Braver Angels leaders John Wood, Jr. (red) and Ciaran O'Connor (blue) come together for a wide-ranging debate on the most critical issues animating the 2022 midterm elections, including the economy, abortion, and the future of American democracy. Throughout the discussion, John and Ciaran demonstrate how to embrace humility in the pursuit of deeper truth.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Berwyn, Illinois, and Edinburg, Texas, Share Ideas About Enhancing Civic Engagement
Jul 11, 2025
Following months of research, canvassing, and listening to community needs, journalists, including Calvin Krippner, produced solutions-based stories about the challenges faced by the Berwyn, Illinois, community.
Krippner's special report highlights residents concerns about government transparency and prioritizing civic engagement.
Last fall, a journalism collaborative comprising Illinois Latino News, the local bilingual paper Cicero Independiente, WBEZ, and the non-profit News Ambassadors launched a community engagement project to learn what residents in the Chicago suburb of Berwyn wanted from local news coverage. The collaborative then used those findings to inform its reporting priorities for the coming year.
In Berwyn, Illinois, a suburb where residents are proud of their cultural heritage, proximity to Chicago and escape from city noise, residents have joined workshops that help generate ideas for their City Council members around issues like the enhancement of green spaces as part of an effort to bring local residents into the budgeting process. This process aligns with how another local government in Edinburg, Texas, has tried to prioritize civic engagement.
Forty percent of Berwyn residents who responded to a city-wide survey said they were concerned about government transparency. That’s according to the survey conducted through our partnering news organizations, which sought engagement in Berwyn last fall.
At a city council meeting earlier this year, Berwyn residents, such as Steve Taylor, voiced frustration about the stalled progress of a government transparency initiative.
“Despite appointing the Ethics Commission last January in 2024 after a year-long vacancy following a complaint, the commission has made no progress on its mandated tasks,” said Taylor, speaking up at a city council meeting. “These tasks included reviewing the ethics ordinance, making recommendations concerning expanding the ordinance to increase the responsibilities and streamline complaints, and further define the processes associated with elected officials expense accounts and potentially expand their jurisdiction. None of these objectives have even been attempted.”
Taylor’s frustration reflects the feelings of residents in Berwyn who feel separated from local government financing and resource allocation.
Berwyn City Council member Rob Pabon is the 5th Ward Alderman. He understands residents’ frustration and wants to find ways to get more Berwyn community members involved in shaping where their tax dollars are allocated.
“Trust is one of the things that's missing in a lot of different communities across the country,” said Pabon. “People don't trust their elected leaders, and they don't trust institutions.”
Pabon has been incorporating outside ideas about civic engagement from surrounding communities. He says that ideas like citizen assemblies and citizen-led commissions still get some pushback within city hall. Across the country, Americans’ trust in institutions has been declining for half a century, with a rapid rise in mistrust in recent years, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. However, some cities have been actively trying to boost transparency and democratic collaboration, including some steps that could work in Berwyn.
The engagement project conducted by our news collaborative aimed to produce this story through the strategy of solutions journalism. This approach involves drawing comparisons to other communities that have successfully implemented solutions to similar problems, highlighting potential avenues for progress.
This year, Edinburg, Texas, won the All-American City award, recognizing its ability to generate civic engagement through the use of citizen advisory boards. In 2012, the Edinburg City Council established an advisory board called the Cultural Activities Board to involve residents in the budgetary process. Today, these boards provide residents with the opportunity to influence the city’s spending on public events, such as parades and festivals. Over 80% of residents claim a Latino heritage, making them demographically similar to Berwyn.
Their approach is a part of a decades-long plan to increase transparency and democratic collaboration in Edinburg.
“We see ourselves as community builders,” said Edinburg Cultural Arts Department Assistant Director Magdiel Castle. “So we bring the whole town together, and we try to give them a sense of belonging, a sense of ‘in this town, everybody knows each other’, and giving them that opportunity provides that sense to be a little bit stronger.”
