Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, Jr., VP of Partnerships and Programming with the Bridge Alliance, is respected for his leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues.
Johnson shares his thoughts and reflections on Indigenous Peoples' Day.
For decades, we have watched America wrestle with its demons. Sometimes, she has successfully pinned them down. Other times, the demons have slipped beyond her grasp. Yet, America has always remained in the ring. There is no difference right now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Across America, from small-town council meetings to state legislatures, there's a coordinated effort to roll back the clock on civil rights, geopolitical relations, and the global economy. It's not subtle, and it's not accidental. The targeting of immigrants and citizens of color has become so normalized that we risk becoming numb to it. For example, what happened in Springfield, Ohio, late last year? When national politicians started pushing rhetoric against Haitian immigrants, it wasn't just local politics at play. It was a test balloon, a preview of talking points soon echoed in halls of government and media outlets nationwide. Thus, this is how discrimination, intolerance, and blatant hate go mainstream or viral—it starts small, tests the waters, and spreads like a virus through our body politic and social system.
Sadly, I have studied and endured American politics long enough to recognize patterns, and this one's familiar. Every major stride toward equality in American history has faced pushback. After Reconstruction came Jim Crow. After the civil rights movement came the "law and order" era. After Obama's presidency came, we all know what came next. However, the difference at this moment is that we are not fighting these battles with the weaponry of our parents and grandparents. Once again, the tools of discrimination have gone digital but so have the tools of resistance.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The next hundred days will set the trajectory for this fight, not because they'll end it, but because they'll determine how we fight it. We're at one of those inflection points where silence becomes complicity and inaction becomes endorsement.
Consider all that has happened with voting rights, DEI, immigration, First Amendment action, and the dismantling of government infrastructure. We continue to see a tsunami of executive actions, legislation, and litigation that, while carefully worded to appear neutral, disproportionately affect minority communities. These aren't your grandfather's literacy tests—these are sophisticated administrative hurdles dressed up in the language of election and homeland security, patriotism, balanced budgets, and the Meritus playing field. The intent hasn't changed; only the packaging has.
The attacks on diversity aren't just targeting the ballot box. They're showing up in school board meetings where discussions of American history are being sanitized, in housing policies that maintain segregation through bureaucratic sleight-of-hand, and in immigration policies that seem designed to preserve a demographic status quo that's already long gone.
Still, hope abounds! We are witnessing and encouraging greater and more strategic resistance than ever before. This generation of activists isn't marching—they're running for office. Civil rights organizations aren't just filing lawsuits but building databases to track discrimination patterns. Community groups aren't just protesting—they're creating alternative institutions.
The old divide-and-conquer playbooks are still employed, but new obstacles are yet to arise. When politicians try to pit ethnic communities against immigrant communities or working-class whites against urban Black and Brown people, they find that these groups are often already connected through informal yet intricately composed networks of social media, shared economic interests, and cross-cultural organizations.
Social and civilly conscious engaged actors must remain clear about what we are against. The forces pushing discrimination have deep pockets and sophisticated strategies. They are not just working through obvious channels like legislation and court cases—they're shaping narratives through think tanks, creating echo chambers in media, and using data analytics to identify and exploit social divisions.
We acknowledge this era of activists has advantages our predecessors couldn't have imagined. When discriminatory incidents occur, they are shared instantly. When false narratives emerge, facts are immediately corrected. When communities need to mobilize, they can do so within hours instead of weeks. However, it lacks tools, capabilities, focus, and coordination. Too often, populace movements are reactive rather than proactive, responding to each new crisis instead of building longitudinal strategic power. Emergent leaders and activists need to think broader and longer-term. I dare suggest a few things to consider:
First, democratic institutions necessitate strengthening at every level of American society, for instance, paying as much attention to local and municipal electoral matters as presidential races. It means supporting local journalism that can expose and unmask the reality of the truth in our backyards. It means building civic organizations that can outlast election cycles.
Second, a reframe of the conversation about American identity must commence. The myth of America as a white nation isn't just historically inaccurate—it's dangerous. America's story has always been one of the uniquely diverse and other-ed nation people, even when that diversity wasn't acknowledged nor celebrated. Our strength comes from our ability to expand our definition of "we the people," not restrict it.
