Today's #ListenFirst Friday video focuses on the importance of overcoming political divides and coming together to combat climate change.
Video: #ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
#ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
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
Donald Trump with Brazil flag
AI generated with Getty Image
Trump Cannot Cry “Election Interference” in the US While Meddling in Brazil
Oct 08, 2026
Hugo Balta is currently traveling through Brazil, reporting on democracy, civic engagement, and the political dynamics shaping the South American country at a moment that offers urgent lessons for the United States.
SÃO PAULO—For years, the political mainstream in Washington has treated the sanctity of ballot boxes as an exceptional American virtue under siege from malicious foreign actors. Yet, look beyond the equator, and that high-minded rhetoric instantly dissolves into a dangerous hypocrisy. You cannot self-righteously decry the subversion of domestic voting systems while simultaneously pulling the geopolitical levers to distort someone else’s.
Yet, that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing in South America's largest nation. Following the highly polarized first-round vote on October 4, Brazil's presidential election is officially headed to a high-stakes runoff. Right-wing Senator Flávio Bolsonaro finished ahead with 47.03% of the vote, narrowly leading leftist incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who captured 45.16%. The domestic contest is tight, emotional, and deeply consequential. But reporting on the ground here from São Paulo, it is clear to me that the real story is being shaped by calculated operations engineered in Washington, D.C.
The footprint of foreign meddling is so pronounced that Brazil’s Federal Police chief, Andrei Rodrigues, recently confirmed that authorities have opened a preliminary investigation into outside electoral interference. The probe was triggered by a formal complaint from Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office following bombshell reporting from The Guardian. According to the report, the Trump administration actively explored redirecting roughly $1 million in U.S. State Department funds to right‑wing civil groups in Brazil. The program’s reported title—“Combating Lawfare and Censorship in Brazil”—was not subtle. Brazilian authorities state it was explicitly designed to destabilize domestic political debate and delegitimize the institutional framework of the Brazilian Supreme Court. If true, this is an aggressive attempt to rewrite another sovereign nation’s democratic architecture from the outside.
The interference didn’t stop at covert funding lines. Additional reporting from The Guardian reveals that the Trump administration weaponized international commerce, imposing a 25% tariff hike on select Brazilian goods to punish the judiciary for prosecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro. Then came the orchestrated political theater: a high‑profile White House meeting with Flávio Bolsonaro, followed by the U.S. designating several prominent Brazilian criminal syndicates as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. While the younger Bolsonaro immediately celebrated the move as a campaign victory, critics rightly argue the timing was engineered to artificially boost his tough‑on‑crime platform. This is not diplomacy. It is electioneering disguised as foreign policy.
Tensions escalated into a full diplomatic standoff when the U.S. State Department attempted to dispatch officials to Brazil under the banner of “electoral integrity.” Brazil’s government flatly denied their visas, calling it an intelligence overreach aimed at influencing the vote. Then, days before the first‑round election, the U.S. abruptly shut down consular services across Brazil, citing vague security concerns. Lula’s campaign blasted the shutdown as a manufactured crisis designed to project a false sense of domestic instability right before voters headed to the polls. Whether intentional or not, the effect was unmistakable: confusion, fear, and political distortion.
Trump has monitored Brazil’s election "very closely," publicly celebrating Flávio Bolsonaro’s lead as a "great victory." Yet, he strategically stopped short of an official endorsement. According to a report by The Washington Post, this silence was entirely tactical. Insiders note a loud, overt intervention from the White House would have backfired, playing directly into Lula’s campaign narrative of defending Brazil’s sovereignty against foreign colonization. In other words: the discretion was just as calculated as the economic coercion.
The Trump administration continues to deny all allegations, with White House spokesperson Anna Kelly calling them “nonsense” and insisting conservative leaders are winning on merit alone. But back in Washington, more than 30 U.S. Democratic lawmakers—including Senator Bernie Sanders—have demanded that the U.S. halt actions that threaten Brazil’s democratic institutions and commit to recognizing the certified winner of the October 25 runoff.
