In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
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
Supporters of Nicolas Maduro burn a United States flag during a gathering near Miraflores palace after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in the early hours on January 03, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.
(Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)
The Roots We Planted: How U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped the Immigration Crisis
Jul 27, 2026
“Right now, we have more workers than at any time in the history of our country…And people want to come in, and in some cases, they want to take advantage of that, and that’s okay,” President Donald Trump said in a 2018 statement. “And we want them to come in, but they have to come in through merit.”
These narratives paint a vivid picture of America’s struggle with immigration: a "city on a hill" slowly becoming overrun by foreign nationals, purportedly due to open-border policies. The rhetoric suggests the United States suffers from its own success, attracting immigrants who arrive in search of "government handouts" or to evade criminal charges.
According to the Commonwealth Institute, 3 million people in the United States had refugee or political asylum status as of 2016. Many more arrive fleeing natural disasters and violence that do not qualify for "political asylum." Some immigration opponents argue that those fleeing difficult situations should remain in their home countries to effect change. While this is a hopeful perspective, it fails to account for the historical factors that drive migration to the U.S.
The argument assumes that populations in disadvantaged countries possess the infrastructure and capacity to catalyze significant change at a low personal cost. However, in many nations, gang violence, government corruption, and perilous living conditions preclude the possibility of citizens "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps."
Acknowledging the humanitarian drivers of migration is only the first step. Research consistently demonstrates a clear link between U.S. foreign policy trends and immigration rates.
Migration increases from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as recently as the 2000s are deeply connected to U.S.-backed peace agreements in the 1990s. These exoduses stem from the pursuit of neoliberal privatization and "market-friendly" economic policies that undermined progress toward sustainable social peace. Furthermore, foreign investment in extractive sectors displaced rural and Indigenous populations.
The policies of major international institutions—the U.S. government, in particular—exacerbated these trends, leaving people without livelihoods and in danger. Criminal gangs and drug-related violence are manifestations of these underlying processes, which drive waves of "survival migration."
El Salvador serves as a helpful case study when examining U.S. intervention during the Cold War. Scholars have analyzed how U.S. support for the Salvadoran government during its civil war, followed by enforcement-centric immigration policies, created an environment that compelled Salvadorans to flee—a trend that continues today.
El Salvador also serves as a critical example, illustrative of broader U.S. policies toward North Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) and Latin America as a whole.
As Amanda Dixon writes in her research on the intersecting causes of immigration: “The failure of both the Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton administrations to consider the interconnectedness of their foreign and domestic agendas exacerbated the issue of irregular immigration from Central America.”
Research has also illustrated a clear causal relationship between the U.S.-backed Contra War in Nicaragua and an influx of Nicaraguan immigrants into the U.S.
Further, U.S. influence contributed to the Latin American debt crisis, which caused several economies to plunge. Domestic causes of the crisis can be traced to fiscal deficits incurred between 1978 and 1982 and the expansionary monetary policies used to finance them. U.S. commercial banks pushed loans on Latin American countries, creating heavy debt obligations. Subsequently, wealthy countries, including the U.S., raised interest rates to fight inflation, which skyrocketed borrowing costs for Latin America and exacerbated economic conditions that led many to seek a brighter future in the U.S. today.
These historical examples are often viewed as niche or contrarian interests. While significant, they have virtually no impact on how we evaluate current immigration policy beyond a reactive hope that "that doesn’t happen again."
Yet, the U.S. government shows no indication of altering its foreign intervention strategies to mitigate harm or reduce migration, particularly in Latin America.
Operation Absolute Resolve ousted Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, leading to the release of political prisoners and sparking a brief era of optimism. However, Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, assumed power, and no significant regime change appears imminent. Venezuelan funds were subsequently routed through Qatar, which gifted a new Air Force One plane to President Trump, and the New York Times has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has effectively been managing the country.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also made clear his intention to pursue regime change in Cuba, which has been under U.S. embargo since the 1960s.
Similarly, President Trump has directed significant capital into Argentina to support political allies. The Trump administration intervened financially in the October 2025 Argentine midterm elections by tying a massive economic bailout to the electoral success of Argentine President Javier Milei, emphasizing that Milei’s far-right party must remain in power for U.S. aid to continue amid the country’s persistent inflation and economic instability.
