We’re at a tipping point for American democracy: If authoritarian extremists gain positions of power in our elections, they can make it harder to vote, stop vote counts, or even refuse to certify the results of elections if they don’t like the outcome. But hope is not lost.
Check out this video from RepresentUs an organization that brings together conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between to pass powerful state and local laws that fix our broken elections and stop political bribery.
Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.
A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.
It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.
The argument about hypocrisy isn’t about mere inconsistency. The point of the accusation is to say that condemnations of violence are insincere. “Your team says it’s against violence” or “your side says my side encourages violence” but just look at what your language inspired!
The hypocrisy is bipartisan.
Indeed, for two decades now, it seems that whenever political violence erupts, there’s a moment where partisans wait to learn the motives of the perpetrator so they can start blaming the other side for inciting it. Sometimes they don’t even wait. Jared Loughner, the man who shot former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed several others, was instantaneously labeled an agent of the tea parties and Sarah Palin. The truth is he was such a paranoid schizophrenic, a court found him incompetent to stand trial.
I don’t have the space to run through the dozens of examples — the congressional baseball shooting, the Charleston AME church slaughter, the El Paso Walmart massacre, the recent murder of Minnesota lawmakers, the Jan. 6 riot or the failed attack Saturday night. But in the wake of these bloody crimes, partisans of left and the right will scour the killer’s social media or read their “manifestos” and place the blame on the rhetoric of the team closest to the assailant’s ideology.
Now, my point isn’t to say that blaming the rhetoric of nonviolent people for the crimes of violent people is wrong. It is wrong, of course, particularly as a matter of law. If I quote Shakespeare and write, “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” I am not responsible for someone who actually shoots a lawyer (nor is the Bard). But that doesn’t mean violent, extremist rhetoric is laudable, healthy or blameless for the sorry state of American politics or society or that it never plays a role in inspiring wrongdoing.
However such rhetoric might encourage violence, it certainly encourages the sense that something is broken in American life. More specifically, it fuels the idea that our political opponents are existential enemies.
“Outgroup homogeneity” is the term social psychologists use to describe the very human tendency to think the groups you belong to are diverse and complex, but the groups you don’t belong to aren’t. A non-Asian person might think all Asians are alike, but for Asians the differences between — or among! — Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian people are both obvious and significant.
American politics right now are almost defined by outgroup homogeneity. Many Democrats and progressives think all Republicans and conservatives are alike, and vice versa. That would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by the fact that each side tends to think the consensus on the other side is defined by their worst actors and spokespeople. This is sometimes called “nutpicking.” You find the most extreme person on the other side and hold them up as representative of all Democrats or Republicans.
Partisan media amplifies this dynamic at scale. Pew finds that Republicans (who watch Fox News) are more familiar with the term “critical race theory” than Democrats, the supposed devotees of it. Democrats recognize the term “Christian nationalist” more than supposedly Christian nationalist Republicans do.
Consider the recent debates over Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, both prominent social media influencers, one far left the other far right, who say grotesque, indefensible and stupid things. The arguments within the two coalitions are not over whether they should be spokesmen for their respective sides, but whether their “voices” (and fans) should be welcome inside the broader Democratic or Republican tents. Few accommodationists endorse the worst rhetoric from Piker or Fuentes, but they oppose “purity tests.”
On the merits, I think both should be shunned and condemned. But even if the question is purely a political one, they should still be ostracized. Why? Because people outside the respective coalitions will — however fairly or unfairly — hold up the extremists on the fringe as representative of the whole. The only way for either party to prove it opposes extremism to people outside the tent is by opposing it inside their own tents first. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will continue to define them.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.
Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.
- YouTube youtu.be
"If you are given an order that's unconstitutional or that you believe to be illegal, the rules are stated as that you must in fact disobey that order," she said. Roland noted that this duty becomes an "impossible burden" for young recruits who may lack the legal background to identify unconstitutional commands in high-pressure situations.
Roland was particularly critical of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of using "violent rhetoric" that does not represent the broader military culture. She argued that Hegseth and the President have actively worked to exclude the media to avoid accountability.
"I think there's enough evidence to suggest that between Secretary Hegseth and Trump, there's been an active effort to push the media out in order to reduce transparency and accountability of what the military is doing," she stated.The interview also touched upon the "unprecedented" deployment of troops to American cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Roland argued these actions delegitimize public trust by making the military appear as a "political arm" of the Trump administration.
