Business leaders from across the political spectrum sign on to the American Promise Business Network for a variety of important reasons — for Maureen Kline, Vice President, Public Affairs and Sustainability for Pirelli Tire North America, the decision was a natural fit as it reflects her company’s policy of not making political campaign contributions. That commitment is part of Pirelli’s stakeholder capitalism mindset, which values contributing to healthier and more equitable systems as well as making a profit.
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

Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate nominee, is running a populist campaign with a focus on corruption and influence.
CJ Gunther/Getty Images
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’
Jun 29, 2026
After Graham Platner secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, his first ad of the general election didn’t mention his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins, or the Republican Party. It focused on the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and who he called the “Epstein class” of elites in both parties.
“Some of the most powerful Democrats and Republicans in the country were on Epstein island,” Platner said in the ad, referring to Epstein’s former residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Platner, whose economic-populist campaign combined with controversial online statements and a since-removed tattoo of a Nazi symbol have drawn national attention, framed himself in opposition to this elite class.
“It seems the only thing the party establishments can agree on is a love of Jeffrey Epstein, and a hatred of me,” he said. “I’m Graham Platner, and I approve this message because together, we will take back our government from the Epstein class.”
It’s not just Platner: In midterm races from Texas to Maine, Democrats and at least one Republican are running against Epstein and “the Epstein class,” a term Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California first used last year to describe the men among the economic and cultural elite who traveled in Epstein’s social circles and helped rehabilitate his reputation after the multimillionaire ex-financier became a convicted sex offender in 2008 for soliciting prostitution of a minor.
“I’ll give the survivors credit, but I did coin the phrase ‘Epstein class’ because they’re a group of rich and powerful people who are not playing by the rules, and it offends the sense that we have one tier of justice,” Khanna told The 19th.
The number of candidates highlighting Epstein in their campaign messaging, Khanna argued, “shows what a powerful issue this is to win the midterms and win back the trust of the American public.”
In two of the most competitive races to determine control of the U.S. Senate, Platner and Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is running for reelection, have castigated the “Epstein class” and what they say is elite corruption in their ads and messaging. In Texas, Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has criticized his opponent, Trump-endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for approving what critics have called an overly lenient, “Epstein-style” plea deal for a defendant charged with sexually abusing a child. And in Ohio’s Senate race, both Republican Sen. Jon Husted and his Democratic opponent, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, have run television ads attacking each other by singling out campaign donations from those in Epstein’s orbit.
Last year, Epstein’s survivors fueled a bipartisan push in Congress led by Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to compel the Justice Department to release over 3.5 million files from its investigation into Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The release of the files, following months of resistance from President Donald Trump and the White House, provided a rare look into how the wealthy and powerful operate behind closed doors.
Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide, but it’s continued to drive scrutiny, skepticism and conspiracy theories in the years since. During the 2024 election, top Trump allies, some of whom ended up in his administration, pledged to release the Epstein files. The Trump administration’s reluctance to do so frustrated and splintered the MAGA base, resulting in a rare rebuke of the administration by Congress. Republicans who bucked Trump by pushing for the release of the files have also faced political consequences: In May, a Trump-backed primary challenger ousted Massie from his seat in Congress.
Americans across the political spectrum have continued to ask about the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s connections among the political elite. (Angela Weiss/AFP)
“I think the single most bipartisan issue in the country is the Epstein files investigation,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee who has spearheaded Congress’ investigation into the Epstein case, told reporters this month. “And so I think we’re going to talk about it a lot.”
No one other than co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving out a prison sentence for sex trafficking, has been prosecuted in connection to Epstein’s crimes in the United States. But Epstein courted influence and rubbed shoulders with prominent individuals associated with both parties in his efforts to rehabilitate his reputation.
Republicans have seized on Epstein’s ties to figures including former President Bill Clinton, who sat for a congressional deposition along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, who has expressed regret for associating with Epstein, to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy. It’s also provided some Democratic candidates with a way to hit on what they cast as corruption in both parties.
The revelations from the files further fueled the widespread, bipartisan exasperation among voters with the wealthiest elites. The Epstein issue, two Democratic pollsters told The 19th, is rare for its high salience and far reach even among less politically engaged voters — and for the high levels of bipartisan agreement on the need for more action.
