National Week of Conversation was created for those exhausted by division and hatred. You’re invited to bring your passion for issues in an environment where you can be heard. We welcome all Americans, across our many differences, into conversations that can rekindle relationships and help us relearn how to be the “we” we know we can be.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
State troopers form a line in the street in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Jan. 14, 2026, after protesters clashed with federal law enforcement following the shooting of a Venezuelan man by a Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent.
(Octavio JONES/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
A tale of two Trumps: Iran & Minnesota protests
Jan 23, 2026
"Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled [sic] all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.”
It’s hard to see this Truth Social post by the president on Tuesday and make sense of, well, anything right now.
Iranian civilians have been protesting in the streets for weeks, in an effort to express their frustration with a bruising economy, an inflation rate greater than 40%, food shortages, and rolling blackouts. In response, the Islamic Republic has opened fire on its own people, killing anywhere from 2,400 to as many as 20,000 people in just two weeks.
The situation is dire — there are reports that doctors and aid groups cannot keep up with the amount of injuries they are seeing, and that the regime will start publicly executing protesters, including 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, whose judicial proceedings were “fast-tracked” in just two days.
Trump is vowing “very strong action” if Iran follows through with those threats to execute Soltani and others, action which could include everything from sanctions to strikes on military installations to cyberattacks.
It’s hard to reconcile this Trump — rescuer of the oppressed, defender of democracy — with the other one who’s simultaneously threatening his own citizens for protesting his immigration policies.
In the wake of an ICE officer shooting and killing an unarmed Minneapolis mother, Trump and his cabinet have been defiant. They’ve largely refused to offer even a modicum of sympathy for Renee Good. Instead, Trump has suggested her “highly disrespectful” attitude may have justified her death. Vice President JD Vance decided immediately that she was to blame. “What I am certain of is that she violated the law,” he said. He called Good, who leaves behind three children, “a deranged leftist who tried to run [the officer] over.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem accused Good of “an act of domestic terrorism” just hours after her death, despite no one having conducted any investigation of the incident yet.
The administration, furthermore, strategically boxed out Minnesota law enforcement from joining a federal investigation of the shooting, and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche says there’s “currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation” of any kind.
The irony of Trump’s pro-democracy message to Iranians and his decidedly despotic message to Americans should be lost on no one, nor should the parallels.
That Iranian leaders are calling their protesters “rioters” and “terrorists” while Trump officials are using the same language against Americans is chilling.
That Iran is jailing and “fast-tracking” the due process of protesters while Trump officials immediately decided the ICE officer who killed Good was innocent, and not even worth investigating, is deeply disturbing.
That Iran is threatening to execute protesters while masked ICE agents in unmarked vehicles have also threatened to kill protesters and have already used deadly force against them, is terrifying. At least one agent was recorded asking a protester, “Did you not learn from what just happened?”
Understandably, Americans are alarmed. And they should be.
According to a new SSRS/CNN poll, Trump’s anti-immigration efforts in Minnesota and elsewhere are not popular.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling immigration.
Fifty-one percent say ICE’s actions are making cities feel less safe, versus just 31% who say more safe.
Forty-seven percent say they are more concerned that the government will go too far in cracking down on protesters versus 37% who say they’re more concerned the protests will get out of control.
Fifty-six percent say the use of force against Renee Good was inappropriate, versus just 26% who say it was appropriate.
While a majority of voters may have been with Trump on the need to lower crime and curtail illegal immigration, it’s hard to imagine any wanting to see our cities militarized to the point where they feel unsafe, where they fear protesting could get them killed, where it’s totally possible they could be rounded up without due process, where there are eerie parallels to what’s happening in Iran, a theocratic dictatorship.
While ICE agents have their proverbial boots on the necks of American citizens, Trump is unironically promising to defend democracy a world away. But it’s hard to maintain the moral high ground and wag your finger at Iran when you’re stomping all over democratic freedoms here at home.
It’s a perplexing and alarming place to be for a country that was once considered a beacon of freedom, a shining city on a hill. And with every threat to American democracy Trump issues, he weakens our nation.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
man in white dress shirt holding white paper
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
Political and Economic Pressures Set Up a Healthcare Shift in 2026
Jan 22, 2026
Healthcare in 2025 was consumed by chaos, conflict and relentless drama. Yet despite unprecedented political turmoil, cultural division and major technological breakthroughs, there was little meaningful improvement in how care is paid for or delivered.
