Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Speaker Pelosi has prepared a generation of young women to take the torch

Opinion

Speaker Pelosi has prepared a generation of young women to take the torch

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Nov. 17 that she will exit the Democratic leadership in the House.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Guillermo is the CEO of Ignite, a political leadership program for young women.

Nancy Pelosi's decision to step down from House leadership brings up strong feelings. But it also has a similar impact on generations of women from across the political spectrum. I run an organization that engages young women to embrace political ambition and run for political office. Many of us saw Speaker Pelosi's achievement and realized we could go further than we realized. It is hard to overstate the impact that her career has had on our collective ambitions.


Pelosi has addressed hundreds of young women at Ignite events. She is always generous with her time. She takes a deep, personal interest in the future careers of young women she meets. Since she announced her decision not to run for a leadership position, I've heard from dozens of these young women across the political spectrum.

They have sent me photographs of them standing with Pelosi at Ignite events. They've told me, "This is the moment I realized I could run for office." Her interest in their ambitions is what convinced them that they, too, had the potential to lead. In the recent midterm elections, several Ignite alumni ran for office and won. Many of them told me that seeing Pelosi’ impact and leadership influenced their own journey in deciding to run.

This is 2022, but women still face tremendous barriers to pursuing a political career. Ten percent of senators are named Jon or John. Fewer than 30 percent of lawmakers are women. People ask men, meanwhile, far more often to run for office than they do women. And when they do ask women to run, it takes a lot more to persuade them than it does young men. Against that backdrop, Pelosi's career is all the more remarkable. She is still often pictured as the only woman in rooms full of men. She was elected the first female speaker of the House in 2007. At that point she became the highest-ranking woman in U.S. history. That achievement stood until the swearing-in of Vice President Kamala Harris in 2021.

Pelosi helped usher through reforms to our health care laws. She helped repeal military policies barring LGBTQ+ from serving. She supported same-sex marriage. She has been unafraid to stand up to China on its human rights record. These are generational issues. They have shifted global culture. They have enjoyed bipartisan support.

Several of Pelosi's staff cried as they applauded her when she walked from the floor. In politics, tears are a rarity. Such open displays of emotion aren't strategic. But the significance of Pelosi's decision cut through that. I also admired her choice to wear a white suit, speaking to the legacy of the women's suffrage movement. Let's not forget that women only got the vote in this country in 1919. That's just 21 years before Pelosi was born.

It means a lot, too, that Pelosi spoke about it being time for "a new generation to lead." The 2022 election was a “youth wave,” with near-historic numbers of young people turning out to vote. Young people turned out at their highest rates in states with razor-thin margins. Gen Z and millennials are on their way to becoming part of the largest voting bloc. They care about reproductive justice, mental health, student loans and more. Candidates who want to win need to speak to the issues young voters are passionate about. It is reassuring to see Pelosi recognizing that a new generation is ready to carry the torch.

We also should not dismiss that Pelosi's decision comes less than a month after a break-in at her home. The man has told investigators he intended to break her kneecaps. She has told the press that the attack – in which her husband was badly harmed – is a factor in her decision. We need to reflect on how our society has emboldened this kind of violence. We need to speak more about the barriers powerful women face and we need to pay vocal tribute to their courage in breaking through them.

In the meantime thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for the changes you have made possible.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less