In the face of rising hate crimes and discrimination on the basis of race and religion, we focus on growing the number of Americans who know their fellow Muslim, Arab, Black, Sikh, and South Asian American neighbors. We promote core American values of equality, pluralism, and strength through diversity. We believe in an America that is indivisible – join us to help realize that vision.
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

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’
Jan 18, 2026
In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.
“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.
“An innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman,” Trump said during a Fox News interview a few weeks later. Not everyone who went to the Capitol broke into the building, but she did. With a Trump flag draped over her shoulders like a superhero’s cape, Babbitt was part of the group who tried to gain access to the Speaker’s Lobby, just outside the House chamber. Another rioter smashed glass. As Babbitt tried to crawl through, a Capitol Police officer shot her from inside the lobby.
Video footage from the day shows Babbitt falling backward into the crowd as blood pours out of her mouth. After the shooting, many rioters began to flee the Capitol grounds. Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center. She was declared dead upon arrival.
The officer who killed Babbitt was cleared of wrongdoing; Lt. Michael Byrd potentially saved lives by stopping the mob, lawmakers and police said.
But her death gave Trump’s Make America Great Again movement something it needed: a martyr.
Religiosity moves in
On Jan. 6, 2021, a political rally turned into an insurrection as Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of electoral votes. (John Minchillo/AP Photo)A religious frame has been present in Trump’s politics since his rallies in the leadup to the 2016 election.
Jeffrey Sharlet, a veteran journalist and professor at Dartmouth College who was an early chronicler of the rise of Trumpism and its ties to religiosity, said these rallies were shaped by the prosperity gospel, a branch of Protestantism rooted in the supposition that, effectively, God wants you to be rich.
In 2020, the religious tenor was still there — but it had shifted to a more conspiratorial approach. Trump stopped merely “winking at QAnon” and began “invoking that level of conspiratorial thinking that has been absorbed into the DNA of the movement,” Sharlet said.
Before Babbitt’s death, Sharlet said, Trump had already been working to incorporate martyrs into his rhetoric, invoking a list of names, usually people who had been killed by immigrants in the country without legal status. They would typically fall into two categories, he said: “blonde White women and promising young Black men” — think Jamiel Shaw Jr., a rising football star in the midst of college applications who was shot and killed by a gang member who was in the country illegally, orSarah Root, who was killed by an undocumented drunk driver the day after her graduation from college.
Sharlet calls Babbitt “a perfect storm”: a White woman killed on camera in footage seen by millions, a Black man — the Capitol police officer — responsible for her death.
“That changed everything,” Sharlet said. “The first real martyr who really takes hold of Trumpism is a woman, and it gives the movement a real religiosity.”
And it set the stage for Trump to ascend into a kind of religious figure himself after a would-be assassin shot him in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024.
“Every martyr disappears into the cult of personality,” Sharlet said. “She was a placeholder. She keeps the cross warm until Trump gets up there and he’s the martyr. Now, he’s the martyr for us all — but it started with a certain appeal to women.”
Martyrs can’t speak
Babbitt was an active participant in the insurrection — but that didn’t mean she couldn’t be reassigned the role of someone who needed protecting.
Sharlet recalled watching videos of Trump supporters talking about Babbitt in the wake of her death: “They’re aging her backward, they’re lowering her weight, they’re lowering her height, they’re turning her into a little girl.”
It was a blueprint for what was to come, he said of Babbitt: “The blondeness is important, the smallness is important, but so is the camouflage of being a veteran.”
Her race, too, was important, Sharlet said.
“It’s about the Whiteness of things. It’s not enough for them that a woman be murdered,” he said. “She has to be a little girl. She has to be White.”
Meghan Tschanz, a former missionary who has emerged as a critic of patriarchal systems in evangelical Christianity, drew a connection between Babbitt and Laken Riley, a college student whose murder by an immigrant who was in the country illegally was highlighted by Trump. Both women’s deaths became part of a larger narrative — one designed to accomplish a political goal, not mourn the victims.