Third, it is crucial to recognize that this isn't just a moral fight—it's an economic and geopolitical one. In a global economy, diversity is a competitive advantage. Countries that welcome and embrace differences tend to be more innovative, adaptable, and influential on the world stage. When we allow discrimination to flourish, we're not just betraying our values—we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
The next hundred days won't determine the outcome of this struggle but they will show us what "we, the people," are made of. Will we rise to meet this moment with the urgency it demands? Will we build the coalitions and institutions needed for lasting change? Will we finally learn that an attack on any American's rights is an attack on the American experiment itself? Only time will tell.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Two groups of people approaching each other over a chasm, ready to shake hands.
This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) explaining in practical terms what the new administration’s executive orders and other official actions mean for all of us. Virtually all of these actions spring from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page blueprint for government action over the next four years. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies already implemented in countries such as Hungary to erode democratic norms and adopt authoritarian approaches to governing.
Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.
In Part 2 of this series, we address the Executive Orders (EO) and related actions aimed at eliminating any and all measures deemed to advance “diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).” That phrase lacks a precise legal definition but embraces all aspects of the legal and social infrastructure designed to fulfill the constitutional promise of equal protection for all. Despite the vigorous efforts to eliminate all traces of such measures from the federal government, these executive orders cannot repeal longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws, and many have been challenged in ongoing litigation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
From Advancing Equality To Distorting Civil Rights Law
Since Inauguration Day, President Trump has unleashed an avalanche of moves meant to end lawful efforts to advance diversity and ensure a level playing field. In doing so, the administration seeks a wholesale rollback of efforts to eliminate historic and enduring inequalities. Its hastily implemented actions have included, for example,rescinding a host of recent and longstanding executive orders and actions promoting equal opportunity,ending programs that directly - or even by mere implication - advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),terminating research projects, and calling forinvestigations and punishment oflaw firms andeducational institutions it accuses of clinging to DEI goals.
These actions are framed in neutral terms that speak of advancing “merit” and “fairness.” The real impact, however, is to erase the history of discrimination in this country and eliminate efforts to ensure fairness and a level playing field for historically marginalized groups.
Project 2025 – Calling For An End To DEI Programs
Project 2025 lays out a broad and detailed plan for the complete obliteration of DEI in the federal government, including mandates, training, policies, programs, and concepts at every level. This includes banning such words as diversity, equity, inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, reproductive rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, in federal rules, regulations, contracts, grants, and legislation. Project 2025 also advocates for the investigation of DEI practices and calls for measures to ensure that race, gender, and other protected characteristics are not considered in hiring and other decision-making.
Why This Matters
This broad assault on DEI aims to undermine, if not eliminate, all laws, policies, and programs designed to advance equal opportunity and comply with established anti-discrimination laws. Alarmingly, the reach of these actions extends far beyond the federal government. Project 2025 also makes its way into the management of private law firms, universities, and cultural organizations, aiming to undercut laws and policies built up over decades to create a level playing field for everyone. Only Congress can create laws; the president cannot repeal laws by firing those who enforce them, cutting programs, and deleting information from websites.
The breathtaking sweep of these edicts should alarm anyone concerned about core democratic principles of free speech and fair treatment.
Here are just a few examples of how the actions:
Restrict knowledge by:
Threaten health and safety and limit scientific advances by:
Perpetuate inequality by:
Chill dissent and quash challenges to the administration’s approved viewpoints by:
Key Takeaway
These and related actions aim to eradicate decades of progress in eliminating historic inequality. In addition, they intrude on the right of free speech, a core tenet of our democracy.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy is dedicated to galvanizing lawyers “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.
PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States
The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.
Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.
Advocacy for the National Museum of the American Latino began in 2003, with former Reps. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) introduced a bipartisan bill to create the museum. A report titled “To Illuminate the American Story for All” authored by a presidential commission created by former President George W. Bush’s administration in 2011 stated the creation of the museum is necessary.
“The Smithsonian American Latino Museum not only as a monument for Latinos, but as a 21st Century learning laboratory rooted in the mission that every American should have access to the stories of all Americans,” the report stated.
But legislation to officially create the museum did not pass until 2020. The National Museum of the American Latino Act of 2020 was passed in Congress and signed by President Donald Trump. The legislation was included under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which includes a subsection authorizing the museum's creation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
However, the National Museum of the American Latino is only online but has occasional in-person exhibits at its Molina Family Latino Gallery at the National Museum of American History. In February 2025, Malliotakis introduced the Smithsonian History of American Women and Latino (SHAWL) Act to build both Latino and women’s Smithsonian museums.