That outcome was not surprising. American medicine is extraordinarily resistant to change. In most years, even when problems are obvious and widely acknowledged, the safest bet is that the care patients experience in January will look much the same in December.
But when meaningful change does occur, it is usually because motivated leaders find themselves in rare political and economic conditions. Think of President Barack Obama in 2009, with unified Democratic control of Congress and widespread voter frustration over healthcare costs and coverage. By contrast, President Bill Clinton’s ambitious reform effort collapsed in 1993 when it collided with powerful industry opposition and a divided political environment.
If most years prove stagnant, why should anyone expect 2026 to be different? In a word: pressure.
Congress, the president, drug manufacturers and insurers are all confronting forces that make inaction increasingly risky. Three external pressures will drive change:
1. Politicians Face Midterm Pressures
For Republicans broadly, and for President Trump personally, the 2026 midterm elections present significant political risk. Even a modest shift in “purple” districts could flip control of the House, reshaping committee leadership and reviving the prospect of Trump’s impeachment.
The “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress in mid-2025 locked in permanent tax cuts with a multitrillion-dollar price tag, narrowing the universe of spending categories large enough to materially reduce the deficit.
With healthcare accounting for nearly 30% of the federal budget (and other categories such as Social Security and defense politically untouchable), medical spending became one of the few remaining fiscal levers. But pulling it also handed Democrats a potent midterm weapon.
The shutdown compounded the problem. By linking government dysfunction to healthcare funding and coverage uncertainty, Democrats spotlighted rising medical costs as a symbol of incumbent political failure.
As healthcare economics worsen in 2026, the pressure will intensify. Premium increases will outpace wage growth. Deductibles will remain high. Tens of millions of Americans face potential Medicaid coverage losses, while 20 million more will see sharply higher exchange premiums.
The likeliest response to pressure: Fearful of losing the House, Trump and congressional Republicans are likely to pursue targeted, high-visibility actions designed to appease voters.
Drug pricing offers a clear example. In November, the White House announced agreements with nine large pharmaceutical companies to lower prices on certain medications under a “most-favored-nation” framework. However, those deals won’t materially lower prices because they apply only to Medicaid and selected drugs, leaving most privately insured patients exposed to persistently high costs.
Other options Congress and the president are likely to pursue include a short-term extension of exchange subsidies paired with familiar proposals such as expanded health savings accounts, “catastrophic” plans and lower limits on premium support.
2. Drugmakers Face Political Pressures
For decades, the pharmaceutical industry has occupied a uniquely protected position in the U.S. economy. Long patent exclusivities, limited competition from generics and biosimilars and sustained lobbying success have shielded it from price regulation. As a result, pharmaceuticals remain among the fastest growing and most profitable U.S. sectors.
Americans currently pay two to four times more for prescription drugs than patients in other wealthy nations, and roughly one in three prescriptions goes unfilled because of cost. Affordability has become a crisis for employers and voters.
The likeliest response to pressure: Given the growing political pressure, drugmakers face a strategic choice. One path is familiar: resist change through lobbying, campaign contributions and legal challenges. The other is more adaptive: accept lower margins on some products in exchange for higher volumes and reduced political risk.
Based on the recent agreements that brought 14 of the 17 largest drugmakers into voluntary pricing arrangements with the administration, most are likely to continue to follow the second path.
By shielding their most profitable products while conceding selectively on pricing, manufacturers can reduce political pressure without materially sacrificing profitability.
3. Insurers Are Trapped In An Unsustainable Business Model
In 2026, employer-sponsored premiums are projected to rise at roughly twice the rate of inflation. The annual cost of coverage for a family of four will be $27,000, with employees paying roughly one-quarter of that total out of pocket.
Patients already delay or forgo care because of cost. Meanwhile, medical bills remain the leading contributor to personal bankruptcy in the United States.
Insurers, who have no control over how medicine is practiced, have relied on tighter prior-authorization requirements, narrower networks and higher rates of claims denial. While these tactics can suppress short-term spending, they have fueled widespread backlash from patients, physicians, employers and lawmakers.
In effect, insurers are being squeezed from both sides: rising costs they cannot fully pass on and a public increasingly hostile to how those costs are managed.
The likeliest response to pressure: When premiums and out-of-pocket costs exceed what payers and patients can bear, the traditional insurance model begins to fracture.