This perceived politicization, combined with low public confidence, poses a long-term national security risk by damaging recruitment and retention. Roland warned that soldiers who joined to defend the nation may become "disenchanted" when sent to deploy in American neighborhoods."The press are doing their jobs to try to have transparency... while the Pentagon seems to be, at least Secretary Hegseth seems to be, deliberately trying to not let us know exactly what's going on," she concluded.Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press aboard Air Force One on April 17, 2026, just prior to landing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
If supporters of Donald Trump were to be studied — and I very much expect they will be for years and years to come — academics may be hard-pressed to find the connective tissue that unites them all together.
It’s clear they’re not with Trump for his ideology — he doesn’t really have one, not that hews to ideas espoused by the traditional political parties at least. His policies have been all over the map, and even within his own presidencies he’s reversed them substantively or abandoned them outright.
It’s not because he’s done anything heroic or admirable, other than get very, very rich using legally and ethically questionable practices — admirable, perhaps, to some.
And it’s not because he’s done anything particularly great for them. He’s broken most of his promises, and by nearly any metric, he’s made the lives of his own voters demonstrably worse.
But they do love him, in spite of all of this. They love what he represents, what he projects back to them, a version of America they miss, even though he cannot deliver it. And they’ve decided to believe that he truly cares about them, even though he’s taken their money to line his own pockets, he’s endangered their lives by pushing baseless conspiracy theories, and he’s threatening to send their children to another endless war.
The thing that has united Trump supporters, if anything, has been their enduring faith in HIM.
But for how much longer?
Thanks largely to Iran, deportations, and the economy, Trump’s approval is at a second-term low, according to a trio of new polls out this week, which show him at just 33% to 36%.
And we’re starting to see one-time loyalists do something the MAGA base has never really done before: Question him.
They’re questioning Trump on his policies. From his decision to go to war with Iran to the efficacy of his tariffs, MAGA media influencers are vocalizing their concerns about his judgment in ways we haven’t heard before. From a crowd that even managed to justify an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol, this sudden skepticism is interesting.
They’re questioning his morality. The Epstein files have rankled Trump supporters in a way that little else has, and his obvious efforts to cover them up have them raising questions about his involvement and what he knew. Trump’s infidelity, his payoffs to porn stars, the “Access Hollywood” tape, the sexual abuse adjudication — none of that managed to turn MAGA voters off the way Epstein has.
They’re questioning his sanity and competence. In the wake of Trump’s deranged threats to end Iranian civilization, and his bonkers attacks on the first American pope and Catholics writ large, folks like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Marjorie Taylor Greene are openly questioning his mental acuity and fitness for office. They didn’t do this during his impeachments, after his 34 convictions for fraud, or when his deportation goon squad killed two American protesters.
And now, they’re questioning his veracity. Several former Trump supporters have come out to question whether the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024 was staged or is being covered up in some way. That’s questioning whether Trump can be believed, something no MAGA star dared to do just months ago.
Whatever may be motivating these influential one-time MAGA devotees to break ranks, they could very easily give MAGA voters permission to do something they’ve not felt they could do before — question their faith in Trump’s policies, his moral compass, his sanity, and his believability.
And if they start doing that, well, I’m not sure what’s left for them to buy into anymore.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., says the committee is committed to accountability for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
WASHINGTON – Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moments before the full Ethics Committee convened to weigh expulsion for allegedly stealing millions of dollars and funneling some into her congressional campaign.
Cherfilus-McCormick was not present at the hearing. “After careful reflection and prayer, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my constituents and the institution that I step aside at this time,” her statement read.
Cherfilus-McCormick is the third congressional leader to resign since April 13. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned last week, following sexual assault allegations and discussions of expulsion at Capitol Hill.
“If members that conduct, bad conduct, whatever that conduct may be—we’ve seen sexual misconduct, we’ve seen financial misconduct—that those members are going to be held accountable,” House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss.
In March, a special subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee found Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of 25 ethics violations. She also faces a criminal trial in South Florida, scheduled for February 2027.
Cherfilus-McCormick said she’s not guilty of the ethics violations or the criminal charges.
“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away,” she said in a follow-up statement, calling the Ethics investigation a “witch hunt.”
The Ethics Committee is also investigating Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, stolen valor, and profiting from federal contracts while in office.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday calling for the expulsion of Mills.
“The swamp has protected Cory Mills for far too long and we are done letting it slide,” Mace said in a statement. “Any Member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud. He needs to be expelled immediately.”
In response, Mills told NOTUS he is considering an expulsion resolution against Mace over an interaction that she had at Charleston International Airport in October 2025, where she berated TSA officials.
Mills has denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically motivated.
Guest said the investigation into Mills is ongoing and reiterated the committee’s dedication to holding members of Congress accountable on both sides of the aisle.
“We want individuals to have trust in their elected officials,” Guest said. “And I think as members of Congress, we should be held to a higher standard than the general public.”
Samantha Freeman is a graduate politics, policy and foreign affairs journalism student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