Castle says taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being spent, and this includes having a voice in that process.
Edinburgh has inspired the community to come together to allocate public money for planned events, which has generated an enhanced culture of civic engagement.
“Once we created the infrastructure for them to be able to participate, then they saw we’re really open for their feedback and for their participation,” said Castle. “And then they had higher aspirations.”
Aurelio Aleman also works for the Edinburg City government and spoke about how planning festivals through a budgetary process can help alleviate the hierarchical feeling towards local representatives, allowing the community to feel like the mayor and city council are not above them.
“From my time here, I just feel like it bridges the gap between our local officials and our citizens,” said Aleman. “We have people of different ethnic backgrounds, and so by putting them all under one, it kind of cements that spirit of integration, of oneness of community.”
In Berwyn, Alderman Pabon is seeking a similar solution called participatory budgeting through citizen assemblies and citizen-led commissions. It's a process through which community members work on allocating a portion of the public budget. These workshops enable citizens to make direct decisions about how government funds are allocated in their community by identifying and prioritizing public spending projects. Furthermore, a particular response from survey respondents was that they want more financial transparency from local leaders on how local funds are being allocated.
“Because it is so collaborative, it meets the values that we hold and the work that we're doing,” said Pabon. “But it also allows us to get so many different people involved in the democratic process and regain and rebuild trust.”
These processes can enhance transparency and help balance the scales when it comes to who is viewed as an expert in the community during budgetary decisions.
“I like to be balanced with having an expert voice and lived experience,” said Pabon. “Because I think both of them are valuable to the conversation, and we can learn from each other, and sometimes lived experience is expertise on an issue.”
One way this has begun to be enacted in Berwyn is through the Berwyn Area Native Plants Club, which has worked in partnership with I <3 Native Plants. Through 5th Ward participatory budgeting, the club aims to bring together residents of Berwyn and nearby neighbors who are passionate about keeping native plants in their gardens, helping native pollinators, and assisting with native plant community projects.
Pabon is confident that participatory budgeting around issues like green spaces can begin to generate a strong civic culture in Berwyn, as it did in Edinburg, Texas.
He says the challenge will be that cultural change takes time.
This story is made possible through the Berwyn Collaborative: Understanding Community Needs, led by News Ambassadors in collaboration with local news outlets, including Illinois Latino News, click HERE.
Calvin Krippner is a solutions-based, investigative journalist who studied at the Northwestern Medill School of Journalism. His work brings to light and analyzes solutions to complex issues in various communities, and he extends local analysis to wider societal trends.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Jul 11, 2025
Trump himself has diagnosed Trump Derangement Syndrome upon Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, Robert De Niro, Jimmy Kimmel, and Bill Maher.
Context
In 2015, during President Donald Trump’s first campaign, his supporters began using the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or “TDS” to describe his opponents, as a way of claiming their fears about him were highly exaggerated.
The term is also used about people who change a public policy stance with the apparent sole intention of opposing Trump. For example, surveys show Democrats were split 50/50 about a U.S.-Mexico border wall as recently as the early 2010s, but their opposition surged after Trump endorsed the concept.
The term was coined by columnist Esther Goldberg in an August 2015 column for the American Spectator, only two months after Trump declared his candidacy. Trump himself has used the phrase at least 90 times on Truth Social.
What the bill does
The Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act would conduct an NIH (National Institutes of Health) study on the supposed mental disorder. The bill would fund the research through the existing NIH budget, rather than appropriating additional taxpayer money.
It was introduced in May by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH8).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that Trump Derangement Syndrome merits studying by the government, the way the government studies mental health conditions including autism, eating disorders, schizophrenia, and OCD.
“TDS has divided families, the country, and led to nationwide violence — including two assassination attempts on President Trump,” Rep. Davidson said in a press release. “Instead of funding ludicrous studies such as giving methamphetamine to cats or teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water, the NIH should use that funding to research issues that are relevant to the real world.”