That is where capitation re-enters the conversation. Under capitation, insurers make a fixed, per-patient payment to a physician group or health system to manage most or all care for a defined population. Providers assume responsibility for utilization, coordination and cost control. In return, they gain flexibility in care delivery and the opportunity to share in savings when prevention and chronic disease management succeed.
For insurers, the appeal is straightforward: capitation shifts financial risk downstream and reduces reliance on unpopular utilization controls. But moving from fee-for-service to capitation would require major structural change. As a result, insurers in 2026 are more likely to introduce pilot programs, partial risk arrangements and expanded use of generative AI rather than pursue wholesale transformation.
A new year carries the promise of change. Look for shifting political and economic climates to make 2026 a year of healthcare improvement, especially compared to 2025.
Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
Keep ReadingShow less
Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.
Getty Images, DrAfter123
At Long Last...We Must Begin.
Jan 22, 2026
As much as I wish this were an article announcing the ninth episode we all deserve of Stranger Things, it’s not.
A week ago, this was a story about a twelve-minute Uber ride with a Trump-loving driver on a crisp Saturday morning in Nashville, TN. It was a good story. It made a neat point: if this conversation can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
But then I grabbed coffee with a new friend, politically left-leaning and sharp. Someone who cares about more than they have the capacity to change. He shared:
“The point is to bring people together so they can do something to solve a problem they all agree needs to be solved.”
Yes. That IS the point.
And three hours later, I got dinner with a decade-old, conservative friend. Someone kind, introspective, and honest.
“You know, Sophie, people that are upset, that are angry. Most can’t do what you and me are doing.”
We shared family traditions and debated series’ finales. And then we talked about trans athletes, big pharma, racism, and antisemitism with the kind of conviction we usually reserve for people who already agree with us.
Somewhere between afternoon coffee and, well, after-dinner coffee, it became clear:
I’d written the wrong article for the moment.
The truth is that we are losing too much energy to distraction, anger, and pride. We are spending more energy defending positions than solving shared problems at workplaces, in communities, and across institutions.
By “we,” I mean anyone who feels disenfranchised with the current state of our country but still believes it’s salvageable. Anyone exhausted by outrage cycles, algorithm-fed enemies, and the fantasy that the right post or perfect argument will fix what is fundamentally an ordering of values, a relational problem.
Stick with me.
The Schwartz theory claims that all people have the same ten basic values. What makes us different is how we prioritize them:
- Universalism: appreciation and tolerance of all people
- Benevolence: care and concern for people close to you
- Tradition: respect and acceptance of customs and ways of life
- Conformity: respect for social rules
- Security: desire for safety and stability
- Power: pursuit of control or influence
- Achievement: pursuit of personal success
- Hedonism: desire for pleasure and to enjoy life
- Stimulation: desire for excitement and new experiences
- Self-Direction: freedom of independent thought and action
We rank values by their relative importance to us and our lives, and this forms a system of priorities that defines our beliefs, actions, and behaviors. While it's true that any attitude or behaviour typically has implications for more than one value, most decisions are shaped by the one value that matters most to us.
That’s why “working through differences” isn’t about being louder or clearer or even right. It’s about recognizing how we rank our values, how others rank theirs, and how this knowledge can lead toward sticky solutions rather than Band-Aids.
If you’ve made it this far, grab a pen, a piece of paper, and your preferred format of a Calendar.
I’m going to provide you with three practical steps to (1) identify the issues you care about, (2) practice uncomfortable conversations, and (3) make meaningful friendships. No political science degree required. Just intentionality, and a willingness to enter the yellow zone for the benefit of something much bigger than yourself: the belief that all of us having conversations, one at a time, based on understanding each other’s values, will increase our chances of creating safer, stronger, more just organizations and communities.
1. Your Short List
Write down four issues you feel the most passionate about. Don’t think too hard - no one's grading your list. Here’s mine:
- Immigration
- Middle East
- AI Regulation
- LGBTQIA+ Rights
Now, cross off the two that provoke the strongest emotional response. This isn’t avoidance. It’s strategy.
- Immigration
- Middle East
- AI Regulation
- LGBTQIA+ Rights
When you decide to train for a marathon, you don’t run 26 miles on day one. You know you’ll eventually have to run the full distance, but you start with a mile. Then two, building your capacity over time.