Tschanz, who lives in Athens, Georgia — where Riley was killed — stressed that criticizing the politicization of Riley’s death is in no way a dismissal of the reality and severity of her killing. Rather, she said, politicization can dilute the pain of the loss in service to a larger narrative.
“Again and again, we see women die and the response isn’t, ‘Let’s make it so women don’t die.’ It’s, ‘Let’s make it so that I can use this to further my narrative that immigrants are evil,’” she said.
Riley’s father, Jason Riley — a Trump supporter — told NBC News about the pain of watching his daughter become a political tagline after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, at the time a strong Trump ally, heckled President Joe Biden during his State of the Union speech in 2024, urging him to say Riley’s name.
“I think it’s being used politically to get those votes. It makes me angry. I feel like, you know, they’re just using my daughter’s name for that. And she was much better than that, and she should be raised up for the person that she is,” Jason Riley said. “She was an angel.”
It’s a dynamic also echoed in Babbitt’s death. Though Babbitt’s mother, Michelle Witthoeft, emerged as a leading advocate for the release of those who were arrested for their actions on January 6, she also has publicly grappled with the way in which her daughter’s death became something other than an acute family tragedy.
Witthoeft told The Washington Post in 2021, “Half the country loves her and half the country hates her,” she said. “It’s weird to have your child belong to the world.”
For Trump, Riley’s and Babbitt’s deaths helped reinforce the message that women’s lives are in danger and that they need to be saved — something he emphasized in his campaigns as he painted immigrants and his political opponents as threats.
“It all plays into the fears and vulnerabilities that women have to navigate, which is that women are more vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence and women are tasked culturally with caring for the home and for their children,” said Hilary Matfess, an assistant professor at the University of Denver and the co-author of an analysis done by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University on gender and the January 6 insurrection. “So this message of scary immigrants are going to come in and destroy your communities with drugs and rape your women and children is intended to strike fear into a very specific demographic — namely, suburban White women.”
Matfess pointed to how the role of martyr cemented a view of Babbitt for Trump’s followers. She became someone who needed protecting, a figure whose memory is in need of constant, everlasting protection.
“Being put on a pedestal means you can’t move around too much,” Matfess said.
The ‘protection racket’
Michelle Witthoeft, Ashli Babbitt’s mother, participates in a demonstration in support of insurrectionists who were arrested and charged following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)Matfess said there is a long-standing academic notion of the “protection racket,” in which a government offers protection from an imagined threat to deflect from the threat posed by the government itself. It’s something that can be used to keep women in subservient roles — and thus effectively in need of some form of protection from others.
“The Trump administration is not saying, ‘Wow, we should really expand access to prenatal health care’ or ‘We need more resources for women that are victims of domestic violence,’ because it is not about protecting women,” she said. “It’s about protecting certain men’s ability to wield power and influence under the banner of protection.”
Babbitt’s death in some ways challenged the narrative, too — she was part of the group trying to stop the certification of the election, not sitting by.
Matfess noted the ways that the Proud Boys — the far-right, all-men neo-fascist group that have become rigorous defenders of Trump and his agenda — insist on the fact that there are in fact no Proud Girls, often suggesting that the best way women can support the politics they espouse is by staying home and reproducing.
Matfess points to early rumors from within the far right that Babbitt was part of a false flag mission — evidence that the movement had to grapple with a woman who was attacking, not asking for protection.
“There’s a lot of utility to narratives that talk of attacks against women and children, and so it becomes that once they decided it wasn’t a false flag, that she was there of her own political beliefs, it becomes a compelling narrative of a woman sacrificing herself for this movement. Whether or not the movement would have been kind to her had she lived is besides the point,” Matfess said.
“The memorialization takes away the kind of difficult questions of how this movement would deal with women who are taking on more transgressive gender roles. Once someone’s a hero, you can leave it at that.”
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’ was first published by The19th and republished with permission.
Jennifer Gerson is a reporter at The 19th.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026
Jan 17, 2026
A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.
In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.
