The ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge strives for a more inclusive democracy—one in which all voices are heard. We envision a country in which the electorate mirrors our country's makeup and college students are democratically engaged on an ongoing basis, during and between elections and not just at the polls.
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
Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.
Getty Images
Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate
Jul 20, 2026
A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.
When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.
Most discussions about incarcerated veterans focus on what happens after release. How do we help them find housing? How do we reconnect them to treatment? How do we reduce recidivism?
Those are important questions. But they ignore a more basic one: Why are we waiting until release to reconnect veterans to services they were already receiving before incarceration?
Veterans in the criminal justice system often struggle with PTSD, addiction, trauma, and other serious chronic health conditions. They also face a higher risk of opioid overdose and suicide than veterans who have never been involved with the legal system. Yet many lose access to the VA care that was helping them before they entered prison.
The solution should start with healthcare. Veterans who were receiving VA treatment for PTSD, addiction, traumatic brain injury, or other serious conditions should not be cut off simply because they enter prison. Prison healthcare is not a substitute for VA care, especially for veterans with service-related conditions. The VA and the Bureau of Prisons should pilot a continuity-of-care model that allows eligible veterans to keep receiving VA-directed care for mental health and addiction through telehealth, care coordination, and partnerships with federal correctional facilities.
This is not about excusing criminal behavior. It is about recognizing that treatment interruptions make reentry harder and the risks greater. A veteran stabilized on medication for opioid use disorder should not lose access because custody begins. A veteran receiving mental health care through the VA should not have to wait until release to reconnect with care.
The same principle should apply to education. Education is one of the most effective tools for reducing recidivism and improving employment after release. A veteran who enters prison with unused GI Bill benefits should not leave in the same position years later. If incarceration is supposed to prepare people to return successfully to their communities, then helping veterans earn a credential, complete coursework, or develop job skills should be part of that mission.
Disability compensation also needs a continuity approach. Under current law, a veteran rated 100% disabled can see monthly compensation drop from as much as $4,000 to less than $200 after 60 days behind bars. The disability has not changed. The veteran’s service has not changed. Only their custody status has.
Anthony Badial-Luna is an Air Force veteran and Master of Science Candidate in Georgetown University's Addiction Policy and Practice program. His research focuses on justice-involved veterans, addiction policy, and continuity of care during incarceration and reentry.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A group of people waving small American flags at sunset.
Getty stock photo
Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now
Jul 20, 2026
It was about this time of year in 1997 that I moved across the country and took my first job in the sector broadly known as “civil society.”
Since then, I have grown in my career. I have developed a profile. By dint of sheer survival and longevity, I have accumulated seniority.
For most of that time, I have worked in the field of democracy. It is a broad field, yet in its way a narrow one. It consists, for the most part — though not exclusively — of people who have devoted themselves to learning about and improving the structures that enable self-governance.
I have been comfortable in that field for decades.
Now, democracy in the United States faces a new threat, and so does the field. For many of us, it is hard to know what to do. Our training runs toward bridging divides, toward creating collective solutions to shared problems.
A malevolent force is now actively undermining and pulling down our democratic structures, and that training feels insufficient to the new task.
This malevolent force has set about creating new facts on the ground that will permit autocracy. It has also energized an exclusionary, racist, retrograde stream of American culture. A segment of our population is actively working to build a white Christian theocracy.
In my professional realm, where I carry some personal influence, my profile is one of institutionalism and centrism. Recently, I have begun speaking up in ways that those who have known me for years may find surprising. This includes blog posts about being a dissident and regular videos chronicling our slide into autocracy.
I am much more angular. Why?
Part of the answer is an awakening. As Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have targeted people of color, gay people, trans people, immigrants, and more, I have come closer to the personal stories of the people being targeted. I have learned how excruciating these times are for people I know and work alongside. For years, I thought of democracy as neutral toward equity — a set of structures that would serve everyone, so long as we maintained them well. I now see questions of equity and inclusion as central. A democracy that excludes some of its people is not a democracy at all. And so I see the race away from the gains of the civil rights era as fundamentally antidemocratic – as much so as the current administration’s overt attacks on journalism, civil society, and governance itself.
I am also convinced that people like me — specifically those with a similar professional profile — must speak up now and act more than ever.
What do I mean by people like me? In my case: senior, male, White, holding some positional authority and a measure of influence. I do not fool myself that I have great sway. But through the years, I have collected little bits of political, social, and professional capital.