Deliberation requires traction. Start with something you care about, but hold less dear. It will make the inevitable grey areas that you encounter along the way easier to engage with.
2. Choose Your Container
When a baby is learning to stand for the first time, no one panics when they fall. You don’t rush them to the doctor after the first wobble.
You offer a hand.
You let them lean on the wall.
Maybe you even buy them some tools to help.
Over time, they learn balance.
Talking with someone different than you works the same way.
You don’t become good at disagreement by reading the best books or sharing the perfect posts. You become good through repetition; by failing safely, reflecting honestly, and trying again.
Go to your Calendar and look ahead two weeks. Mark it in purple with the note:
Choose My Container Deadline
If we want a healthier civic culture, we can’t rely solely on personal willpower. We need containers. Places designed for people to practice these skills together, repeatedly, and in good faith. And lucky for you, I have a few suggestions of where you can start looking.
Why the Workplace is a Great Container
Workplaces are culturally disconnected, generationally divided, and breaking from burnout. Conflict resolution & communication skills for collaboration are just as beneficial within teams and across departments as they are for community decision-making.
The Magnet Collective is an in-house, workplace fellowship that exists to rebuild the social muscles we depend on to perform well and find purpose in our work. Not through theory and lessons, but through action. Fellows graduate by applying their newfound skills to lead an experience for their colleagues, creating long-term value for themselves, their coworkers, and the company.
Educators, Journalists, & Influencers: Good Conflict Is Better Conflict
My sister’s an educator, so I hesitate to request anymore of your unpaid labor. But I think this is worth it. Good Conflict provides the vocabulary, guardrails, and tools to investigate disagreement without inflaming division. And for anyone trying to post about the moment productively, the co-founders intimately understand how to cover controversy, understand conflict, and inform the public effectively through video, audio, and print storytelling.
Only Have An Hour? No Excuses!
Living Room Conversations offers facilitated, cross-partisan, hour-long dialogues, online or in person, that make connection possible without spectacle. It’s short & simple:
- They gather a group of ~5 people to talk about a chosen topic
- Follow the Conversation Guide and Agreements
- Participants answer questions
- Walk away with more understanding and connection
Worried You’re Too Far Left? No You’re Not.
I spent every other week of 2025 in Unfortunately Not a Sound Bath: a virtual, conservative podcast listening club to analyze their messaging, tone, rhetoric, and recurring themes. The podcasts didn’t flip me, belly side up, with the sudden urge to agree with conservative politics. Rather, I walked away with a deeper responsibility to engage in the nuance of a reality I hadn't lived. If we want a democracy that reflects our values, we have to move toward the discomfort of understanding someone else's truth.
3. Make Friends First, Discussions Second
Do not walk up to a stranger and ask them their stance on gun control.
Productive disagreement requires willing participants. Conversations that begin with surprise or pressure rarely lead to understanding; they usually harden positions.
To find someone worth engaging with (someone who doesn’t already agree with you on everything), join spaces that have nothing to do with politics but bring you into shared experiences with people who are different from you. Relationships are the infrastructure that deliberation requires.
Go work out. Join a choir. Host a film club. Become a member of your local YMCA. And yea, make friends at work.
You have to get out there in the real world and build real relationships with real people. You don’t have to agree on everything with someone to find common ground on something. I learned this intimately after October 7th, when my first friend calling to check in was a Palestinian, Muslim from Jordan; after seven years of friendship, and many, many movie nights, we had both challenged each other to see the world through the other’s lens. That understanding didn’t erase our differences, but it did help us hold the complexity, recognize the grey, and reach for better outcomes for both of our communities, not one at the expense of the other.
Why values?
Why relationships?
Because you don’t need to know everything about a topic to hold a conviction about it. Our country does not require a well-written essay to cast a vote. What shifts people is proximity. We care about what and who touches our lives. We vote in our interests because our interests are shaped by who we know, who we trust, and who we feel responsible for.
If you are only friends with “yes men,” you’re living in a false reality that is delaying our inevitable future:
Compromise.
I wear my convictions on my sleeve, and I’m an email away from you knowing all about them. And yet, it’s not my beliefs that matter, but understanding why I hold them, and how that reflects my ranking of values; that understanding improves our chances of reaching a satisfactory, shared solution to our greatest workplace and society tensions.
