunion, you might say,' Hollan said. '(The elder Bayh) also felt welcome but … Beau was the star of the show.' Even for a Bayh, running for a statewide seat in Indiana is going to be an uphill battle, according to political analysts contacted by IndyStar. The fundamentals of the state are just so heavily tilted against Democrats at this point, said Shufeldt. 'Our politics have become increasingly nationalized and candidate attributes, including last name, matter less and less,' Shufeldt said. 'The letter for the party after your name tends to matter a whole lot more. Devoid of anything specific to his candidacy, any Democrat faces an intense uphill fight.' Democrats thought state races could be close, but Republicans clobbered. What happened? Shufeldt said that, on paper, Democrats have run some good candidates recently. All got handily defeated electorally. Republicans haven't won a statewide race since U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly squeezed out a win against Richard Mourdock in 2012. 'Evan Bayh lost quite comfortably to Todd Young, and I think people thought that would be a lot closer,' Shufeldt said, harkening back to the 2016 U.S. Senate race featuring Beau Bayh's dad. Still, Republicans have seemed eager to pounce on Bayh's candidacy. "The guy seems genuinely nice and I appreciate his military service… but this is the secret weapon we've heard about for 6+ years that's going to save the Indiana Dems?" state Rep. Kyle Pierce, R-Anderson, posted on X after Bayh's recent appearance on a liberal podcast. "Bayh barely wants to talk policy, avoids sharing his ideological beliefs and barely shares any vision of public service besides his personal desire to do it." A win for a Democrat statewide now would require a fortuitous confluence of events for the candidate, Shufeldt said. 'It's a lightning in a bottle thing,' he said. However, University of Indianapolis political science professor Laura Merrifield Wilson said Bayh has some key advantages that other Democratic candidates would lack, including that 'incredible surname.' 'You're talking about a great legacy in terms of public service,' Wilson said. 'It's hard not to think 'Evan' and 'Birch.'' Along with that name ID comes access to fundraising, polling and public relations resources that other startup candidates would have to work harder for, Wilson said. Bayh could have access to an impressive war chest right off the bat if his dad is feeling generous: Evan Bayh's Senate campaign committee had about $2 million in the bank as of June, according to FEC records. Federal candidates are permitted to donate to statewide candidates subject to state law. 'It's all of the mechanisms you'd need to have a successful campaign,' Wilson said. 'He'd have a foot in the door to begin that first step. It would be a really good strong start.' Questions about his candidacy remain though, Wilson said. Namely around policy. The younger Bayh is largely undefined. Is he a centrist Democrat like his dad or does he lean more progressive? 'I do wonder policy-wise what he has to bring to the table,' Wilson said. 'That's really the struggle to find what their niche is to attract Hoosier voters. I don't know what he has to offer in terms of that.' Contact senior government accountability reporter Hayleigh Colombo at hcolombo@ or follow her on X @hayleighcolombo.