Their warning should be a wake-up call for the American public ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. You cannot destabilize foreign institutions while insisting your own are sacred. You cannot weaponize diplomacy, trade, and intelligence to tip the scales for a political ally abroad while claiming the moral high ground on election integrity at home. That profound hypocrisy is not just a threat to the 56 million Brazilians who just cast their ballots; it is a cancer on American democracy itself. Once a government normalizes the manipulation of democratic norms abroad, it inevitably imports those exact same tactics back to its own shores. Defending democracy requires absolute consistency—and Washington cannot expect integrity at home while actively exporting instability to Brazil.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
white concrete building during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash
Congress Broke the Constitutional Order — And Now They Want Voters to Forget
Oct 07, 2026
How can leaders who broke the constitutional order, ignored their oath, weakened rights, and harmed the people now ask Americans to forget — and reward them with reelection? The question is not abstract — it goes to the heart of what the Constitution demands from those who swear an oath to uphold it.
The constitutional order is the framework that protects the Republic: three branches, checks and balances, oversight, limits on executive power, and the oath every member of Congress swears — to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet in recent years, Congress has allowed that order to erode. Oversight collapsed. Guardrails bent. Silence replaced accountability. Loyalty to a president replaced loyalty to the Constitution.
But something else has changed too: voters.
Today, people are more politically literate — paying attention to promises made and unkept, roll‑call votes, and the policies that shape their daily lives. Millions have watched rights taken away, the ACA dismantled with nothing replacing it, corruption, executive overreach, and checks and balances ignored. Voters understand the stakes of reelecting leaders who have ignored their needs, weakened their rights, and abandoned their constitutional responsibilities.
The human cost of congressional neglect is nonpartisan — in every state. And the harm is lived. Families struggling with affordability. Communities harmed by compromised agencies. Public health systems strained. DEI protections rolled back. ICE abuses unchecked. The ACA dismantled with no replacement. Voting rights restricted. Election workers threatened. Foreign influence ignored. Inspectors general fired. Free speech attacked. Constitutional responsibilities treated as optional.
Today, Congress includes more than 100 documented election deniers — including a president who promotes it. Election denial and election interference deepen the damage. It rejects the constitutional process for transferring power. Leaders who deny certified results cannot claim loyalty to the Constitution. How can an election denier uphold an oath to the Constitution when election denial itself rejects the constitutional process?
The consequences of this broken order extend beyond domestic policy. The nation is living through a war Americans did not ask for — and Congress did not authorize. Congress failed to restrain unilateral military action, leaving the country in conflict without the constitutional safeguard of congressional approval. Reporters, veterans, communities of color, and entire states feel the weight of decisions made without oversight.
I have tried to hold leaders accountable. I have written to members of Congress across the country, asking whether they are honoring the oath they swore. I asked about rhetoric, the dismantling of the ACA, overreach, corruption, and ignored constitutional responsibilities. Each acknowledged my letters. None answered my questions. Citizens are entitled to answers. But Congress has learned that silence is easier than accountability — hoping voters will forget.
I hear the same frustration from relatives in Texas, who have watched their senator do little to help the people while repeating falsehoods that exhaust voters already overwhelmed by political deception. The pattern is familiar: leaders who break the constitutional order, ignore constituents, and then ask for votes as though the public has forgotten their record. It is exhausting to watch lies flood the airwaves while roll‑call votes and lived experience tell a different story.
It is even more exhausting to watch leaders look into cameras and repeat falsehoods while supporting policies that harm the people and weaken the Republic. Their public statements often contradict their votes, their silence in moments of crisis, and their unwavering support for a president whose overreach has broken constitutional guardrails. Yet these same leaders ask for votes as though their record does not exist. The gap between their words and their record is no longer a political problem — it is a constitutional one.
Americans should sense the desperation in these appeals. When the vice president asks for “one more chance,” and the president promises a $5,000 payment if his party keeps control of Congress, it reveals a troubling truth: they know the damage they have done. They know their record cannot stand on its own. Putting the president’s name on the COVID relief checks worked once. Now they hope money and manufactured loyalty will work again — that voters will forget the broken guardrails, the corruption, and the harm inflicted on the Republic.