In the past, I’ve ended friendships over social disagreements and yelled quip remarks rather than listen to another’s perspective. And it got me and the people I care about here: craving greater transparency, wondering if I’ll make it out safely when I defend a comrade, and grappling with the greatest rise of antisemitism I’ve felt in my lifetime.
I woke up at 3 a.m. on January 12 to watch the “One Last Adventure: The Making of Stranger Things Season 5” documentary. As disappointing as it was to discover this really was just a two-hour, behind-the-scenes exposé of the show and not a secret finale, I’m glad I watched for one singular moment:
“The only chance of making something hard happen…” Executive Producer Shawn Levy started, “is by being convinced it will happen.”
Write your list. Practice. Make meaningful friendships. And courageously step into imperfect deliberation.
To refuse is to accept the reality in front of us.
Sophie Levy is the Founder of The Magnet Collective: a professional development partner that centers connection, constructive conflict & conversation, and commitment to a shared purpose.
Keep ReadingShow less
James Baldwin warned that indifference blinds democracy. Today, political apathy and quiet bureaucracy threaten free speech, civic engagement, and equal voice.
Getty Images, FG Trade
Baldwin’s Warning on Indifference Speaks Urgently to 2026
Jan 22, 2026
My wife sent me a beautiful quote from James Baldwin earlier this week, reminding me of the American ideal of "equal voice."
“Neither love nor terror makes one blind: indifference makes one blind.”
The quote made me pause. It wasn’t new to me, but it echoed something I had recently written in The Fulcrum and something I read months ago from F. Willis Johnson in the same publication. All three of us warn that democracies don’t fall apart all at once. Instead, they slowly erode when people stop paying attention. Even though our words are separated by decades, we share the same message: staying alert is key to keeping democracy alive.
In my own column, I pointed out that the real threat in our politics isn’t from people who speak out too much, but from the many who have become numb to what’s wrong. This numbness is just another word for Baldwin’s indifference—a quiet way of stepping back and letting others handle the work of citizenship. It’s what lets voter turnout drop, policies stall, and accountability slip away. To fight this, we need to get involved in our communities. Voting matters, but it’s only the start. We can join local groups, volunteer for causes we care about, or have real conversations with people around us. Speaking up at town halls or writing to our representatives helps make sure our voices count. By doing these things, we show that we’re committed to keeping democracy strong.
I also thought back to F. Willis Johnson’s April article, which resonated with many readers. He talked about another kind of numbness—the kind that hides behind paperwork and rules. While everyone focuses on national politics, he wrote, immigration agents quietly cancel visas, issue deportation orders, and change what speech is allowed, all without any public drama. Mahmoud Khalil. Rümeysa Öztürk. These are just a few of the many international students whose only “crime” was exercising the democratic values we say we support.
Johnson called this what it is: using the First Amendment as a weapon. It doesn’t happen through obvious censorship, but through the quiet work of bureaucracy. Officials claim no one is punished for speaking out, saying it’s just about paperwork. But this is misleading. The paperwork acts as a cover, hiding the real goal of silencing dissent. If you speak up too much or question the wrong things, your right to stay in the country can suddenly depend on staying quiet.
This is also what Baldwin warned about. Indifference doesn’t just blind us to suffering—it keeps us from seeing the quiet, polite ways repression can work. Baldwin said America can only live up to its promise if it’s willing to look at itself honestly and face hard truths. Johnson brings that challenge to today: America can only make a real difference if it looks closely at what being a democracy really means in everyday life, not just in words.
Johnson wrote that when we let bureaucracy silence people, we’re not just letting down those affected—we’re helping democracy fade away. Just look at voter turnout over the past twenty years: it’s dropped below 60% in national elections, showing how many people have checked out of the process. This aligns with Baldwin’s idea that the worst moral failures stem from those who choose not to care. It also reflects my own worry that too many people have become numb to what’s wrong and are too willing to watch from the sidelines as democracy weakens.
So when I read Baldwin’s quote this week, it felt like another part of a bigger story—a story about how democracies don’t fail because of big, dramatic events, but because of growing indifference. It happens when we quietly accept things we shouldn’t and assume someone else will speak up or defend the values we say matter.
As we head into 2026, Baldwin, Johnson, and our recent history all point to one message: before moving forward, take action. Text two friends about the next local meeting or about going to a town hall this month. Make a real commitment that turns hope into action.
Do not look away.
Do not grow numb.
Do not surrender your role in shaping the country you hope to leave behind.
David L. Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More