Surveys released this year from Democratic-aligned firm Navigator Research and progressive pollster Data for Progress back that argument up. In both polls, majorities of voters, including a majority of Republicans, believe there hasn’t been enough accountability connected to Epstein’s crimes and want to see more arrests and prosecutions. In a Navigator poll released in March, the share of Americans who said they believed Trump administration officials should resign over the Epstein matter increased when they were informed about officials in other countries being arrested, fired or forced to resign over Epstein ties.
“What has happened with the Epstein files is such a clear distillation of the frustration that Americans across different partisan ideologies, even Republicans, even MAGA Republicans, and certainly independents, feel that there’s a different set of rules — or that really no rules at all — for the elite who just seem to get ahead,” said Melissa Toufanian, managing director at Navigator.
In the Navigator survey, half of Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats and 58 percent of independents, said they believed the government was “definitely” covering up additional wrongdoing by Epstein. Seventy-two percent of Americans, including 70 percent of independents, 67 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of respondents identified as MAGA Republicans, said there should be more arrests and prosecutions related to Epstein. Sixty-four percent of respondents, including two-thirds of independents and half of Republicans, said they believed Epstein’s crimes were “unsurprising and the result of a broader problem.”
“It really cuts across every political divide in a way that we almost never see on other issues,” Toufanian said.
The number of red state candidates running on Epstein and the “Epstein class” demonstrates this. In addition to Talarico and Brown, Noah Taylor, an Army veteran running as a Democrat for the Senate in Kansas, and Dan Osborn, an independent Senate candidate in Nebraska, have also framed their campaigns as opposing the “Epstein class.”
Osborn, who is challenging Sen. Pete Ricketts, issued a news release pointing to a campaign rally in which Ricketts and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas appeared together, calling them “birds of a feather who are content to carry out the agenda of the billionaire Epstein class.”
Research from Data for Progress found that voters were not only highly aware of the Epstein files issue but named specific figures, including Trump, who they believed to be part of the Epstein class. In a Data for Progress poll released in March, a plurality of likely voters said they didn’t expect to see additional arrests connected to Epstein, and majorities of voters said they held both the Trump and Biden administrations accountable for a lack of action.
“What we found there is that people are immediately able to attach this to wealthy elites and corruption and people that are rigging the system in their own interests, and then finally, that voters find those messages to be pretty convincing,” said Ryan O’Donnell, Data for Progress’ executive director.
Inflation and the high cost of living consistently rank among voters’ top concerns ahead of the midterms, an advantage for Democrats aiming to win back control of Congress. Still, O’Donnell said, surveys show that Democrats have little trust advantage on which party voters trust more to tackle corruption. Candidates’ focus on “the Epstein class,” he said, aligns with that broader anti-corruption and anti-elite messaging push many Democratic candidates are centering in 2026.
“I think it directly fits in with voters’ top concern of cost of living right now,” O’Donnell said. “Broadly, Democrats, if they want to fight their way out of this, have to show that they’re actually willing to take on corruption in that way, and I do think that the Epstein class language is one way to do that.”
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’ was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The Real Threat to Democracy Is Not the Don – but Unrealistic Expectations
Jun 28, 2026
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Shon Eric Hernandez, a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.
Who did you vote for in the last election? Even if you didn’t, it was on the night of November 5, 2024, when you couldn’t avoid the tension of who would be Commander-in-Chief for the next four years. The results trickled, stalled, flipped, and eventually sparked outrage. For many Americans, that chaos felt like a failure; a betrayal of the system we trust to protect us—but what if the process was working as intended?
Democracy has always been spoken about like some grand standard for fairness and the “moral” way. From grade school to university classrooms, it is taught as a system where every voice is equal, every vote counts the same, and the will of the people is always reflected in the outcome. It is the light, the angel that we look up to for a fair government where its citizens aren’t taken advantage of by those of higher classes.
While arguments concerning its effectiveness compared to alternate political systems—such as Epistocracy, where the most informed and competent politically hold higher value with their votes—are valid to have, the underlying issue is that we do not allow the idea that just because it works, it does not mean it is necessarily good.
Take Alberto Fujimori, who won a perfectly fair election, then later suspended Peru's constitution and established an authoritarian regime marked by numerous abuses. The system worked as intended—it reflected the voters' will at that moment. The outcome, however, was harmful. This distinction matters. A system can function correctly while still producing bad results.
