In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses David Shor's recent controversy-provoking advice for Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
The Democracy for All Project, a multiyear collaboration between Gallup and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, continues its effort to understand how Americans experience democracy and how those experiences differ across communities, generations, and political identities. Its September 2026 report, Frustration Rises, Commitment Endures, draws on a survey of 23,683 U.S. adults conducted between April 24 and June 10, 2026, with a maximum margin of sampling error of ±1 percentage point at the 95% confidence level. It is the most extensive annual study of how Americans participate in and perceive the democratic system.
The report finds that Americans remain committed to democracy as an ideal even as their confidence in its performance continues to erode. Two‑thirds (66%) still say democracy is the best form of government, essentially unchanged from last year. Yet assessments of how democracy is functioning have worsened: 56% now say democracy is performing poorly, up from 51% in 2025, while the share who say it is performing well has fallen to 19%. Much of this shift comes from Republicans and Republican‑leaning independents, whose views have moved closer to the more critical assessments long held by Democrats and other independents.
“The survey captures the hopes Americans have for the ideal of democracy,” says John Dedrick, executive vice president and chief operating officer at the Kettering Foundation, “but too many are frustrated with their actual experience of democracy.”
Most Americans believe democracy has weakened over time. Sixty percent say U.S. democracy was stronger 50 years ago—at the nation’s bicentennial—than it is today, while only 21% say it was weaker. Looking ahead to the tricentennial, more expect democracy to decline (45%) than strengthen (31%).
Optimism, however, is not evenly distributed. Americans who are more politically engaged, more active in their communities, and more satisfied with how democracy works locally are far more hopeful. Among those who trust local leaders, 38% expect democracy to strengthen over the next half‑century.
“As the country marks 250 years, Americans’ perceptions of their democracy are sobering,” says Justin Lall, Gallup principal. “A majority say democracy was stronger 50 years ago, and more expect it to weaken than strengthen over the next 50 years. Yet optimism hasn’t disappeared—it’s common among people who are engaged in their communities and who see democracy working where they live.”
Americans express deep concern about the rule of law. A majority (56%) say it is weaker than it was a decade ago—four times as many say it is stronger. While 78% believe government officials must always follow the law, only 28% trust that political leaders will actually be held accountable, down from 32% last year. Again, most of this decline is driven by Republicans.
Concerns about concentrated power center on the presidency: 59% say the executive branch has too much power, compared with 38% for the judicial branch and 34% for the legislative branch. Ratings of poor performance have also risen for institutions meant to uphold the rule of law, including equal treatment under the law (60%, up from 55%), the separation of powers (51%, up from 47%), and the criminal justice system (57%, up from 55%). Americans living comfortably on their income are more likely to say the balance of power is working well (26%) than those struggling to get by (10%).
Americans view democracy far more positively close to home. About one‑third (34%) say democracy is performing well in their own city or town—nearly double the share who say the same about democracy nationally (19%). Only 21% rate their local democracy as doing poorly, compared with 56% who say the same about national democracy.
Local optimism appears rooted in lived experience rather than a belief that local decisions matter more. Only 24% say local decisions affect their daily lives more than national ones. Instead, positive views of local democracy correlate strongly with satisfaction with local services, trust in neighbors, and trust in information from local leaders. Notably, those who view their local democracy positively are also more likely to view national democracy positively—suggesting that strong local institutions may help sustain broader democratic commitment.
When asked in an open‑ended question what one change would most improve U.S. democracy, Americans most often cite:
Americans say they are most likely to get involved when they believe a right or freedom is threatened (27%) or when they believe their participation can make a real difference (26%).
Taken together, the findings describe a public that remains committed to democracy in principle but increasingly convinced it is falling short in practice. Americans see more promise in their local communities than in the nation as a whole, and that local confidence may be one of democracy’s most important remaining strengths.
You can download the full report here: Democracy for All Project
This article was adapted from a press release and analysis published by The Charles F. Kettering Foundation
Each year, roughly 8,000 undocumented students graduate from Florida high schools. In 2026, Florida became the newest state to pass a regulation prohibiting this population from enrolling in state public colleges and selective universities. In June 2026, Florida State Board of Education passed Rule 6A-10.0240, which requires all 28 Florida College System institutions to certify admitted students as citizens of the United States or have lawful presence. In September 2026, a separate state board extended a similar ban to Florida’s most selective public universities.