Where does this leave the immigration conversation? Is there value in adding nuance to an already polarized issue? There are no perfect answers, and arguing for either absolute open borders or indiscriminate deportation is unfeasible.
However, few immigrants choose to circumvent the law lightly. The "illegal" route to the United States is difficult, expensive, and dangerous—but it is often the fastest way to escape immediate harm, a role the United States has played a significant role in facilitating.
We cannot remove immigrants from U.S. history, nor can we remove the United States from the history of immigrants. If we continue to pursue foreign policies that ignore the past, we are bound to recreate the problems of the present. Moving forward requires discarding a rose-tinted view of U.S. policy in favor of developing sustainable, evidence-based solutions.
Isabel Papp is a summer fellow with The Fulcrum and a student at Northwestern University, double‑majoring in Journalism and Political Science. A bilingual journalist, she is a proactive, equity‑centered storyteller committed to elevating underrepresented voices.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
money in politics
erhui1979/Getty Images
Rekindling The Founders’ Hopes
Jul 25, 2026
America was born out of rebellion against oligarchy.
- Priya Satia, Stanford University
When a majority of citizens disagree with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.
- Benjamin Page, Martin Gilens, 2014
Last year, voters strongly rejected Viktor Orban’s authoritarian Hungarian government, rife with corruption. Economic stagnation played a role, but corruption was the decisive factor.
America could be next. The decades of pay-to-play corruption at the center of America’s political system have delegitimized its democracy. Except in individual instances, however, corruption has rarely proven sufficiently potent at the ballot box to be determinant. That dynamic will be sorely tested in 2026 thanks to President Trump.
The Irony of America’s Oligarchic Governance
The Founding Fathers would be gravely disheartened at the state of their grand democratic experiment after 250 years.
American politics in recent decades has largely been the domain of oligarchs. It has devolved ironically to resemble the elitist political and economic system that inspired the Revolutionary War - a replica of the despised England the colonists first raised arms against at Lexington and Concord in 1775.
True, colonials believed their just cause was the rejection of an oppressive monarchy. In reality, the offending practices and policies blamed on the figurehead King George III - the tariff on Indian tea, for instance - were dictated by a Parliament dominated by oligarchs - nabobs like Sir Robert Clive and Cecil Rhodes. The 1688-89 Glorious Revolution, which deposed James II, also stripped the English monarchy of absolute power. Political, social, and economic power had abruptly migrated from the monarchy to the wealthy oligarchs who dominated Parliament– a transition that “dramatically curbed kingly authority.”
Like the England of 1775, America’s policies today are largely dictated by wealthy oligarchs like Elon Musk, many of whom share President Trump’s hostility toward taxes to fund social program spending. Charles Koch, for instance, has lobbied for cuts similar to Trump’s 2025 tax law, removing 4 million from food assistance and eliminating Medicaid health insurance for an estimated 17 million of America’s poorest, forcing rural hospitals to close.
Reduced food and health care for the least advantaged is just one facet of the consequences of America’s pay-to-play political system. Republicans, beginning with Goldwater and later Reagan, fully embraced pay-to-play, genuflecting to the wealthy who still dominate their Party. Partisan loyalists appointed to the Supreme Court have legitimized the practice, ruling, rather mystically, out of whole cloth, that money is constitutionally protected political speech. We are all entitled to a corner soapbox. But it seems you are also entitled to drown out my voice a million-fold, wallet permitting. They have even ruled that the legal fiction of corporations enjoys those same speech rights, ruling in Citizens United that ethereal political donors can be incorporeal wallets.
Political scientists term America’s faux democracy a functional oligarchy like Egypt or Turkey, or 18th-century England. But most American men and women view it simply as corruption - enabling the wealthy to profit by stacking the economy “against people like me.”
A Brennan Center survey in May 2026, for instance, found that 90% of independent voters believe “corruption is responsible for policies that benefit billionaires and big corporations at the expense of the American people.” This belief has become increasingly evident since 2017. Some 57% of respondents to a March NBC poll, for instance, believed that the rich and powerful are above the law – corruption that has grown worse in “the past five or ten years,” fostering a second Gilded Age.