It is my obligation, and the obligation of those similarly situated, to spend that capital in every way I can imagine, with as much energy as I can muster — to join the coalition of those working to hold back autocracy, and to hold back our shameful rush toward a white Christian nationalist society.
What might happen if more people like me speak up and act? It gives permission. Others who are similarly situated are watching. Many of them see what I see. They may hold back because the risks are real — to their institutions, their funding, their standing — and because the ingrained reflex of balance is so strong. I do not blame them. But when a colleague, someone with a similar profile, speaks plainly and remains standing, the calculation may change. It may become easier for the next person to say, too, what they see, and then to act.
That is what I am hoping for. I cannot move the country. Perhaps I can help move people like me.
For what, after all, am I saving my accumulated capital? If it remains unspent at a moment like this, it is wasted.
I intend to spend mine.
Brad Rourke is the Kettering Foundation's chief external affairs officer and director of DC operations. This piece was originally published on his personal blog. The opinions contained are his individual views and do not represent those of the Kettering Foundation.
Keep ReadingShow less
(L-R) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, Donald Trump, President of United States and Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of United Kingdom during a “family photo” at Beştepe Presidential Compound during a welcome ceremony for the NATO Summit on July 08, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy
Jul 20, 2026
It seems just yesterday I was writing up a piece regarding the G7 summit taking place in southern France. In truth, it was a few weeks ago, but now that the NATO summit has wrapped up, I can’t be the only one with deja vu; world leaders meeting amid the continuing US-led war with Iran. I think I’ve seen this film before.
Welcome to Faultline. Last week, heads of NATO member states convened in Turkey for their yearly summit. Many issues were on the table for the summit, and the one expected to take center stage was the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that the Iran war was supposed to be done, as had been announced weeks ago. However, less than 30 days into the alleged 60-day ceasefire, President Trump has announced that negotiations with Iran are over, and not because they reached an agreement.
So the dominant question remains, if the war in Iran isn’t over, is the rest of NATO expected to intervene? The short answer coming out of Ankara appears to be no — and, notably, almost no one at the summit was willing to press the question.
Some background first. NATO stands apart from the United Nations, the European Union, and the Group of 7 in that it is not only a codified alliance, but it has the clear capacity to militarily intervene. Unlike the UN, which typically relies on making resolutions that encourage (read: rely) on other countries to intervene to complete its goals, NATO can act as a unilateral entity on its own.
Article 5 of the NATO charter states “that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.” In practice, this means that there is an automatic military obligation for every country involved in NATO.
The only example of its explicit use is the fallout of 9/11, an obvious terrorist attack against the United States that triggered military intervention from NATO in Afghanistan. However, the coalition can also offer help to non-member states informally, and has stepped in on external conflicts, such as bthe 1995 bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb forces amid genocide allegations during the Bosnian War as well as offering military aid to Ukraine amid the Russian invasion as of 2022.
In recent years, however, NATO has been a major point of contention in US politics. Most notably, President Trump has expressed his frustration with the relative contributions of other Western nations in the alliance. The United States leads in individual spending on the military and on NATO by several miles, and is responsible for most contributions during interventions.
As the conflict with Iran continues, Trump has insisted that NATO must play a role in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and has complained extensively about the lack of help so far. At the summit, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker pushed a “NATO 3.0” framing, calling for allies to boost defense spending and reduce their dependency on the United States militarily — a message that landed squarely on the burden-sharing complaints Trump has voiced since April.
Another point of tension that world leaders have tiptoed around is President Trump’s unique relationship with Russian President Putin, who is currently carrying out the very invasion against Ukraine that NATO has mobilized against. Before Trump left the US for Turkey, he reportedly had a 90-minute phone call with Putin. Last year, he rolled out the red carpet for Putin’s arrival at an Alaska meeting. One of his campaign promises in 2024 was a decisive end to the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours,” which has now exceeded World War I’s length.
That said, Trump said the US would give Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense systems, which would help defend against Russian missile attacks. His tone was much more amicable with Ukrainian President Zelensky, who he infamously ripped into for not wearing a suit in the White House.
European leaders also each pledged a total of about 70 million euros to the Ukrainian war effort, reflecting increasing faith in Ukraine’s chance in warding off the Russian invasion. The Russian front has shown no signs of slowing, with Russian strikes killing dozens of civilians in Kyiv in the days before the summit even began.