This strategy is not new. It reminds me of the old proverb: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Some supporters have voted multiple times for leaders who harmed them — and now openly express regret. They feel misled by promises that never materialized and policies that made their lives harder. Millions now ask: how can leaders who broke the constitutional order, ignored their oath, weakened rights, and harmed the people expect voters to forget — and reelect them? Leaders who did the most damage are counting on voters to forget, forgive, and — as the vice president asked — give them another opportunity to repeat the damage.
The Constitution gives power to the people — not to those who seek to manipulate them. And voters have more power than they realize. They can choose clarity over chaos, courage over intimidation, and truth over noise. They can remember the harm, who caused it, and why. They can refuse to be sidelined by party loyalty, pity, or lies. They can weed through conspiracies, do their research, seek the truth, and protect their voice, their power, and the Republic.
To protect the Republic, voters must vote with clarity — not confusion, not exhaustion, not fear. Clarity comes from political literacy, the civic skill the framers expected of the people. Political literacy means understanding political systems, constitutional responsibilities, and the difference between leadership and loyalty. It means developing critical thinking skills, evaluating media carefully, and recognizing when leaders distort reality to avoid accountability. It means knowing the record — not the rhetoric.
Even if Congress changes, citizens will have to work even harder to demand accountability. A new Congress does not automatically restore constitutional order. It will take determination and vigilance — especially when some say this president ignores accountability altogether. The framers never intended accountability to be optional. They intended it to be enforced by the people.
Someone once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We must reflect on what happens when we repeatedly vote for leaders who denied elections, remained silent in moments of crisis, took away rights, dismantled healthcare, weakened DEI protections, ignored ICE abuses, and allowed corruption to flourish. We may not be able to control every storm around us. But we can decide whether we will surrender our humanity, our hope, our voice, or our joy to it.
Voters must make a plan to vote — and vote. We cannot vote for a leader merely because they ask us to, want us to, or share our party label. We must look at the record. We must remember our power to put the Republic back on course. Protect your voice. Protect your power. Protect the Republic.
George Santayana warned that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Congress is counting on that. They want voters to forget the broken guardrails, the harm, the corruption, and the constitutional neglect. But forgetting is how democracies fail. Remembering is how democracies survive.
The founders warned us: A Republic, if you can keep it. Keeping it requires memory. Keeping it requires vigilance. Keeping it requires clarity. And keeping it requires refusing to forget what Congress hopes we will — because the survival of the Republic depends on what the people choose to remember.
_________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who has spent her career advancing civic responsibility, equity, and public engagement. She writes about democracy, leadership, and the values that strengthen American communities.
Keep ReadingShow less
John Kennedy display a sign accusing former Special Counsel Jack Smith of meeting with Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Sept. 29, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The committee is holding the hearing to examine Smith’ s probe into Donald Trump.
(Getty Images)
Schmitt’s smoking gun backfires on him
Oct 03, 2026
Tuesday was supposed to be a big day for Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, a little-known first-term junior Senator whose main claim to fame thus far was the 25 lawsuits he filed against President Joe Biden’s administration in a span of 20 months while Missouri’s attorney general.
But congressional hearings have long been a place not to do actual legislating but to make a name for oneself, and Schmitt was going to take his opportunity on Tuesday, when he got to question former Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Earlier that morning a short news item — just 80 words — popped up on Axios. The headline:
“Sen. Eric Schmitt Is Drawing Buzz as a Possible Vance VP in 2028.”
The body of the story, in part, read:
“First-term Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) — who was a tough-on-crime state attorney general, and now is vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee — has grown close to Vice President Vance and is seen as a top prospect to become a potential 2028 running mate.
We hear the VP views Schmitt, 51, as trustworthy, intelligent, articulate and a deft political operator.”
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about how that glowing — and unsourced — story ended up where it did on the morning of this hearing, but I think it’s safe to assume it wasn’t a coincidence.
Hours later, Schmitt was in the room where it happened, joining his fellow Republican lawmakers in punishing Smith for pursuing charges around Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference and his handling of classified documents.