After Donald J. Trump won his second election to become the 47th president of the United States, many in my online circle expressed a lack of ideological diversity in their social lives. They would state something along the lines of “how did he win? I don’t even know anyone who voted for him.” That reaction says less about the electorate and more about the environments people exist in. Political and social bubbles limit exposure to opposing views, and this makes legitimate outcomes feel wrong.
This is normal within the current climate. To fast forward, you will see many conversations in these same communities about the death of democracy and the rise of fascism/dictatorship due to the Trump administration's conduct. However, unlike in 2020, Trump did in fact win the election, securing 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226 and winning 77.3 million votes (49.8%) compared to Harris's 75.0 million (48.3%)—a margin of roughly 2.3 million popular votes and 86 electoral votes.
On paper, the system worked, right? How come so many people feel it’s wrong then? People expect Democracy to validate their sense of fairness; however, it only reflects participation. According to a poll conducted by NPR from June 23 to 25 of 2025, ~76% of people said they believe democracy is under serious threat; Not in its results necessarily, but that a process that is supposed to be a filter for “truth” and “fairness” would allow a person who had previously shown signs of a disregard for rules to come in and turn it on its head. The expectation that the system should prevent certain outcomes altogether—an expectation democracy was never built to meet.
The conversations about how one figure dismantles democracy are important, but they are not the main discussions needed to save it if it is in danger. You cannot treat an illness after being given the wrong diagnosis. We need to concede that it’s okay for a system/process to be fundamentally flawed in its nature. It's messy, tedious, unfair, and that’s where the beauty lies.
A system that overtime learns from its mistakes and evolves as the people hit walls and work together to break through. Like an advanced AI model piecing together how to solve a puzzle. Kicking out the abuser of our sacred system will not heal the damage already done.
The elephant in the room is that democracy has systemic flaws that can't be easily changed. The most glaring example is the Electoral College, which gives voters in small states disproportionately more power than voters in large states. A voter in Wyoming has about four times more influence on the presidential election than a voter in California—not because their vote matters more, but because the system is structured that way.
On one hand, this denies the fundamental principle of Democratic voting: every person's vote should count the same, regardless of where they live. The Electoral College violates this by allowing 100 people in Wyoming to collectively have the same electoral weight as 400 people in California. It's not just "messy"—it's unfair, and it means millions of Americans in densely populated states have less say in who becomes president than millions in sparsely populated ones.
On the other hand, though, ultimately while true, the Electoral College wasn't accidental—it's a deliberate constitutional design that forces candidates to build broad geographic support, not just win urban areas. Without it, candidates would focus only on California, New York, Texas, and Florida, ignoring rural America.
The U.S. is a federal republic, not a pure democracy—states elect the president, not citizens directly. The question is not whether the Electoral College is flawed—it is—but whether those flaws are an acceptable tradeoff for the stability and balance it aims to provide. If the college needs a rework, accepting that we all approach these conversations often one-sidedly is imperative to progress.
The healing will not be instant. These ideas and systems are highly complex with tons of moving parts. The first band-aid will be to have more public conversations about why candidates win elections and how some may manipulate the system using money and resources to gain an advantage. If you want to change how you talk about democracy, get civically involved! There are many ways!
If democracy’s greatest weakness is the gap between expectation and reality, then its greatest strength is participation. First, think about what you're passionate about. If you're interested in politics and you know your party[democrat/republican/other], go to their local social media accounts and find meeting times. The hardest part will be showing up. Local non-profits, for example, can always use a new set of hands, and that can be your doorway into gaining connections with your local government. Advocate for different approaches, and you might be surprised how many people listen.
Shon Eric Hernandez is a Fulcrum fellow and M.D.C. contributor. He can be reached at shondesil06@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less

U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
I Alone Can (Fix) Destroy It
Jun 28, 2026
Donald Trump’s racist, misogynist, xenophobic view of the world has undermined the USA’s global standing. He has surrounded himself with cabinet officials who believe that competence is determined not by expertise, training, education and experience but with factors perceived to be far more important like, whether they are white, male and retain a feudal sense of subservience, other criteria he values include girth, facial hair and his very subjective perception of attractiveness.
Trump’s attack on wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion mean that his administration is left without a diversity of knowledge , cultural understanding and empathy which means his negotiators for the Iran War cannot appreciate the history of the region, the cultural nuances, the languages, the political tensions, the emotional impact of their actions or the thinking of the current leadership. Being woke means understanding a variety of perspectives and having empathy for others, something this administration sorely lacks. They represent the total opposite of Kissinger, Brzezinski, Albright and Rice who were lifelong experts on their diplomatic counterparts.