These state‑level fights have revived a broader question: has partisan gerrymandering delivered the durable advantages its architects sought, particularly in states aligned with President Donald Trump? Analysts emphasize that gerrymandering is carried out by state legislatures, courts, and independent commissions—not by the presidency—and cannot be attributed to any single national figure. Still, Trump benefits indirectly from Republican‑drawn maps in states where GOP legislatures aligned with his agenda and where courts allowed those maps to stand.
Research and analyses from organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, as well as reporting by AP News and Reuters, have shown that Republican‑drawn maps in states like Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina have historically produced durable advantages in congressional and legislative seats. At the same time, those advantages have been blunted by court rulings and Democratic counter‑moves in states such as Alabama, Louisiana, New York, California, and Virginia, where new maps have expanded Democratic representation or reduced partisan bias.
Political scientists and election‑law experts describe the current landscape as a two‑sided “redistricting arms race,” with both parties using every available legal tool to shape the national map heading into the 2026 midterm elections.
The intensity of today’s battles is rooted in a long history. Gerrymandering dates back to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved a state senate district so contorted that critics said it resembled a salamander, giving rise to the term “gerrymander."
Modern gerrymandering typically relies on “packing” voters of one group into a small number of districts or “cracking” them across many districts to dilute their influence. While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution, it held in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) that partisan gerrymandering claims brought under the U.S. Constitution are beyond the reach of federal courts, shifting most disputes to state courts and independent commissions. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), the Court affirmed lower‑court rulings that blocked Alabama from using a congressional map that likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power.
The democratic consequences are substantial. Research from the Brennan Center for Justice has shown that heavily gerrymandered states tend to produce fewer competitive races, limiting voter choice and reducing candidates' incentives to appeal beyond their base. Civil‑rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, have documented how racial gerrymandering can weaken the political influence of Black, Latino, and Native communities, particularly in the South and Southwest. Scholars associated with efforts like Princeton’s Gerrymandering Project have warned that extreme partisan maps can lock in legislative control for a decade or more, even when statewide vote totals shift, creating conditions some describe as “minority rule,” where the party with fewer votes holds more seats. Surveys by organizations such as the Pew Research Center have found that majorities of Americans believe gerrymandering undermines confidence in elections, a key pillar of democratic legitimacy.
Taken together, the latest rulings in California, the aggressive posture in Virginia, the ballot‑language fight in Missouri, and the court‑ordered map in Utah illustrate how redistricting has become a structural battleground over who is represented and how they are represented. As the 2026 midterms approach, democracy scholars and civic groups argue that the stakes extend beyond partisan advantage.
Gerrymandering is not just a technical exercise in map‑drawing; it is a mechanism that helps determine whose voices are heard, how power is distributed, and whether a pluralistic democracy can function as intended in a diverse and increasingly polarized nation.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
What This Year’s Academy Documentary Shortlist Reveals About a Democracy Under Strain
Jan 17, 2026
Every year, the Academy Awards honor the best in documentary filmmaking — a category that feels increasingly vital in the divided times we live in. Legendary documentarian Albert Maysles captured the emotional and civic power of documentaries when he said:
“People will come to find the documentary a more compelling and more important kind of film than fiction… When you see somebody on the screen in a documentary, you're really engaged with a person going through real life experiences.”
Documentaries matter because they humanize what sometimes is abstract and distant. They remind us that behind every headline is a person impacted by the news headlines of the day.
In 2021, I wrote a column for The Fulcrum titled Artists Reflect the Times They Live In, drawing on the words of Nina Simone, the incomparable singer, songwriter, and civil rights activist. Simone believed that artists have a responsibility to bear witness. As she put it:
“An artist's duty, as far as I'm concerned, is to reflect the times… How can you be an artist and NOT reflect the times? That to me is the definition of an artist.”
At The Fulcrum, we share that conviction. Music, theater, film, and the arts more illuminate the emotional undercurrents of the news we report on. They can deepen understanding, spark empathy, and inspire people to engage in the work of building a stronger, more vibrant democracy.