And the theatrics were amped up to 11. Sen. John Kennedy had already told Smith “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.” Sen. Ted Cruz proclaimed, “Javert from Les Mis would look at you with astonishment.” Sen. Darline Graham used her time to accuse Smith of bullying her late brother, Lindsey Graham.
Your taxpayer dollars at work, folks.
But anyway, this was all leading up to the big moment, when Schmitt was going to drop the smoking gun — alleged texts from someone in Smith’s office showing he was somewhere he shouldn’t have been, and about to do something he shouldn’t have done.
Except he wasn’t. Smith wasn’t in Atlanta in February 2024 for an Atlanta Hawks game. He wasn’t in Atlanta at all. Instead, he’d been at a women’s college basketball game between the University of Maryland and the University of Iowa. Apparently, Schmitt confused the Hawks with the Hawkeyes.
It was an implosion of delicious proportions for the left, but at a time when Republicans and Trump are drowning in a midterm election hellscape of their own making, it also exposed just how desperate MAGA was for a win — any win.
Before Schmitt could finish imploding, MAGA media had already posted to socials their congratulatory dunks on Smith, unaware that the moment they’d been promised hadn’t gone the way it was supposed to.
Fox’s Sean Hannity deleted his post wherein “Schmitt puts Jack Smith on the spot,” and Benny Johnson deleted his (which misspelled the senator’s name) saying “Schmidt just CAUGHT Jack Smith perjuring himself.”
The whole day, it seemed, from the Axios post in the morning, to the influencer posts in the afternoon, was designed to give the MAGA base some much-needed red meat amid a sea of bad poll numbers.
But it seems Republicans don’t have their priorities straight. They’ve given up on actual policy wins that could have helped stave off what may just be a blue monsoon in November, wins that were promised to voters two years ago. All they’ve got left are parlor tricks and subterfuge — and they can’t deliver on that, either.
It was a moment that was meant to go viral, and it did — but for all the wrong reasons.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Pool/Getty Images
How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions
Oct 01, 2026
A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.
These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.
Despite the facts of the matter, Trump continues his assault on our institutions through his words and actions. For decades, Primetime presidential speeches have been used to speak directly to the public during wars, economic crises, and moments of national grief. These addresses can be reassuring. They can make government action easier to understand and give people a sense that their leaders are responding to an emergency.
Ronald Reagan used television to project optimism and national confidence during the Cold War, a period of large paranoia and uncertainty. George W. Bush’s speeches after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 helped create an early sense of unity even across the world, although later questions about the Iraq War damaged trust in government claims. Barack Obama often used his national addresses to explain major policy decisions and encourage civic participation.
Trump constantly fails to do many of those positives. His primetime speeches heavily deepen the division this country has been experiencing in the last 20 years in particular; the president encourages people to believe that elections, courts, or civil servants are inherently corrupt, which then closes the door for the public to accept outcomes they do not like. That problem has never been confined to one party or one president. Democratic principles depend on more than laws to keep them accountable. They depend on a shared belief that institutions can be challenged, criticized, and improved upon without being dismissed as illegitimate whenever they produce an unfavorable result. No, that does not mean presidents should avoid criticism.
Yes, government institutions should be questioned, investigated, and reformed when they fail. But mindful criticism is most useful when it is specific, evidence-based, and paired with a realistic solution. Trump leans more on cynicism, whereas he displays much more personal bias, ego, and mental rigidity.
[INTERVIEW SECTION????]
Historically, primetime presidential speeches strengthen democracy when they help Americans understand a challenging topic and encourage them to participate at the local and federal levels. They weaken democracy when they turn routine political disagreement into a reason to reject the legitimacy of systems and institutions altogether.
For voters, the goal to aspire towards is knowing the difference between hearing and listening. The care that you put into analyzing these speeches is what separates the two. A president’s words matter, but they should never be accepted without questions: What evidence supports this claim? Who can verify it? Does the proposed solution protect democratic participation, or does it make power less accountable?
Those questions are not partisan. They are part of what it means to be an informed citizen.
Shon Eric Hernandez is a Fulcrum fellow and MDC contributor. He can be reached at shondesil06@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home