Throughout the United States, there are three states that have historically upheld similar barring policies: Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from all public colleges and universities, while Georgia bars them only from its most selective public universities. Florida’s restrictions are administrative rules and regulations, not state laws passed by the Legislature. Similar bills died in committee during Florida’s 2026 legislative session.
Rule 6A is categorized under the enrollment eligibility requirements for the Florida College System Institutions. The policy details that prior to being granted admission to any Florida College System institutions, students must provide proper documentation or proof of United States citizenship or lawful presence in order to successfully enroll in the institution. The rule applies to the 28 public colleges in the state but does not include public universities or private institutions. Some of the institutions under the Florida College System include Broward College, College of Central Florida, and Daytona State College. The rule does not apply to the 12 public universities in the State University System of Florida, which are overseen by a separate body called the Board of Governors.
However, on September 3, 2026, that Board of Governors voted unanimously to adopt a similar restriction for Florida’s selective universities. The board amended Regulation 6.001, its general admissions policy, so that anyone “present in the United States unlawfully” cannot enroll as a new student, beginning in the 2027-28 academic year.
Regulation 6.001 applies only to universities that did not admit all academically qualified applicants in the two most recent academic years. In other words, it covers selective public universities that turn away some qualified students. Currently, all 12 state universities use selective admissions. Students who are lawfully present, including international students on F-1 and J-1 visas, are not affected.
Together, the college rule and the university regulation mean that undocumented students will be barred from most of Florida’s public higher education system starting in 2027.
Those in support of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 argue that taxpayer-funded public institutions should be reserved for students who are U.S. citizens or lawfully present in the country. Governor Ron DeSantis has described the June rule as putting Florida students and residents first. “I would rather have that spot go to a Florida resident,” DeSantis told reporters.
Other proponents of the new rules argue that they are simply formalizing expectations for students that already existed. Governor DeSantis has said that colleges never had a policy allowing students to be in the country without documentation, and that the rule simply requires them to verify status.
Supporters also argue that the state should not use public funds to benefit people living in the country without legal permission. After the Board of Governors vote, Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins called the September university rule “common sense.” He argued that Florida taxpayers should not pay for opportunities for people who entered the country illegally.
Supporters see the changes as the next step in a broader set of state policies. In 2025, DeSantis pushed lawmakers to repeal House Bill 851, the 2014 law that gave certain undocumented students in-state tuition rates. After the repeal, DeSantis described the enrollment ban as a natural follow-up, since the state no longer offered undocumented students tuition breaks.
Some of the concerns shared by supporters of Rule 6A and Regulation 6.001 come under the assumption that undocumented immigrants are not taxpayers. However, critics point to data that show Florida raised about $1.8 billion in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants in 2022.
Many opponents also contend that the new rules contradict Florida’s state constitution which states that every child should receive adequate provision for education within the state’s borders. The new bans would affect undocumented students who are dual-enrolled in high school and college. The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) theorized that the state’s trend towards passing more restrictive policies will lead to undocumented students abandoning educational pathways, rendering them “locked out of higher education”.
Additionally, critics argue that the restriction on access to higher education will pose an economic burden to college and university systems. FPI stated that the new ban would lead to a loss of tuition and fees revenue, with an estimated loss of $15 million statewide. Opponents highlight that Florida colleges have struggled with declining enrollment rates and that the new rules will contribute to the declining enrollment.
Critics also argue that the State Board of Education overstepped its authority. Under Florida law, agencies may only adopt rules that carry out powers the Legislature has given them, and current law does not require college students to prove lawful presence. Critics add that the Legislature considered and rejected similar restrictions during its 2026 session.
Finally, critics argue the changes are openly discriminatory, prioritizing exclusion over opportunity. A coalition of immigrant advocacy and legal groups called the college rule “cruel” and urged the state to reconsider.
Rule 6A-10.0240 and Regulation 6.001 are the latest in a series of restrictions on undocumented students in Florida higher education. Both take effect in the 2027-28 academic year. That gives colleges and universities about a year to build systems for checking students’ immigration status.
The changes have raised several questions about implementation. Rule 6A lets each school set its own verification procedures, and the Legislature’s Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, a bipartisan panel that reviews agency rules, warned that this approach gives each school too much discretion and could lead to different results at different colleges. The State Board of Education also has not clarified whether DACA recipients are covered under rule 6A.
