With politics as polarized and divisive as ever and the holiday season approaching, many of us will have difficult interactions with problematic family members. Does calling out your problematic family members benefit you or our political climate? Or does it do the opposite -- worsening familial relationships and political climate?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Defining the Democracy Movement: Sarakanti Iyer
Jul 12, 2025
- The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
The latest interview in this series features Sarakanti (Sara) Iyer, an incoming sophomore at Johns Hopkins University. Despite her youth, Sara has already been deeply engaged in political organizing—working on the ground in Arizona and helping lead efforts at Hopkins to bring students from across the political spectrum together.
Most of the leaders I’ve spoken to in this series are heads of organizations—relatively “known quantities” in the pro-democracy space. This conversation was a bit different. I wanted to understand how someone who firmly identifies as pro-democracy—but isn’t necessarily part of the professionalized “pro-democracy community”—views the field.
Sara was a student in a First-Year Seminar I taught at Johns Hopkins, titled "Democratic Erosion" (each JHU first-year student is required to take a seminar, capped at 12 students). Over the course of the semester, the remarkably politically diverse class explored whether, how, and why countries around the world were experiencing democratic backsliding—and whether those dynamics held lessons for the United States. The class was recently featured in The Washington Post, which you can view here.
Throughout the semester, I found Sara’s reflections thoughtful and self-aware, and I wanted to hear more from her about how young people are experiencing this political moment.
To be clear: neither I nor Sara claims she speaks for an entire generation. However, I find that much of today’s analysis of youth engagement with democracy to be both narrow and inconsistent. After the 2024 election, headlines suggested young people were becoming more conservative and increasingly distrustful of democratic institutions. Yet, in the weeks following Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s decisive primary win in New York City, many outlets began arguing that he now represents the voice of youth voters.
The truth, unsurprisingly, is more nuanced. Young people are frustrated. They’re navigating a fast-shifting political reality that often excludes them. Sara offered three reflections worth highlighting:
- The pro-democracy community is too elitist: Sara points out that the most polarizing divide in American society today isn’t geographic or even economic—it’s educational: between those with a college degree and those without. As a college student, she’s attuned to the risks of a pro-democracy movement dominated by highly educated actors.
“I think when you have had the privilege of a whole lot of education…you can see other people who might not have had the privilege of the same education as not being as aware, and maybe miss…that their opinions can provide a completely different perspective, and shed a light on the problems with our democracy that you might not be able to recognize because you are in that privileged position of being able to have so much education.
I think the way that this is received by people who may not have had the privilege of higher education or may not have wanted to attend higher education institutions is condescending.
It’s a point worth considering: how often does the pro-democracy field actively include people from diverse educational backgrounds? As Sara puts it:
“I see the pro-democracy movement in the United States right now comprised of those educated individuals, and maybe as alienating to some other folks, some citizens in the United States who might not share those same characteristics. I would like to see the pro-democracy movement be more welcoming and inclusive to those who do not share the same characteristics as it currently does.
- Young people are frustrated and feel like they’re not being represented: This is becoming increasingly clear: politics is dominated by older generations, and young people don’t see themselves reflected in positions of power.
As Sara notes, “I think that there's this misconception that young people really don't care, because so many young people are kind of tuning out in that sense. But I think the issue is that young people care so much, and we're not seeing that reflected in our politics….
Politics right now is run by people who are 60 to 80 years old, maybe 60 to 90 years old- and they don't communicate in the same way that people who are 18 to 35 maybe do."While Mamdani’s race has drawn attention to youth enthusiasm, I suspect media narratives may overemphasize the appeal of his specific policies. What’s likely more resonant is the hunger for new leadership—voices who simply understand younger generations and communicate in ways that feel relevant.
- Young people want change- and fast: Democracy is designed to move slowly—checks and balances prevent rapid upheaval. But young people, shaped by a world of instant access and feedback, often want more immediate results.
I’m personally not sure we want political change to happen overnight. However, democracy must be viewed as a vehicle for change, or it will lose its legitimacy. As Sara reflects, “The way that you can make the quickest change has definitely been one of the leading factors in how young people vote. I think that's why a lot of young individuals did vote for President Trump. Maybe it's the assurance that you're actually doing something.”
If democracy is only defended through defensive posturing—guarding institutions, preventing regression—it may not offer enough for a generation seeking agency and impact.
I appreciated Sara’s candid thoughts, and it gave me a lot to think about. I want to continue reflecting on how young people are thinking about this moment and bring in more diverse opinions and perspectives into the frame, as Sara has urged.