This erosion of America’s democratic integrity has been recognized abroad: U.S. democracy fell on Transparency International’s government Corruption Index to a record low 29th globally in 2025 from 16th in 2015, below authentic democracies that limit the role of money in politics.
The Corruption Awakening
One important reason for growing sensitivity to corruption is rising American income inequality - the record surge in wealth at the top coming at the expense of workers. Real hourly compensation - wages and benefits - has virtually stagnated for the lowest earning 80% (111 million) of nonfarm salaried workers since the Reagan administration. (You may want to read that again.) Pay-to-play politics permits employers to offshore jobs while weakening unions, labor rights, and antitrust enforcement. That enabled employers to raise profits by capping workers’ pay, thereby doubling the national income share of the top 1% since 1979.
A second factor has been blatant global grifting by Trump – a Boeing 747 from Qatar and tungsten mines in Kazakhstan – corruption in flagrant violation of the Constitution’s Articles I and II emoluments clauses.
A Political Corruption Edge?
Only rarely has corruption provided a partisan electoral advantage to either political party. But this may be one of those moments, with surveys finding that corruption offers Democrats an electoral opportunity in 2026 and 2028.
An extensive 2025 analysis drawn from a panel of nearly 2000 voters, for instance, found that independent voters view Republican Party office holders as more corrupt than Democrats. These swing voters believe Republican politicians are nearly 30% more likely to be “very corrupt” than Democrats (29% of independents believe Democratic politicians are “very corrupt” while 37% believe Republicans are). Moreover, 38% of these independent panelists believed that the wealthy have the “most influence” on the Republican Party, while only 20% believe they have the most influence on Democrats. And a study of campaign spending by billionaires in 2024 found they favored Republicans by at least 2.5:1 - and that excludes their hidden dark money spending. The margin in seven pivotal 2024 Senate races was at least 7:1.
Restoring Democratic Legitimacy
Pivotal independent voters have come to believe that political corruption is widespread, multi-faceted, deeply embedded, and adversely affecting household economics. The 2026 and especially the 2028 elections offer them opportunities to rebuild the legitimacy of American democracy.
Should reformers prevail at the ballot box, a top priority is upgrading the Supreme Court that has championed pay-to-play for decades. Congress and the President can reform the Supreme Court by term-limiting justices or by imposing judicial jurisdiction limits as permitted by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. But opposition will be fierce, led by billionaires determined to preserve the central role of money in American politics and their dominance.
Voters can rekindle the Founders’ high hopes for democracy in the coming elections. The question is whether the corruption issue has sufficiently ripened and economic conditions have become sufficiently dire that democratic reformers can attain a trifecta at the polls in 2028.
George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.
Keep ReadingShow less
(L-R) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, Donald Trump, President of United States and Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of United Kingdom during a “family photo” at Beştepe Presidential Compound during a welcome ceremony for the NATO Summit on July 08, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy
Jul 20, 2026
It seems just yesterday I was writing up a piece regarding the G7 summit taking place in southern France. In truth, it was a few weeks ago, but now that the NATO summit has wrapped up, I can’t be the only one with deja vu; world leaders meeting amid the continuing US-led war with Iran. I think I’ve seen this film before.
Welcome to Faultline. Last week, heads of NATO member states convened in Turkey for their yearly summit. Many issues were on the table for the summit, and the one expected to take center stage was the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that the Iran war was supposed to be done, as had been announced weeks ago. However, less than 30 days into the alleged 60-day ceasefire, President Trump has announced that negotiations with Iran are over, and not because they reached an agreement.
So the dominant question remains, if the war in Iran isn’t over, is the rest of NATO expected to intervene? The short answer coming out of Ankara appears to be no — and, notably, almost no one at the summit was willing to press the question.
Some background first. NATO stands apart from the United Nations, the European Union, and the Group of 7 in that it is not only a codified alliance, but it has the clear capacity to militarily intervene. Unlike the UN, which typically relies on making resolutions that encourage (read: rely) on other countries to intervene to complete its goals, NATO can act as a unilateral entity on its own.
Article 5 of the NATO charter states “that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.” In practice, this means that there is an automatic military obligation for every country involved in NATO.