Fact check: the NIH website does indeed include studies about giving meth to cats and teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water. (Though such examples represent an extremely small percentage of the agency’s total budget.)
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the same Republicans behind this bill hypocritically restrict NIH funding for “actual” public health issues that violate their policy beliefs, such as studies on gun violence or funding for pandemic preparedness.
Opponents also counter that the derangement actually runs in the opposite direction: namely, they say Trump’s opponents accurately reflect his dangers, but Trump himself exaggerates those of his opponents.
For example, amid Trump’s recent verbal attacks and legal fights against Harvard University, the college’s psychology professor Steven Pinker wrote a New York Times opinion column claiming Trump has “Harvard Derangement Syndrome.”
An attempted countermovement among Trump opponents attempts to reappropriate the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in reference to unsubstantiated political beliefs by Trump supporters, though this hasn’t caught on nearly as much as the original definition.
Minnesota’s similar state-level bill
In March, several state-level Minnesota Senate Republicans introduced a similar bill to officially classify Trump Derangement Syndrome as a mental illness.
“It’s a real thing,” state Sen. Eric Lucero (R) said on Minnesota’s right-wing show Northern Alliance Radio with Jack Tomczak. “There is a phenomenon out there of people that just go crazy at the invoking of Trump. It is a thing that I think we need to take seriously.”
Minnesota’s state Senate Democratic Leader Erin Murphy countered that the legislation “trivializes serious mental health issues” and declared it “possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history."
With the Minnesota state senate and governorship both controlled by Democrats, odds of passage are nil.
Odds of passage
So far, the congressional bill has attracted one Republican cosponsor: Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL1).
It awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Keep ReadingShow less
Expand Democracy: Musk’s Third Party, RCV in NYC, and Miami Backlash
Jul 11, 2025
The Expand Democracy 5: Elon’s push for a third party, turnout and RCV in NYC, preserving voting rights for the incarcerated, cancelled Miami elections, and timely links
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. From Eveline Dowling, with Rob Richie and Juniper Shelley’s assistance, we highlight timely links and stories about democracy at the local, national, and global levels. Today's stories include:
🚀 Deep dive: Elon’s push for a third party reflects issues in the US two-party system
🏆 RCV and voter turnout in NYC
⚡ Preserving voting rights for incarcerated citizens
❌ Cancelled Miami election sparks outrage
🕓 This week’s (many!) timely links
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Deep Dive: Elon Musk’s “America Party” - Ambitious Disruption or Doomed Spoiler?
[Source: Wired Staff]
Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s recent announcement on X about founding an “America Party” marks a bold challenge to the entrenched two-party system. He frames it as a response to bipartisan gridlock, runaway spending, and unresponsive governance, asking whether a new political force could better represent the “80 percent in the middle.”
Musk’s announcement and his financial ability to back a new party have triggered a wave of reactions. FairVote’s Rachel Hutchinson argues that “until ranked choice voting (RCV) becomes the norm in US elections, third parties will continue to be perceived as ‘spoilers’ and struggle to break through as viable, lasting options for voters.” In “What Elon Musk Gets Wrong About Our Broken Political System,” Lee Drutman critiques Musk’s premise as overly simplistic. Drutman argues that the “moderate middle” is a myth. While many voters identify as “independent” or “moderate,” their beliefs are often ideologically mixed and have cross-cutting identities (i.e., holding both conservative and liberal values), which doesn’t translate into a single centrist vote bloc.
The idea of a broad, cohesive “middle” that could support a centrist party is undermined by research showing that so-called independents often hold conflicting or ambivalent views (Ellis and Stimson, 2012), or have a partisan preference and wish to stay out of two party political bickering (Klar and Krupnikov, 2016) rather than consistent ideological moderation. Klar and Krupnikov, in particular, find that many Americans identify as independents not because they reject party ideology, but because they want to appear above partisan conflict, suggesting that appealing to independents through new parties may miss the deeper psychological and social dynamics of political identity.
