Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Three bills showcase democracy at work and what is needed in the next two years

U.S. Capitol; Senate vote on omnibus spending bill

A couple stand under an umbrella outside the Capitol, where Congress passed a spending bill that includes reforms to the Electoral Count Act.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, is co-counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

When Charles Darwin returned to England in 1836 from two years aboard the HMS Beagle, visiting the Galapagos Islands, Chile and Australia, he reflected on his observations of rare species and developed his theory of evolution.

His “Origin of Species” shook the scientific world with his concept that genetic variations explain how organisms adapt and thrive, particularly when adverse conditions threaten them.

Likewise for human organizations – business or government institutions nimble enough to adjust to adversity can reform and grow.

Such evolution is not automatic. It requires stakeholders who demand it.


In democracies, progress requires that groups suffering harm or foreseeing danger advocate forcefully for change. With a MAGA House majority about to take power in Washington, vigilance in the next two years by those committed to individual rights, equality and constitutional government will be essential.

We’ve just seen three examples in Congress showcasing such activism from ordinary Americans.

First, on Dec. 7, President Joe Biden signed #MeToo legislation that bars employers’ nondisclosure agreements requiring employees to remain silent rather than complain about sexual harassment.

Astonishingly, every senator voted for the law banning these forced-gag agreements. Senate unanimity took a national consensus that did not exist a decade ago. The #MeToo movement built it; women bravely spoke out, told their stories and changed American society.

Second, on Dec. 13, Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act. It reversed 1996’s shameful Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton for culture war advantage. Two decades before same-sex marriage became a constitutional right, DOMA said states that barred such marriages need not recognize same-sex unions from states that permitted them.

The Respect for Marriage Act mandates that all states recognize gay marriages lawfully performed in other states. That matters should the Supreme Court majority overturn those marriages’ constitutional protection. Justice Clarence Thomas has hinted at that.

Again, it took committed activists – this time the LGBTQ community – to achieve a goal that looked impossible a generation ago. Gallup has reported that the paltry 26 percent of Americans who supported same-sex marriage in 1996 has risen to 71 percent in 2022.

Bear with a personal story illustrating that in politics, like physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, at least if sufficient human forces mobilize in response. Therein lies hope when bad things happen.

In 1998, I led a legal team in a case that was a steppingstone to gay marriage rights. We successfully defended San Francisco’s Equal Benefits Ordinance, which enormously expanded domestic partner benefits in the city and, indeed, across the nation.

The ordinance came about because three gay and lesbian activists were furious about DOMA. On the theory, “Don’t get mad, get equal,” they persuaded local legislators to adopt the law. A bad event begat a good.

Which takes us to the third piece of legislation. On Friday, Biden signed a federal spending bill that includes the Electoral Count Reform Act. The ECRA is a crucial step to preserve our democracy, closing loopholes in its 1887 predecessor that former President Donald Trump nearly exploited to overturn the 2020 election.

The new law clarifies that the vice president’s role presiding over the certification of a presidential election is purely ceremonial. They cannot reject a state’s official electoral votes or delay the congressional certification, as Trump unsuccessfully tried to pressure Mike Pence to do.

Another key change is to limit state legislatures’ power to declare the winner. The reform act clarifies that a “failed election” occurs only when a force majeure has interrupted the balloting. Without that change from the 1886 Electoral Count Act, a renegade, Republican-dominated, MAGA legislature could wrongly declare that “ballot fraud” caused the election to “fail” and then select the losing candidate.

Like the #MeToo legislation and the Respect for Marriage Act, this reform happened because of grassroots organizations committed to preserving democracy. And like those other bills, this legislation came in reaction to a threat – in this case, the lame duck Congress was pushed to act by the election of a House MAGA majority unlikely to approve the change.

The incoming House leaders have told us what they will do: not legislate but devote all their attention to a scorched earth strategy of attacking Biden, his family, the Jan. 6 committee, the FBI and the Justice Department.

They won’t work to enact kitchen table legislation; in fact, they are likely to try cutting Social Security and Medicare. Negative action and attack will be their trademarks.

For the rest of us who want positive government, democracy is not a spectator sport. The danger to it in the new House is as obvious as the Capitol dome. The essential thing is to mobilize to contain the threat.

We, the people, can keep our democracy by responding to the next two years’ anti-democratic overreach by MAGA House members. Then in 2024, we can vote them out and evolve, in Darwinian fashion, into the better version of America’s self.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less