The only example of its explicit use is the fallout of 9/11, an obvious terrorist attack against the United States that triggered military intervention from NATO in Afghanistan. However, the coalition can also offer help to non-member states informally, and has stepped in on external conflicts, such as bthe 1995 bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb forces amid genocide allegations during the Bosnian War as well as offering military aid to Ukraine amid the Russian invasion as of 2022.
In recent years, however, NATO has been a major point of contention in US politics. Most notably, President Trump has expressed his frustration with the relative contributions of other Western nations in the alliance. The United States leads in individual spending on the military and on NATO by several miles, and is responsible for most contributions during interventions.
As the conflict with Iran continues, Trump has insisted that NATO must play a role in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and has complained extensively about the lack of help so far. At the summit, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker pushed a “NATO 3.0” framing, calling for allies to boost defense spending and reduce their dependency on the United States militarily — a message that landed squarely on the burden-sharing complaints Trump has voiced since April.
Another point of tension that world leaders have tiptoed around is President Trump’s unique relationship with Russian President Putin, who is currently carrying out the very invasion against Ukraine that NATO has mobilized against. Before Trump left the US for Turkey, he reportedly had a 90-minute phone call with Putin. Last year, he rolled out the red carpet for Putin’s arrival at an Alaska meeting. One of his campaign promises in 2024 was a decisive end to the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours,” which has now exceeded World War I’s length.
That said, Trump said the US would give Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense systems, which would help defend against Russian missile attacks. His tone was much more amicable with Ukrainian President Zelensky, who he infamously ripped into for not wearing a suit in the White House.
European leaders also each pledged a total of about 70 million euros to the Ukrainian war effort, reflecting increasing faith in Ukraine’s chance in warding off the Russian invasion. The Russian front has shown no signs of slowing, with Russian strikes killing dozens of civilians in Kyiv in the days before the summit even began.
For Americans, it might be a cause for comfort that less taxpayer money will be going abroad, if that is a concern. The Ukraine pledge notably came from European allies and Canada, not the United States. It complies with the Trump administration promises of less international intervention, as well as a lower tax deal, if seen in a vacuum.
But the elephant in the room of these discussions was the apparent lack of an Iran deal. Gas prices are going down, but as things stand, it isn’t likely that they will stay low. The military has reinstated the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and President Trump has said he plans to keep sanctions and strikes on the table until Iran complies.
The total estimated cost of the Iran war exceeds $100 billion, and broader economic impacts conservatively sit at $150 billion. Though tax bills themselves, this past April and surely next year, are not changing significantly (rather, several Trump-sponsored tax cuts are taking effect) the war’s impact on spending cannot be understated. Practically every measure of spending has increased through the war, imports are more expensive and gas prices will prove to be volatile. Economists estimate that Pentagon spending costs the average American household roughly $1,000 in lost economic benefit, effectively offsetting the administration’s recent tax relief efforts.
But, at last week’s NATO summit, international leaders largely did not voice concerns to the president. Rather, the NATO chief Mark Rutte has described President Trump’s attacks on Iran ‘absolutely necessary,’ even now that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have allegedly been destroyed. Although Article 5 has not been invoked, and countries are not providing outright military support, many member nations are certainly assisting the American war effort through logistical support, airspace, and military bases for U.S. operations.
The one country which has refused to volunteer their airspace, Spain, has been threatened with sanctions and heightened tariffs by President Trump. Not every leader stayed silent — Poland’s Karol Nawrocki and Norway’s Jonas Gahr Støre both pushed back publicly on Trump’s threats to pull US troops from Europe, calling the bluff rather than falling in line. But on Iran specifically, that kind of pushback was notably absent.
What we’re seeing is a reflection of the G7 summit last month, as well as international politics as a whole. No one with the capacity to disagree with Trump in any meaningful way is doing so on the Iran question, and most people have chosen to not disagree at all. In some cases, it seems this strategy has paid off in order to encourage Trump’s continued investment abroad, but will likely circle back to harm Americans.
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy was first published by Faultline and was republished with permission.
Isabel Papp is a summer fellow with The Fulcrum. She is a student at Northwestern University, double‑majoring in Journalism and Political Science. A bilingual journalist, she is a proactive, equity‑centered storyteller committed to elevating underrepresented voices.