The rules’ long-term future may depend on how these questions are answered. The Florida state legislature, which rejected similar bills in 2026, could write the policies into law, limit them, or leave them in place during its 2027 session.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Camila Rojas is an undergraduate student at Barnard College of Columbia University.
Donald Trump with Brazil flag
Hugo Balta is currently traveling through Brazil, reporting on democracy, civic engagement, and the political dynamics shaping the South American country at a moment that offers urgent lessons for the United States.
SÃO PAULO—For years, the political mainstream in Washington has treated the sanctity of ballot boxes as an exceptional American virtue under siege from malicious foreign actors. Yet, look beyond the equator, and that high-minded rhetoric instantly dissolves into a dangerous hypocrisy. You cannot self-righteously decry the subversion of domestic voting systems while simultaneously pulling the geopolitical levers to distort someone else’s.
Yet, that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing in South America's largest nation. Following the highly polarized first-round vote on October 4, Brazil's presidential election is officially headed to a high-stakes runoff. Right-wing Senator Flávio Bolsonaro finished ahead with 47.03% of the vote, narrowly leading leftist incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who captured 45.16%. The domestic contest is tight, emotional, and deeply consequential. But reporting on the ground here from São Paulo, it is clear to me that the real story is being shaped by calculated operations engineered in Washington, D.C.
The footprint of foreign meddling is so pronounced that Brazil’s Federal Police chief, Andrei Rodrigues, recently confirmed that authorities have opened a preliminary investigation into outside electoral interference. The probe was triggered by a formal complaint from Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office following bombshell reporting from The Guardian. According to the report, the Trump administration actively explored redirecting roughly $1 million in U.S. State Department funds to right‑wing civil groups in Brazil. The program’s reported title—“Combating Lawfare and Censorship in Brazil”—was not subtle. Brazilian authorities state it was explicitly designed to destabilize domestic political debate and delegitimize the institutional framework of the Brazilian Supreme Court. If true, this is an aggressive attempt to rewrite another sovereign nation’s democratic architecture from the outside.
The interference didn’t stop at covert funding lines. Additional reporting from The Guardian reveals that the Trump administration weaponized international commerce, imposing a 25% tariff hike on select Brazilian goods to punish the judiciary for prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro. Then came the orchestrated political theater: a high‑profile White House meeting with Flávio Bolsonaro, followed by the U.S. designating several prominent Brazilian criminal syndicates as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. While the younger Bolsonaro immediately celebrated the move as a campaign victory, critics rightly argue the timing was engineered to artificially boost his tough‑on‑crime platform. This is not diplomacy. It is electioneering disguised as foreign policy.
Tensions escalated into a full diplomatic standoff when the U.S. State Department attempted to dispatch officials to Brazil under the banner of “electoral integrity.” Brazil’s government flatly denied their visas, calling it an intelligence overreach aimed at influencing the vote. Then, days before the first‑round election, the U.S. abruptly shut down consular services across Brazil, citing vague security concerns. Lula’s campaign blasted the shutdown as a manufactured crisis designed to project a false sense of domestic instability right before voters headed to the polls. Whether intentional or not, the effect was unmistakable: confusion, fear, and political distortion.
Trump has monitored Brazil’s election "very closely," publicly celebrating Flávio Bolsonaro’s lead as a "great victory." Yet, he strategically stopped short of an official endorsement. According to a report by The Washington Post, this silence was entirely tactical. Insiders note a loud, overt intervention from the White House would have backfired, playing directly into Lula’s campaign narrative of defending Brazil’s sovereignty against foreign colonization. In other words: the discretion was just as calculated as the economic coercion.
The Trump administration continues to deny all allegations, with White House spokesperson Anna Kelly calling them “nonsense” and insisting conservative leaders are winning on merit alone. But back in Washington, more than 30 U.S. Democratic lawmakers—including Senator Bernie Sanders—have demanded that the U.S. halt actions that threaten Brazil’s democratic institutions and commit to recognizing the certified winner of the October 25 runoff.
