As lockdowns were imposed across the world in the wake of COVID-19, people in conflict-affected states worried that armed groups might try to capitalize on the pandemic and increase attacks. However, a recent APSR article by Brancati, Birnir, and Idlbi suggests that these restrictions on population mobility to address a public health concern had the unintended beneficial effect of reducing violent attacks. They investigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on attacks by armed groups by focusing on the case of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an insurgent group, and find that ISIS attacks decreased because of lockdowns, particularly in areas that were heavily populated and areas where ISIS did not have established bases. The authors propose that lockdowns can reduce attacks by groups like ISIS since they reduce the availability of resources and high-value targets while also making it logistically more difficult to carry out attacks.

While some revolutions last, others quickly fall victim to counterrevolution. What leads to these divergent outcomes? The use of violence by rebels during revolutionary upheaval might have a role in preventing future political clapback from the deposed regime as Killian Clarke finds in his recent APSR article on counterrevolutions and their causes.

Exile—the banishment of individuals from their home country—is a commonly used form of repression against activists, dissidents, and other political opponents. The aftermath of exile usually limits opposition influence and weakens home-country networks. However, while banishment may keep exiles physically away from home, it does not keep political opponents from promoting their agendas from abroad. In a new article published in the American Political Science Review, authors Jane Esberg and Alexandra A. Siegel demonstrate how exile affects political opponents’ online activism. Their research highlights the importance of digital technologies and social media as an accessible and powerful political tool.

As Head of State and Chief Administrator, the President oversees the operations and performance of the federal government. With this role, they also can limit the power of special interests, frequently speaking out against them and vowing to save their administrations from their influence. However, further examination of the White House reveals that the words and actions of the president do not always align. Presidents frequently engage with organized interests—but which interests tend to win meetings with the White House?