Today, we turn our attention to this year’s Academy Award documentary shortlists, a collection of films that grapple with division, disinformation, authoritarianism, and the fragile work of coexistence. These filmmakers are not merely chronicling events; they are helping us understand the civic moment we inhabit.
Our hope is that by highlighting these films, readers will feel the human impact behind the issues we cover every day, and perhaps be moved to take part in the ongoing project of democratic renewal.
The Fulcrum’s List of Films That Speak Most Directly to Democracy Today
The Alabama Solution
Mr. Nobody against Putin
My Undesirable Friends: Last Air in Moscow
Seeds
All the Walls Came Down
Armed Only with a Camera: The Life and Death of Brent Renaud
Coexistence, My Ass!
Classroom 4
Taken together, these films sketch a portrait of a nation and a world struggling to hold itself together. They reveal the erosion of trust in institutions, the difficulty of coexistence, and the rising threat of anti‑democratic forces. Yet woven through this backdrop is a message of hope: journalists, teachers, and ordinary citizens continue to show up for one another.
Democracy is not sustained by laws alone. It is sustained by the stories we tell about who we are and who we aspire to be. When filmmakers turn their cameras toward division, repression, or civic decay, they are not merely documenting problems. They are inviting us to confront them.
And when filmmakers tell stories of courage, renewal, or unexpected solidarity, they remind us that the democratic experiment, while fragile, is still alive and still worth fighting for.
Fulcrum's mission has always been to illuminate the forces pulling us apart and the people working to pull us back together. This year’s documentary shortlists show that storytellers around the world are wrestling with the same questions.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less

U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026 in Dearborn, Michigan.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
A Man Who Keeps His Word — Even When He’s Joking
Jan 17, 2026
We’ve learned why it’s a mistake to treat Trump’s outrageous lines as “just talk”
“We shouldn’t need a mid-term election” is his latest outrageous statement or joke. Let’s break down the pattern.
When a candidate says something extreme, we, the public, tend to downgrade it: He’s joking. He’s riffing. He’s trolling the press. We treat the line like entertainment, not intent.
With Donald Trump, that downgrade function is unreliable.
Not because he keeps every promise. He doesn’t. PolitiFact’s tracker of his 102 2016 campaign promises ends with a blunt scorecard: 23% Promise Kept, 22% Compromise, 53% Promise Broken. Those numbers matter because they keep us honest: “he always keeps his word” isn’t true.
But here’s the harder truth: “he was just joking” isn’t a safeguard either.
Trump has a repeatable pattern: he floats ideas as crowd-work, tests the reaction, and then—when it’s useful—turns them into policy, especially when he can do it through executive power.
So if you’re trying to understand what to do with the outrageous things he says, don’t ask, “Was he serious?”
Ask: Can he do it? And does it serve him?
The joke that became a branch of the military
In March 2018, Trump tossed out “Space Force” in public and described it as something he wasn’t “really serious” about—until he heard himself say it and decided it was “a great idea.”
That’s the pattern in miniature: a line arrives as a wink, gets applause, and becomes normal.
Less than two years later, the U.S. Space Force became real—created in law when Trump signed the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act on December 20, 2019. Budgets. Command structures. Careers. A new permanent institution.
Whatever you think of the policy, the process is the point: the “joke” was an on-ramp.
2016: He kept his word most when he could act alone
PolitiFact’s Trump-O-Meter is useful because it forces a simple question: Was the promise achieved, yes or no (or partly)?
Some of the most prominent 2016 campaign vows were carried out quickly through direct presidential action:
- Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trump formally directed the U.S. withdrawal early in his term.
- Move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The embassy opened in Jerusalem in May 2018.
- Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Trump announced the withdrawal in June 2017.
And some of the most iconic slogans—especially the ones requiring Congress, sustained coalition management, or an implausible funding story—did not land the way the rallies promised:
- “Build the wall, and make Mexico pay for it.” PolitiFact ultimately rated the promise broken.
- “Repeal and replace Obamacare.” It did not happen; PolitiFact rated it broken.
This isn’t about “gotcha.” It’s about prediction.