In addition, structural barriers present challenges for third parties that are all but unsurpassable. Our single-member, plurality electoral system and complex ballot-access laws almost guarantee the failure of third parties. Political scientists have long studied the structural barriers that limit third-party success in the US, most notably through Duverger’s Law, which posits that single-member, plurality-winner electoral systems tend to entrench two-party dominance. According to a seminal piece by Riker in 1982, Duverger’s Law remains one of the most empirically grounded and theoretically sound generalizations in political science, and Riker claims that we abandon it, or dismiss it as too “law-like,” at the cost of explanatory clarity.
Drutman (2020) argues that public frustration with the two-party system exists, but without reforms like proportional representation, alternative parties struggle to gain traction without acting as “spoilers.” Bawn and colleagues (2012) argue that American political parties are dominated by coalitions of policy-seeking interest groups that use nominations to control access to power, offering a compelling explanation for why outsider or third-party candidates struggle to gain traction within the current system. While political entrepreneurs like Musk can bring attention to democratic dysfunction, the literature suggests that without systemic reforms, such as RCV or multi-member districts, third-party efforts are more likely to fragment opposition or reinforce existing power structures than to transform them.
The practical and political risks of developing a new political party must also be considered. Ballot access and preexisting infrastructure are immensely difficult in the United States. Politico explains that getting on ballots in 50 states demands enormous logistical, legal, and administrative investment. Musk would face thousands of petition-signature thresholds, lawsuits, and deadlines, a decades-long slog. Musk’s party also lacks a coherent identity. The America Party’s agenda, fiscal conservatism, crypto advocacy, and tech priorities mirror those of existing platforms, such as Libertarian or moderate Republican ones. Without a distinctive message, it risks becoming indistinguishable.
Contradictions between celebrity status and political credibility can be overcome by candidates seeking election victory, but they present different challenges when building a nationwide political party. Musk's takeover strategy, to launch via X, funnel funds, and hire a few candidates, leans more casual than organized. Experts caution that sustainable parties require a deep grassroots foundation, legal expertise, and institutional capacity. While Musk’s fame and wealth offer a fast track to short-term success, many warn that money alone won’t overcome the complexities of politics. Ballot rules, state laws, and local infrastructure matter far more.
History suggests that Musk’s movement could simply siphon votes, primarily from disenchanted Republicans, without winning races, potentially helping Democrats. Drawing historical parallels, Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign shifted deficit discourse, even without capturing electoral votes. Musk could influence policy debates without securing election victories, potentially encouraging more Republicans to back electoral reforms such as RCV that aim to solve the “spoiler” problem he might pose for them.
Before discounting his electoral chances entirely, some see a chance that Musk can succeed where others have failed if his mission is deployed tactfully. Nate Silver discusses this in his Substack newsletter, The Silver Bulletin. He notes that while Musk faces an "uphill climb" in launching a viable political party, it's not impossible. He outlines a serious path forward: invest in a diverse team of innovative young thinkers, focus on under-addressed issues like AI and fertility, and play a behind-the-scenes role, funding and mentoring rather than fronting the movement. Silver suggests Musk should repair his public image, avoid reactive tweeting, and prioritize ballot access and strategic candidate recruitment over early hype.
Musk’s America Party may bring energy and attention to the shortcomings of bipartisan politics. Yet, as political pundits and decades of political science research warn, without structural reforms and multi-party pluralism, it risks being yet another single-party vanity project rather than meaningful systemic progress.
RCV and Voter Turnout Impact in NYC 🏆
[Source: Politico]
Opponents of ranked choice voting often claim that it's “too complicated” for voters, allegedly leading to voter confusion and lower turnout, especially in communities of color or among less frequent voters. My research has found that the opposite is true; in fact, RCV boosts turnout and does not disenfranchise voters of color. The recent Democratic mayoral primary in New York City provides perhaps the most compelling real-world evidence to the contrary.