Their warning should be a wake-up call for the American public ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. You cannot destabilize foreign institutions while insisting your own are sacred. You cannot weaponize diplomacy, trade, and intelligence to tip the scales for a political ally abroad while claiming the moral high ground on election integrity at home. That profound hypocrisy is not just a threat to the 56 million Brazilians who just cast their ballots; it is a cancer on American democracy itself. Once a government normalizes the manipulation of democratic norms abroad, it inevitably imports those exact same tactics back to its own shores. Defending democracy requires absolute consistency—and Washington cannot expect integrity at home while actively exporting instability to Brazil.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
95% of Americans see an affordability crisis, and most distrust government to fix it. An argument for tracking real outcomes, not just GDP growth.
Affordability dominates the national conversation because it dominates people’s lives. Ninety-five percent of Americans say the country is facing an affordability crisis, yet two-thirds don’t believe the federal government will successfully address it.
This is more than an economic problem – it’s a crisis for democracy.
Americans’ waning trust in institutions is understandable. Vast sums are spent on programs intended to expand opportunity, campaign promises on affordability are made, and economic programs are unveiled with fanfare. Yet too many working Americans still cannot afford a home, pay for childcare, build savings, or believe in a more secure future for their families. Only 44% of American households with two full-time workers and two children earn enough to afford basics.
American workers’ stagnation has fed disengagement from civic life at an alarming level, endangering our democracy.
At the root of this problem is a wonky but significant issue: our institutions too often measure what they have funded or delivered instead of being transparent about whether their efforts are actually improving people’s lives. As a nation, we track GDP growth and stock-market performance, and while those measures are useful, they don’t tell us whether a full-time worker can afford the basics.
To truly rebuild trust in our country, philanthropy, government, and nonprofits must shift their approach and ask a simple question that lies at the heart of our democracy: Are enough working Americans thriving? If they can commit to being transparent about the answer, it can begin to rebuild Americans’ broken trust in our democracy.
This transparency can kick-start an “Outcomes Movement”—one that begins with communities, not distant bureaucrats or ideological tribes, identifying, working in tandem toward, and measuring what matters progress in the open. When people can see what their community is trying to achieve, where it is starting, and whether it is moving forward, they have a stronger basis for participation, debate, and trust.
Once a community has identified a shared outcome, it can debate openly — and even vigorously — how best to achieve it. But it should not lose sight of the destination. The targets should be specific: A community might commit to moving 500 families from paying 48 percent of their income on housing to paying less than 30 percent within three years. It might aim to ensure 75 percent of fourth-graders read proficiently, or to reduce the percentage of families spending more than 10 percent of income on childcare from 84 percent to 50 percent.
This is how successful businesses operate. It's what the military does. We must apply this same metrics-based discipline to ensuring working Americans thrive.
An Outcomes Movement tracks measurable areas where Americans struggle: the percentage of people earning a living wage, paying no more than 30 percent of income on housing, accessing affordable childcare, maintaining emergency savings, achieving mental wellbeing, and so on. Progress should be transparent, such as through publicly available dashboards that hold communities and institutions accountable and inform honest debate about solutions.
An Outcomes Movement is already taking shape in a handful of innovative communities. The Finding Common Purpose Foundation has surveyed local efforts to focus on outcomes that matter to community members’ lives, and the initiatives are inspiring: In Kent County, Michigan, a network of local groups has aligned around a set of outcomes ranging from kindergarten readiness to a ‘thriving family income,’ and they’re tracking progress on a publicly-available dashboard that increases accountability. In Vermont, a two-year community engagement project led to an economic plan to address challenges such as the state’s aging workforce and rising cost of living; now, a public dashboard tracks progress toward the plan’s goals, such as increasing the number of housing units in the state to 350,000 by 2035.
These communities have not solved every problem, and they still face challenges. But they are demonstrating an alternative to disengagement: bringing people representing different ideologies, roles and interests together around a shared aim: making it possible for more people in their community to thrive.
We have the data, technology, and local capacity to expand this approach. What we need now is the collective will – and leadership from government, philanthropy and civic institutions – to insist that more Americans thriving, not just surviving, should be the standard by which we judge national success.
Americans’ faith in democracy will not be restored through campaign rhetoric and vague plans around affordability. It will be earned when people can help define what progress means, see clearly whether institutions are keeping their commitments, and feel tangible improvements in their lives — and more security in their futures.
Andrew Wolk is the founder of Finding Common Purpose and the author of the pamphlet Common Purpose.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home