A practical rule emerges from the record: Trump is most likely to follow through when the lever of change is his alone. He likes acting unilaterally.
If it can be done by executive order, agency enforcement, procurement rules, staffing changes, licensing decisions, or the strategic use of funding—he’s much more likely to do it than if it requires Congress to pass a complicated bill that holds together for years.
2020: Campaign themes became executive action—fast
The 2020 campaign is a special case because Trump lost reelection. But it still teaches something important about the “joking / not joking” problem: he used campaign rhetoric to pre-authorize real actions while he still held power.
As “anti-CRT” and “divisive concepts” became a political target in his speeches and messaging, he signed Executive Order 13950 (“Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”) in September 2020. It restricted certain training in the federal government and among federal contractors. Overnight, DEI training and those who provided it were targeted through contracts, compliance and enforcement. It was not just a talking point.
When you look back, the order reads like the bureaucratic version of a campaign theme: a punchy moral claim translated into rules, definitions, and penalties.
So if you’re listening to Trump and you hear something shocking, one relevant question is: Can that shock be turned into paperwork? Because that is often how it moves from stage to state. Turning the system against itself is part of the “soft coup” that is undermining our republic.
2024: The second-term “kept” promises are the ones that move fastest
PolitiFact’s MAGA-Meter (tracking promises from the 2024 campaign) has a similar scorecard—showing a chunk already marked Promise Kept, a large share In the Works, and small slices stalled or broken.
The details will evolve over time, but the pattern is visible early: the promises that get the fastest traction are the ones that fit the presidential toolbelt—orders, enforcement, funding, personnel, and aggressive administrative action.
And yes, this includes the kind of pledge many people wanted to treat as mere crowd-pleasing theater. PolitiFact has rated the promise to pardon people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes as Promise Kept in its tracker. Likewise, the idea of a broad baseline tariff—something that can be advanced through executive authorities and trade mechanisms—shows up as Promise Kept in the same tracking system.
At the same time, PolitiFact has also rated at least one of Trump’s most dramatic foreign-policy time claims—ending the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours—as Promise Broken.
That mix is precisely why “he keeps his word” and “he’s just joking” are both incomplete. The truer statement is:
He keeps his word selectively—and in ways that matter—when he has the means and incentive to do it.
How to listen to the outrageous things now
If you want a grounded way to interpret the next outrageous line, try this five-question filter:
- Can it be done without Congress?
If yes, raise the likelihood. Presidents have real unilateral powers, and Trump uses them aggressively. - Is it repeated or one-off?
A repeated line is rehearsal. It trains supporters—and fatigues critics—until the move feels normal. - Is it a reversal rather than a build?
Bans, withdrawals, defunding, firings, revocations, enforcement crackdowns: easier than building a durable new system. - Does it create a clear enemy and a public spectacle?
Sometimes the dominance signal is the product. - Has he done something similar before?
Second terms run on muscle memory. If it matches a known pattern, take it seriously.
This is not a call to panic at every provocation. It’s a call to stop using “he was kidding” as a comfort blanket.
So is Trump joking when he says, “We shouldn’t need a mid-term election?” He is likely floating an idea he would like to make happen.
Because the joke, in Trump’s politics, is often the delivery system: a low-cost way to introduce an extreme idea, test whether the crowd will cheer, and then—if it works—turn it into governance.
How can we stop him? The levers for elections currently exist at the state level; will he try to pull that power into the White House? Undoubtedly. Strong state and local control of elections is essential.
Another level for controlling elections is to control the companies who run the voting machines. Liberty Vote acquired Dominion Voting Systems in 2025. Liberty Vote is run by a Trump supporter and former Republican official, Scott Leiendecker. Is this a secondary play to control elections? Hmm.
If Trump is thwarted and we hold 2026 mid-terms, it will be “I was just joking.” If he succeeds in scuttling the election, he will say “It was a good idea.”
Debilyn Molineaux is storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and podcast host of Terrified Nation. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations and the National Week of Conversation. You can learn more about her work on LinkedIn.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