For Americans, it might be a cause for comfort that less taxpayer money will be going abroad, if that is a concern. The Ukraine pledge notably came from European allies and Canada, not the United States. It complies with the Trump administration promises of less international intervention, as well as a lower tax deal, if seen in a vacuum.
But the elephant in the room of these discussions was the apparent lack of an Iran deal. Gas prices are going down, but as things stand, it isn’t likely that they will stay low. The military has reinstated the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and President Trump has said he plans to keep sanctions and strikes on the table until Iran complies.
The total estimated cost of the Iran war exceeds $100 billion, and broader economic impacts conservatively sit at $150 billion. Though tax bills themselves, this past April and surely next year, are not changing significantly (rather, several Trump-sponsored tax cuts are taking effect) the war’s impact on spending cannot be understated. Practically every measure of spending has increased through the war, imports are more expensive and gas prices will prove to be volatile. Economists estimate that Pentagon spending costs the average American household roughly $1,000 in lost economic benefit, effectively offsetting the administration’s recent tax relief efforts.
But, at last week’s NATO summit, international leaders largely did not voice concerns to the president. Rather, the NATO chief Mark Rutte has described President Trump’s attacks on Iran ‘absolutely necessary,’ even now that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have allegedly been destroyed. Although Article 5 has not been invoked, and countries are not providing outright military support, many member nations are certainly assisting the American war effort through logistical support, airspace, and military bases for U.S. operations.
The one country which has refused to volunteer their airspace, Spain, has been threatened with sanctions and heightened tariffs by President Trump. Not every leader stayed silent — Poland’s Karol Nawrocki and Norway’s Jonas Gahr Støre both pushed back publicly on Trump’s threats to pull US troops from Europe, calling the bluff rather than falling in line. But on Iran specifically, that kind of pushback was notably absent.
What we’re seeing is a reflection of the G7 summit last month, as well as international politics as a whole. No one with the capacity to disagree with Trump in any meaningful way is doing so on the Iran question, and most people have chosen to not disagree at all. In some cases, it seems this strategy has paid off in order to encourage Trump’s continued investment abroad, but will likely circle back to harm Americans.
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy was first published by Faultline and was republished with permission.
Isabel Papp is a summer fellow with The Fulcrum. She is a student at Northwestern University, double‑majoring in Journalism and Political Science. A bilingual journalist, she is a proactive, equity‑centered storyteller committed to elevating underrepresented voices.
Keep ReadingShow less
Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.
Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP
Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country
Jul 20, 2026
Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.
The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.
Abortion rights dominated the 2024 elections, but have since taken a political backseat to concerns over the economy. But polling shows voters — including conservatives — oppose near-total prohibitions like Idaho’s.
Supporters gathered more than 100,000 signatures from Idaho residents in support of adding the measure to the state’s November ballot — well above the state’s requirement, which is 70,725 signatories spread across at least half of Idaho’s legislative districts.
Medical professionals say that Idaho’s exception has been incredibly difficult to navigate. Doctors specializing in pregnancy-related health care have left the state in droves, citing the law’s harsh penalties and saying it made it impossible for them to provide proper medical care. Some residents have moved away after struggling to get medical care when experiencing pregnancy-related complications.
Idaho’s ban has already been subject to legal challenges. In 2023, seven plaintiffs — including four women who sought abortions in Idaho after experiencing pregnancy complications — sued the state, seeking to both broaden and clarify the medical exceptions in the law.
Last year, a state court ruled that doctors should interpret the law’s exceptions broadly, and that patients could receive abortions if they had health conditions or complications that meant staying pregnant could threaten their lives. But the court also said patients could not receive abortions if they discovered fatal fetal anomalies in their pregnancies or if they had a mental health condition that made pregnancy dangerous.
More than a dozen states have had abortion-related ballot measures since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In most of those cases, abortion rights supporters have won, including in many states that lean conservative.
Idaho is not the only state where voters will get to address their state’s abortion law. In Virginia and Nevada — states where the procedure remains legal — residents will consider ballot measures that would amend their state constitutions to protect abortion rights.
And in Missouri, voters turned out two years ago to amend their constitution in favor of abortion rights. But this fall, they will be asked once more to weigh in, considering a measure that would amend the constitution once more to overturn those same protections.
Though Idaho has consistently supported Republicans — who largely oppose abortion — a January survey from Boise State University found that 60 percent of Idahoans supported the language in the abortion rights measure. Polling conducted by Idahoans United for Women and Families, the organization spearheading the ballot campaign, has similarly found majorities opposing the state’s abortion law.
Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country was originally published by the 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More