In February Donald Trump accused the leaders of the Iranian regime of being a “vicious group of very hard terrible people” . In June he showered compliments on the Iranian leadership. In addition, his about face, and the President’s assurances that the Iranian leaders can be trusted, come after he has killed several family members of the current Supreme Leader.
Had the President not fired the Middle East experts in the State Department, he would have known that Iran is, like much of Central Asia, comprised of people who have survived a variety of empires ranging through several millennia, including but not limited to the Achaemenid/Persian, Ottoman & Mongolian empires. While Trump diverts the 250th anniversary of U.S. Independence from England, to a personal partisan event, MAGA pretends that 250 years is a long time, while they seeks to eradicate the 40,000 years of Native American history. In other words, suggesting that the President thinks in terms of 250-year increments is gratuitous, it is more appropriate to suggest that he thinks, as far ahead as the next campaign season and more likely he barely thinks beyond tomorrow’s news cycle.
I was once working with a lawyer from a neighboring country to Iran and she suggested that “you American lawyers want to get from A to B and you want to get there as fast as possible. I am Byzantine,” she said…”I do not think that way.” The point is, that Iranian leadership does not think the same way the president does. In my opinion they are not interested in money to the same extent that the president is. They do not need to respond to a Congress or an electorate. They have the luxury to think in terms of 2500 years. Their memories are long and while Donald Trump has most likely not given a second thought to the death of the Supreme Leader’s family, the Supreme Leader is unlikely to ever forget or for that matter forgive, nor are the Iranian people likely to forget the massacre of children at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School.
It is within this context that Donald Trump an inveterate liar suggests that the Iranian leadership is now trustworthy and that he has achieved significant progress with a gentlemen’s agreement. Iranians are less likely to bestow such trust on the USA or its leadership. Trump’s so-called MOU is woefully unspecific. Any diplomat will tell you that strategic ambiguity may be essential to closing a multilateral agreement, but where there is ambiguity, the diplomat must presume that the gaps will be aggressively interpreted against their interests.
The JCPOA was a major achievement because it was not bi-lateral it was multilateral. It included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and was endorsed by the UN Security Council. The inclusion of Russia, and China meant that two of Iran’s leading potential allies were bound to the agreement. Such action would forbid Iran’s allies from assisting Iran to undermine or violate the agreement in any material way. The endorsement of France, Germany the United Kingdom and the UN provided gravitas to the agreement which meant that failure to adhere would bring condemnation on the world stage.
The JCPOA was a 159-page document which outlined explicit terms addressing the limits on Iran’s use of Uranium, its enrichment, stockpiling, research and development, reactor facilities with extensive monitoring and verification by international bodies for up to 25 years. It also outlined a considered approach to sanctions by the UN, the EU and the US.
The current MOU addresses none of these issues. The Israeli’s (who to my understanding are not at the table) have rejected the proposal and regardless of what one thinks of President Netanyahu, it is hard to imagine Israel waiving its right to defend itself. Donald Trump has alienated NATO, and wholly unnecessarily, leaders of the UK , France, Germany & Italy.
In addition to exposing US Allies of Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, the failure of the administration to clearly secure a victory against Iran has exposed weaknesses in the military capabilities of the USA. Since World War II the goal of the US Military has been to fight under a two-theatre war model. In essence it was intended to be capable of engaging in two major conflicts, essentially one in Europe or the Middle East and one in Asia at the same time.
The Trump administration has demonstrated that there is a serious argument that the US is neither competent nor capable of mounting such efforts. The feeble military action in Iran has provided credible evidence that with the failure to cooperate with NATO and the allocation of resources to the Middle East, that the US’s ability to defend against China for the purposes of fulfilling its historical commitments to Taiwan or against a Putin expansion into Europe have been seriously compromised.
The president has complained that the US has lost respect on a global stage, but he alone has overseen the country’s greatest deconstruction of military, diplomatic and intelligence capabilities since prior to WWI and the utter destruction of the respect and reputation of the USA amongst allies and enemies alike.
Walter H. White, Jr is a director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and served as a director & chair of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund during the Clinton & Bush administrations.
Keep ReadingShow less

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.