Turnout has dramatically surged since New York City began using RCV, with the two RCV elections placing second and third in the most mayoral primary votes cast in the city's history. According to the NYC Board of Elections, voter turnout surpassed both 2013 and 2017 levels, with particularly strong participation among young voters and multilingual communities. This follows a similar pattern in 2021, when turnout in the Democratic primary was the highest in two decades for a non-incumbent race. Additionally, exit polls revealed that 96% of voters understood their ballots.
Claims that RCV hurts turnout have been incorporated into the political science literature, often through limited case studies or confounded comparisons. A recent paper “Shaky political science misses mark on ranked choice voting” published on SSRN by Steven Hill and Paul Haugley, argues that the academic discourse around RCV has at times been shaped by selective methods and a tendency to assume negative effects without sufficient contextual grounding. Their paper highlights an important point: that RCV research, like any policy research, should be approached carefully, especially when new data challenges long-held assumptions.
In NYC’s case, the data point for RCV looks positive. Voter education efforts by community groups, along with a diverse and competitive field of candidates, likely contributed to broader engagement. However, it is quite plausible that the incentives of the system drove higher turnout. Candidates have every reason to communicate with more voters, not just those likely to give the first-place rank, and voters have reasons to learn about more candidates. Candidates with similar views could support each other instead of engaging in discouraging attacks.
In short, while critiques of RCV deserve serious scrutiny, recent real-world data from the country’s largest city suggests that RCV, far from depressing participation, may help broaden and deepen it, especially when paired with meaningful voter outreach.
Preserving Voting Rights for Incarcerated Citizens Eligible to Vote ⚡
In a political moment seemingly defined by the steady erosion of democratic freedoms, we wanted to highlight legislation passed in Connecticut last week. On June 30th, the state’s legislature passed a bill designed to improve voting access for incarcerated people who are eligible to vote (see page 418 of the bill). This legislation will require the Secretary of State to supply correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications, saving inmates from the logistical challenge of requesting a ballot without internet access.
Connecticut’s change is long overdue. According to a report from Yale University, Connecticut’s previous system effectively barred all eligible incarcerated voters from the ballot box. In order to exercise their legal right to vote, incarcerated people had to research the name of their town clerk, write them a letter requesting an absentee ballot application, mail back the completed application, wait to receive their ballot, fill out their ballot, and get it in the mail in time for election day. Absentee ballots are only released 31 days before an election, so the speed of the postal service made this correspondence nearly impossible.
Connecticut is not the only state that has failed to make voting a reality for incarcerated people. Among other states, Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana all rely on an arduous absentee ballot system for voting prisoners. Connecticut’s new legislation may serve as a model for other states looking to expand access. However, critics of the bill argue that it doesn’t go far enough.
One of these critics is Avery Gilbert, a faculty member at Yale Law School. While Gilbert supports the legislation’s sentiment, she argues that the bill lacks the provisions necessary to ensure that voters actually receive their ballots. “There’s no guarantee that those [the ballots] are going to be handed out. There’s no guarantee that someone is going to be informed enough to know to put it in the envelope, have the resources to get the postage, mail it, and do all those things in a timely fashion,” says Gilbert. While supplying correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications is a strong first step to ensuring voting access, states looking to adopt similar legislation should address enforcement mechanisms and financial concerns in the bill language.
Miami Cancels 2025 Election and Outrage Grows Over "Power Grab"
[Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, left, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Source: Miami Herald]
In a sharply divided 3-2 vote, the Miami City Commission voted to cancel this November’s municipal elections, pushing them to 2026 and extending their own terms, along with Mayor Francis Suarez’s, by a full year. Supporters argue the move will boost turnout and save costs by aligning city elections with higher-profile federal contests.
