
Conservative Indiana will explore psychedelic mental health treatment
Buried deep in the budget bill is something that might prove to be more than incremental.
| Contributing Columnist
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, 'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
I'm no first-rate intellect, but I'm going to do my best to keep functioning anyway, as I try to consider two opposing ideas about how change happens as equally true.
The case for incrementalism
In many of the circles I find myself in these days, it's become fashionable to call for bold action. We say things like, 'We can't afford to take small steps,' or 'This is a time for urgency and big swings.' The thing to be avoided at all costs is 'technocratic incrementalism,' the idea of tackling big problems with small, steady efforts.
I've said these things. I've meant them. Honestly, I still do. But I also believe something else, which sits uncomfortably alongside that belief: Incrementalism is often the best we can realistically do, in a policy world rife with compromises and trade-offs.
I offer this tension as a frame for thinking about Indiana's latest legislative session, especially as it relates to mental health. I began my time as an Indy Star contributor with a piece urging lawmakers to keep their promises and fully fund the overhaul of Indiana's mental health system that began in 2023. I used all the adjectives of the 'bold or bust' movement: words like 'historic' and 'transformational.'
If we're grading on the scale of sweeping change and radical reinvention, then the answer to the question 'Did legislators keep their promises?' is 'no.' This session did not deliver a grand leap forward for mental health.
But I'd argue that it was a win, all the same.
Winning by not losing
In a session marked by a $2.4 billion revenue shortfall and cuts to many high-priority initiatives, the new funding that was secured for mental health last budget session (an additional $50 million annually to build the new system) was not cut.
That may not sound like a big win, but I'm counting it as a meaningful step forward. We didn't get the long-term, sustainable funding that advocates and providers were pushing for, but we did preserve the opportunity to keep building, and early signs suggest that it's already paying off. Sources tell me that Indiana's Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic pilot sites are significantly improving access to care, reaching more people and closing some longstanding gaps.
The work is far from done. Gaps will remain, and people will still fall through them. But if we continue to build smartly and collaboratively, measure what's working, and keep making the case for investment, we'll have another shot at lasting change in two years.
Legislative leaders compared this budget environment to the aftermath of the Great Recession, when former Gov. Mitch Daniels and the legislature gutted most of the Indiana human services field, including mental health. The damage from that earlier era is something the field is only now recovering from. Through that lens, just holding ground this year is no small thing. In a landscape full of hard choices, we protected our progress.
And that's not all.
Indiana will pursue promising mental health treatment
Buried deep in the budget bill is something that might prove to be more than incremental. The legislature appropriated new funding for further study of psychedelic-assisted therapy for mental health and substance use disorder.
Full disclosure: I'm a convert. I could bore you with studies, like the one where two-thirds of veterans with PTSD no longer met the criteria for the disorder after undergoing psychedelic-assisted therapy. It's not yet a gold-standard, fully approved treatment, but it is incredibly promising.
Studies are important, but stories of changed lives are what matter. Consider the story of Colts player Braden Smith, who bravely shared his own mental health journey in IndyStar. He found healing through psychedelic therapy, but he had to go to Mexico to do it. Thanks to this new funding, future Braden Smiths might be able to get help closer to home.
Indiana is a notoriously temperamentally conservative state (we haven't even legalized medical cannabis), and we just took a significant step toward exploring psychedelic mental health treatment. That is something close to miraculous.
I've been (and will continue to be) critical of our leaders when it's warranted. There is plenty in this budget, or about this session, that I don't like. I'll keep being critical when it is called for.
It is important, however, to give credit where it's due. When future Hoosiers look back at mental health in the 2025 session, they might not see the transformational change that some hoped for, but they will see that the legislature preserved hard-won progress, and maybe took a surprising bold step forward too.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Isn't this embarrassing?' Team Trump gets a brutal reminder about the weak economy
Partway through Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia focused attention on an underappreciated story: just how weak the U.S. economy has been since Donald Trump returned to power. Noting that the Cabinet secretary has been successful in the past, the congressman asked, in reference to recent economic data, 'Isn't this embarrassing?' Bessent seemed to think he had the upper hand. 'I'm sorry, congressman, but you seem not to have seen the economic data. The GDP growth has been quite substantial, job growth is solid.' When Beyer tried to present the treasury secretary with facts, Bessent replied, 'No, no, no.' The trouble is, reality was on the Virginia Democrat's side, whether the president's treasury secretary realized it or not. Some political debates are subjective and deal with gray areas; this is not one of them. Bessent referenced the gross domestic product, for example, which broadly reflects economic growth. That was a poor choice: The GDP shrank in the first quarter of 2025, marking the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in three years. What's more, Bessent told Beyer more than once that American job growth is 'solid.' What he neglected to mention is the truth: Over the first five months of 2025, the U.S. economy — according to the Trump administration's own data — has added 619,000 jobs. That's not awful, but over the first five months of 2024 (when Trump said the economy was terrible) the total was 898,000 jobs. In fact, if we exclude 2020, when the pandemic wreaked havoc on the economy, the first five months of this year are the worst since the Great Recession. That's not a matter of opinion; it's simply what the arithmetic shows. If the president and his Cabinet secretaries want to say that they need more time to produce better results, fine. If they want to say conditions will improve in the coming months and years, once their regressive policies and radical trade tactics take root, they're welcome to make their case. But that's not what they're saying. On the contrary, not only did Bessent pretend the bad news is good, leading to a rather brutal real-time fact-check from Beyer, but Trump has spent recent weeks acting like a cheerleader who's pretending his team isn't losing. Last week, for example, confronted with the worst job growth in 16 years, the president wrote to his social media platform, 'GREAT JOB NUMBERS.' Earlier in the week, he added that 'our Economy is BOOMING!' I wish that were true, but the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. This article was originally published on


Indianapolis Star
12 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
What is the No Kings movement? Protests happening across Indiana
Organizers across the country, including Indiana, are planning to host "No Kings" protests on June 14, which will coincide with both Flag Day and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. A military parade will also take place in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. military, White House officials have announced. Here is a breakdown of the No Kings movement and what to know ahead of the protests: According to the website, the No Kings movement is "taking action to reject authoritarianism" with upcoming protests. "They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights and slashed our services," the No Kings website reads. "The corruption has gone too. far. No thrones. No crowns. No kings." The group has organized mass protests around the country June 14 — the same day as Flag Day, President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and a planned parade in Washington, D.C. to celebrate 250 years of the U.S. military. The No Kings movement is encouraging peaceful protests around the country June 14 to counter the military parade set to take place in the nation's capital the same day. "On June 14 ... President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn't staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else," the organization's website reads. More than 30 protests are planned across the state of Indiana. A few of them are listed below. Events without addresses have private locations, and more details can be found after signing up on the "No Kings" website. Visit the website to find the nearest demonstration. No protests will take place in Washington, D.C., organizers said. Several pro-democracy organizations across the country, including the 50501 Movement, Indivisible, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change and the Human Rights Campaign, partnered to create the No Kings event, according to the event's website. The No Kings protests come two months after the nationwide Hands Off! demonstrations on April 5 and just days after the start of rallies taking place in Los Angeles to protest the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, organizers around the country are preparing for another protest in the coming days. Contributing: IndyStar eporter Katie Wiseman.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes. Gabriel Bosslet, is a professor of clinical medicine and Tracey Wilkinson an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana University's shared governance is under attack | Opinion