(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)
The Knicks and the Practice of Us
Jun 28, 2026
I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.
For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.
Fifty-three years. That’s how long Knicks fans practiced this peculiar discipline. Over those decades, legendary moments served as signposts on the journey. Willis Reed’s limp into legend in 1970 became more than a highlight—it was mythology. Patrick Ewing was both promise and heartbreak, sometimes in the same play. John Starks—forever loved, even after Game 7. Generations calibrated their emotional weather to a franchise that specialized in not quite.
Which is why, when the Knicks finally clinched that 94–90 win over the Spurs—after half a century of waiting—it didn’t feel like just the end of a basketball season. Instead, it felt like a family secret suddenly remembered. At that moment, the city exhaled, and something old and communal surged back to the surface.
Even the win matched the usual script: comeback, deficit erased, probability bent. Analysts will dissect the X’s and O’s. Jalen Brunson’s name is entering the canon. Documentaries, oral histories, and jerseys will follow. But what lingered wasn’t tactical—it was the sound.
The frequency of collective release is its own kind of music. It ricocheted off apartment bricks in Manhattan. It spilled out of Queens bars. It crackled through FaceTime calls and group chats. Videos surfaced from London pubs. They surfaced from military bases. Meanwhile, people in neighborhoods where eye contact is usually avoided instead found themselves locked in spontaneous embrace. The celebrations looked unmistakably New York. Yet we’re used to seeing cities revealed by disaster. New York and New Jersey neighbors have shown resilience in the face of tragedy: the September 11th attacks. Hurricane Sandy. The first suffocating wave of COVID. In those moments, the city improvises solidarity. But celebration reveals a community’s scaffolding, too. Joy tests what binds us when fear is absent. Who are we when we don’t have to be afraid?
That’s what made the Knicks’ championship aftermath so moving. For a few hours, New Yorkers were neighbors. The city’s fractures remained—New York was still expensive, impatient, and divided by money, race, and politics. But for one night, delight rewrote the social contract. No one checked who’d voted for whom. No one asked about background or beliefs before giving high-fives. The lines stayed, but mattered less.
It’s a rare thing now, this kind of encounter. Our institutions—churches, civic groups, local papers—are thinning. Neighborhood associations are fading. Algorithms nudge us deeper into curated silos, where everyone else is a stranger, or worse, a threat. We’re specialists in avoiding one another. Sports resist that tendency. You can’t curate Knicks fandom to your liking; you inherit it, or you choose it. From that moment, your anxiety is indistinguishable from that of the Dominican grandfather in the nosebleeds or the twenty-something who knows the Knicks mostly by meme and misery. The hedge fund manager and the public-school teacher ride the same emotional roller coaster in the final minutes.
For a few hours, everyone joins something raw and unrehearsed. Sociologist Émile Durkheim called it “collective effervescence.” It’s a rare moment: individuals, swept up by ritual, become part of something larger. In America, sports may be our last secular sanctuary for that feeling. Dismissing fandom as trivial always misses the mark. No one thinks basketball fixes injustice. No parade will pass rent control. The Knicks can’t legislate fairness. But at their best, they remind us of what civic life neglects. We suffer together, yet do not grow callous. We invest in strangers. Our stories expand inside a much larger one. Someone else’s joy enlarges us.
This Knicks team embodied that lesson. Comeback was their language. No deficit felt permanent. Games once lost are revived. They refused inevitability. It’s tempting to draw big conclusions from sports, and usually, wisdom lies in restraint. Even so, it’s hard to ignore the resonance of millions. In an age of cynicism, people choose belief. Not naïveté, but the quiet knowledge that history doesn’t always prevail.
Fifty-three years is time enough for disappointment to calcify into identity. To pass down resignation. To forget about the surprise. Then, suddenly, the Knicks won. Confetti fell. Fathers called sons. Kids watched adults cry over things they couldn’t yet name. People poured into the streets, carrying pieces of themselves they’d misplaced somewhere between deadlines, elections, rent hikes, and the daily fatigue of being alive in America. The score will live in the record books. The parade will end. The merch will fade. But maybe, just maybe, another memory will outlast them all.
For one night, New York remembered that “us” is not an abstraction. It’s a practice. A chant. A hand offered to a stranger. A city letting itself be amazed. The Knicks had finally won. And so, too—briefly and brilliantly, had the possibility of belonging.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