Malliotakis originally introduced the same legislation in August 2024 during the 117th Congress but reintroduced it for the 118th.
“The introduction of this critical bill brings us one step closer to fulfilling the dream of having both museums right where they belong — on the National Mall,” Rep. Tony Cárdenas, who joined Malliotakis in introducing the bill, stated in a press release.
According to documents from the National Museum of the American Latino, a physical museum would either be built on undeveloped land across from the National Museum of African American History and Culture or right northeast of the tidal basin.
The National Museum of the American Latino also stated that they do not comment on pending legislation.
Over at the White House on March 27, President Donald Trump recently endorsed the physical creation of the American Women’s History Museum. Still, he did not show support for the National Museum of the American Latino.
Trump endorsed building the women’s museum at an event associated with the Republican Women’s Caucus. He stated he would back Malliotakis’ legislation “100 percent.”
"The Republican Party today is the party of opportunity, security, and freedom,” Malliotakis stated in a press release.
But recently, the status of the American Museum of the Latino is uncertain as President Donald Trump signed a new executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
The executive order stated that the Smithsonian Institution is “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.
“Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” the executive order states.
President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) Thomas A. Saenz called the executive order “troubling” as in the past museums have been kept out of political debate.
“It seeks to introduce current political disputes into policy surrounding long-term preservation of history through museums and similar institutions,” Saenz said in reference to the executive order.
During his second administration, Trump has signed other executive orders seeking to eliminate “woke” initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion within government agencies.
Saenz said MALDEF, which supports the civil rights of all Latinos, wants the museum to have a permanent location on the National Mall. He also added that Latino advocacy organizations and historians should decide what exhibits go in the museum. Saenz said he hopes the museum’s exhibits show the full history and story of the community rather than playing along with stereotypes, like only showing American Latinos as immigrants.
“I hope that there will be consultation with such groups, which often have an understanding of the contemporary repercussions of exclusion patterns in our history and the way that history is taught and passed on in our country,” Saenz said.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
People running.
President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.
Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Just this week, Representative Zooey Zephyr spoke to her colleagues in the State Legislature about a bill that would ban drag performances and pride parades in Montana. Her simple cry for humanity flipped 29 Republicans, ultimately killing the bill. To me, this proves that even the most polarizing topics are not that polarizing when you tune out the noise and look at what is right in front of you for what it is.
Recently, at my cousin’s 12-and-under flag football game, it became clear which team was going to win. Their bigger, bulkier builds gave them a clear advantage. “That kid is huge, he looks fourteen,” I heard a parent say to the person next to her.
Besides the off-handed comment, it seemed that the parents took no issue with the size difference. I even turned to my aunt and asked her about it. Her response, “This league is based on age, not size,” warranted a head tilt.
I was confused that there wasn’t more outrage among the parents about the size discrepancy. This response contradicts the sentiment I see online each morning when reading the news. Whether a public figure, politician, or journalist, people seem to be getting worked up about “fairness” in sports, citing a variety of physical characteristics.
In professional sports, there are strict eligibility guidelines set forth by each sport’s governing body. Some sports, often less physically consequential, use simple means like an athlete’s passport. In other sports, like swimming, eligibility is based on testosterone levels. Setting the morality of these types of tests aside, there are a myriad of ways to keep sports fair for all competitive athletes that are already in place.
Hormone panels, drug testing, and weight classes are all within the norm of competitive sports at the professional and Olympic levels. So, I sit here wondering why the media and politicians are so obsessed with an outright ban on transgender athletes when there are all sorts of other ways to ensure fairness.
So, next time you hear people complain about fairness when discussing transgender inclusion in sports, remind them that sports associations already have measures in place to ensure credible competition. And if they are truly concerned with fairness, they should be advocating for stronger protections for all athletes, not the outright banning of an entire group of people.
There is a day in the future when the transgender identity won’t be used as a mask to disguise people’s ignorance and hate. There is a better future where the small subset of people who overtly hate transgender people are not given a platform to keep ruining the lives of kids everywhere who are just trying to play sports with their friends.
Lennon Torres is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. She is an LGBTQ+ advocate who grew up in the public eye, gaining national recognition as a young dancer on television shows. With a deep passion for storytelling, advocacy, and politics, Lennon now works to center the lived experience of herself and others as she crafts her professional career in online child safety at Heat Initiative.