Keep ReadingShow less
white concrete building during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash
2026 Democracy Awards Honor Excellence Across Congressional Offices
Jul 19, 2026
The Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Awards recognize congressional offices that demonstrate excellence in public service. While the headlines often focus on conflict, this year's winners remind us that strong leadership, thoughtful management, and a commitment to continuous improvement strengthen both Congress and the constituents it serves
Constituent service remains one of Congress's core functions, and this year's winners of the Best of Constituent Service Award demonstrate that excellence requires exceptional organizations and internal infrastructure. For example, Senator Adam Schiff's office (D-CA) streamlined processes by creating online forms for casework authorization and privacy releases. This system allows constituents to submit requests in minutes, streamlining a process that traditionally required extensive time and resources, resulting in more efficient casework intake
Meaningful communication is essential to building trust between Members of Congress and the people they represent. This year's winners of the Best of Constituent Correspondence & Engagement Award found innovative ways to strengthen those connections. Representative Mike Flood’s office (R-NE) strategically organizes mobile office hours throughout the district each quarter and ensures concerns raised there are routed to the appropriate staff within 24 hours.
For many constituents, a visit to the Capitol is their most personal interaction with Congress, and this year’s winners of the Best of Constituent Experience in D.C. Award demonstrate how thoughtful planning can make those moments meaningful. For instance, Representative Val Hoyle's office (D-OR) turns constituent visits into memorable events through Member-led evening Capitol tours that begin with a reception-style gathering in the office, featuring home-state food and beverage products, and conclude on the House floor.
Innovation is most valuable when it helps congressional offices better serve their constituents, and this year's winners of the Best of Innovation & Modernization Award showed that modernization is most powerful when it solves practical problems. For example, Representative August Pfluger's office (R-TX) developed the "Pfluger Bot," an AI-powered tool integrated with their internal communication system that automatically categorizes incoming constituent correspondence and routes it appropriately. This technology frees staff to spend more time on constituent work.
At a time when partisan divisions undermine internal collaboration and progress, this year's winners of the Best of Bipartisan Collaboration Award demonstrate the value of sustained relationship-building across political lines. Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA) provides a clear example of such work by participating in a bipartisan prayer group as an avenue to develop meaningful working relationships with colleagues from the opposite party.
The strongest congressional offices are often distinguished by their internal dynamics, and the Excellence in Congressional Management Award recognizes offices that foster effective leadership, strong organizational practices, and a culture of accountability. Representative Ashley Hinson's office (R-IA) promotes transparency and accountability through weekly team-wide reports detailing constituent service metrics, legislative activity, communications performance, and office accomplishments.
The Chief of Staff of the Year Award honors the steady leaders behind every successful congressional office. Chiefs build teams, mentor staff, solve problems before they become crises, and create the culture that allows offices to thrive. While their work is rarely visible to the public, its impact is felt every day by Members, staff, and constituents.
This year's winners tell an encouraging story about Congress. Excellence is built through thoughtful leadership, dedicated public servants, strong organizational structures, and a shared commitment to improving the way congressional offices serve their constituents. These offices remind us that while the challenges facing Congress are enormous, extraordinary work is taking place every day to strengthen the First Branch.
The winners of the 2026 Democracy Awards include:
Best of U.S. Senate Constituent Service
- Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL)
- Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Best of U.S. House Constituent Service
- Representative Kevin Kiley (I-CA)
- Representative Sarah McBride (D-DE)
Best of Constituent Correspondence & Outreach
- Representative Mike Flood (R-NE)
- Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Best Constituent Experience in D.C.
- Senator James Lankford (R-OK)
- Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR)
Best of Innovation & Modernization
- Representative August Pfluger (R-TX)
- Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA)
Best of Bipartisan Collaboration
- Representative French Hill (R-AR)
- Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA)
Excellence in Congressional Management
- Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA)
- Representative Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
Chief of Staff of the Year
- Toni-Marie Higgins | Office of Senator John Boozman (R-AR)
- Mike Henry | Office of Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
- Elizabeth Amster | Office of Representative Jake Auchincloss (D-MA)
- John Byers | Office of Representative August Pfluger (R-TX)
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More