But critics call it an unprecedented overreach. No public vote was held on the decision, and mayoral candidates, including Emilio González, who is now suing, are calling it an illegal and undemocratic power grab. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a legal warning, stating that the move violates both the state constitution and the county charter. Governor Ron DeSantis echoed these criticisms, saying, “It is wrong for incumbent politicians to cancel elections and unilaterally extend their terms.”
Municipal elections during odd-numbered years typically experience low turnout. Research indicates that aligning elections with presidential and midterm cycles can significantly increase voter engagement. Analyses in 2024 show that the 50 largest US cities typically see turnout of 20% or less in local municipal elections under off-cycle timing, while syncing them with even-year federal elections dramatically increases participation.
The move to even-year elections forces a choice on how to handle terms: does a city reduce terms by a year, extend terms by a year, or delay the change until voters have another election under the current calendar, with clarity that the winners will have an extra year in office? While it’s been typical for city leaders approving these changes to add a year to their term, critics argue that any change must involve voters themselves, not just elected officials, to maintain democratic legitimacy.
The backlash in Miami suggests that cities should be wary about independently postponing elections and prolonging their tenure without voter approval. The debate about this controversy may set a precedent for how municipal democracies strike a balance between efficiency and voter input when changing election dates to boost voter turnout. The legal showdown now begins, and Miami residents are watching closely.
Timely Links
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
[Source: Pew Research Center]
- What Future for International Democracy Support?: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace lays out a forward-looking agenda in the wake of the Trump administration’s dismantling of pro-democracy initiatives around the world. An excerpt: “It is daunting to imagine how global democracy can be effectively supported as the United States retreats from the field and other major democracies step back from vital aid commitments. Yet reimagining and reinvention are possible—necessity can be turned into opportunity.”
- Dissatisfaction with Democracy Remains Widespread: Underscoring that pro-democracy have work to do, here’s an excerpt from a new Pew Research Center release: “Across that set of countries – Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States – a median of 64% of adults say they are dissatisfied with the way their democracy is working… In 2017, a median of 49% of adults across these countries were satisfied with how their democracy was working, while an identical 49% were not.”
- 65% of 2024 Ballots Cast before Election Day: The Voting Rights Lab is an invaluable resource of voting legislation around the US. The newsletter lifts up this news: “The Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 Report identified key trends about the ways Americans vote and elections are administered. The report found that voting before Election Day, whether by mail (30% of voters) or in person (35% of voters), is extremely popular, with in-person early voting nearly surpassing Election Day voting. In addition, the data showed that overall voter turnout decreased by 3 percentage points compared to November 2020.”
- Support for Proportional Representation Hits Record High in UK: The Electoral Reform Society in London reports on how the same polling question asked in the UK for 42 years shows surging support for replacing U.S.-style winner-take-all elections. “The National Centre for Social Research has published the latest findings from their British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey…The latest BSA findings show that a clear majority of the population supports a change to Westminster’s broken voting system, as 60% of the British public now support proportional representation.”
- History’s Lessons for Reform Advocates: Mike Parsons and Ben Raderstorf dive into the history and possible future of proportional representation in the USA. An excerpt on their advice: “In short, a ‘policy first’ reform strategy in almost any jurisdiction is going to be inherently vulnerable to blind spots unless and until the coalition of support in that jurisdiction grows and expands to meet and include more of the people most affected by the proposed reforms: the voters themselves. If electoral reform is going to succeed, we’re going to have to center voters, constituencies, and parties, along with their concerns, politics, and desires. We might be surprised to find which reforms end up resonating with different communities as reform continues to gain traction. This may be a list system in some communities or a ranked system in others. Reformers have much to learn from those we seek to serve.”
- Independence Day, Ranked-Choice Wins and Jacinda Ardern: This Week in Women’s Representation: Ms. Magazine features a weekly column from RepresentWomen’s Cynthia Richie Terrell that focuses on structural and process reforms designed to boost women’s voice and representation. Her Independence Day issue includes several pieces on how ranked choice voting can boost electoral opportunities for women.
- Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025: From the summary: “The annual Electoral Integrity Global Report summarizes data from the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset. This data is based on a survey of academic experts for each respective country. This new report presents data on the quality of national elections around the world in 2024. It also includes historical data collected by Electoral Integrity Project teams dating back to 2012.”
- New York City Mayoral General Election Highlights Electoral Laws: After voters made effective use of ranked choice voting in New York City’s June 24th primaries, it’s ironic that another crowded field in the general election will revert to plurality voting, creating the potential of a winner who is strongly opposed by most voters. Extending RCV to the general election would be sensible. In addition, election law authority Jerry Goldfeder makes a good case in this article for changes to make it easier for candidates to drop out.
Keep ReadingShow less
Photo of a car being assembled by robotic arms
Lenny Kuhne via Unsplash
Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?
Jul 11, 2025
President Donald Trump made economic waves earlier this year when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and parts with the stated goal of revitalizing U.S. auto manufacturing. Yet as of summer 2025, the majority (92%) of Mexican-made auto parts continue to enter the United States tariff-free.
That’s because of a March 2025 revision that exempts cars and parts manufactured in compliance with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from tariffs.
The auto manufacturing industries of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are deeply intertwined, in part because of trade agreements. USMCA, implemented in 2018, is essentially an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA established tariff-free trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico and led to an increase in manufacturing on the U.S.’s Southern border, with American companies manufacturing goods in Mexico to reduce labor costs. The exemption of Mexico from tariffs is likely to accelerate this trend.
While Mexico and Canada continue to largely dodge the auto parts tariffs, tariffs on imports from other parts of the world are still in effect. Manufacturer Marelli, which made internal electronics for Jeeps and Nissans, filed for bankruptcy this month due to the subsequent financial strain.
Price increases are quantified by inflation metrics like the personal consumption expenditures price index. The PCE price index measures consumer spending on a basket of goods and services, including motor vehicles and parts. The May numbers, released earlier today, show an annual inflation rate of 2.3%.
So far since Trump took office, the PCE has seen monthly changes of +0.4%, 0%, +0.1% and +0.1% in February, March, April and May. The “motor vehicles and parts” component of the PCE has seen changes of +0.1%, -0.4%, 0%, and -0.1% over those same months, showing that the amount that Americans spend on cars and parts has not yet increased.
That component of the PCE did spike notably during the COVID-19 pandemic due to supply chain issues, resulting in slow-downs in car-buying at that time.
Changes in the PCE reflect shifts in price as well as shifts in consumer behavior. “It doesn't just track the cost of groceries per se,” explained Hoffman. “It tracks the cost of the groceries in my basket that I've chosen to purchase.”
In recent months, demand for cars has decreased as tariff news spooks potential buyers. As a result, car prices have remained relatively flat. But industry experts predict that prices will rise in coming months, even on vehicles that are manufactured in North America and thus exempt from tariffs.
“What we’ve seen historically is that if you put a tariff on an import, which drives up the cost, domestic firms are all too happy to raise their prices even though they're not paying tariffs to match the price of that import,” said Dennis Hoffman, professor of economics at the W. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
In the long run, Hoffman said, increases in the price of goods almost always lead to increases in the PCE price index.
Higher prices don’t necessarily spell the beginning of an economic downturn – if they’re matched by a corresponding rise in incomes. But if they aren't, they can portend further economic trouble.
“If goods that I need to purchase on a monthly budget go up in price, that leaves me with less income for discretionary spending, and that can be recessionary,” Hoffman said.
Meanwhile, the President is mulling further action, saying he might increase auto tariffs in the “not-so-distant future.”
Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy? was originally published by the APM Research Lab.
Maya Chari is the APM Research Lab’s data journalism fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More