SUGGESTIONS:
Defining the Democracy Movement: John Bridgeland
Defining the Democracy Movement: Connie Razza
Defining the Democracy Movement: Francis Johnson
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill: Hidden Cuts, Legislative Tricks, and Who Really Pays the Price
Jul 12, 2025
President Donald Trump received a great Fourth of July present -- he signed his administration’s signature piece of federal legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is a sweeping tax cut and spending package. The law makes Trump’s massive 2017 tax cuts permanent and boosts defense and border patrol funding. It attempts to offset some of these costs by making deep cuts to spending on Medicaid, food assistance programs, student loans, and clean energy programs. Depending on whose hype you listen to, the Trump tax and spend deal is either the greatest in history or it will cause the fall of Western civilization.
For the average person, it's quite challenging to understand how this law will impact their own individual situation. This was a complex piece of legislation with numerous moving parts, and the White House designers employed several legislative tactics and strategies to obscure the impact on those who would be helped or hurt. Both the Republican and Democratic sides have their own “experts” who, of course, do not agree, but even within Republican and conservative circles, there has been much disagreement over likely impacts.
GOP economist Kevin Hassett says the new law will be good for average Americans because it will spur economic growth and investment, as he claims the first Trump tax cuts did in 2017. But conservative economist Oren Cass says, “That’s not true. The two-year stretch that followed [the Trump tax cut] passage saw slower growth than any other two-year period of the economic expansions in the 1990s and 2000s.”
Senator Susan Collins from Maine, one of the few Republicans to vote against the bill, said, “My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.” The Medicaid program has been an important health care safety net for nearly 60 years, which has helped people with disabilities, children, the mentally ill, and low-income families.
Democrats call the bill “tax breaks for billionaires” while Republicans say it is a tax cut for “working- and middle-class Americans.” Who’s wrong, who’s right? The law is so massive that the White House can highlight any features it wants you to know about. Certainly, there are some benefits in it for working- and middle-class Americans, such as:
Tax breaks. It provides income tax breaks on overtime pay and tips, as well as a deduction for interest on loans for automobiles assembled in the US. While helpful, those tax breaks are only temporary, lasting through 2028. Meanwhile, independent analysts have found that taxpayers with the highest incomes will by far benefit the most from the permanent income tax cuts. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, individuals making over $1 million per year will benefit from about $90,000 in tax cuts, while poor people are actually going to lose money, once you factor in the Medicaid and food assistance cuts.
Pro-family? Maybe, yes; maybe, no; it depends on the family. The law expands the child tax credit to $2,200, which is helpful. But that’s not that much money for many families, especially since they will lose out on other provisions of the law. Trump’s law is giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The law also creates “Trump baby bonds,” which aim to help low- and middle-income families build long-term savings by providing a modest government bonus of $ 1,000 for each newborn. That money can be added to, invested, and grow tax-free. It’s well-meaning, but it will most benefit higher-income families who can afford to contribute more money to the account. This new benefit is also temporary and will expire in 2028.
Senior deduction. Seniors over 65 with a middle income (up to $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples) will be allowed to deduct up to $ 6,000 more from their adjusted gross income for tax purposes, which will reduce their taxes owed by a few hundred dollars.
But any benefits that some people will receive will be counter-balanced by the downsides, such as:
Higher Deficits and Debt. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that the law will increase the federal deficit by nearly $3.8 trillion over the next decade. This will significantly add to the national debt, with the interest paid on that debt already $882 billion per year, the second-largest US budget expenditure, surpassing spending on the military or Medicare. Republicans used to portray themselves as deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives, but their claim has lost credibility.
Millions of low-income Americans hurt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reported that up to 11.8 million people will likely be left without health insurance over the next decade due to $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. The law adds work requirements to receiving Medicaid and food assistance (SNAP), which are useful in theory. In practice, most of the recipients of these two programs are elderly, disabled, mentally ill, or taking care of dependents. For those beneficiaries, work requirements don’t make much sense, and failure to meet the requirements will eventually result in millions of beneficiaries losing their benefits.
Undermine Social Security? Little discussed is that, while the $ 6,000 senior deduction will result in some middle-income seniors paying less in taxes, it will also include paying less into the Social Security trust fund. That’s a problem, since those revenues are needed to keep the already-strained Social Security program solvent. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, this senior deduction will accelerate the projected insolvency date for Social Security to 2032, up from the currently projected date of 2033.
When you add it all up, according to the Yale Budget Lab, the combination of income tax cuts with Medicaid and SNAP spending and other cuts will result in an income decline of 2.9% (about $700) for the bottom 20% of US income earners, but an increase of 1.9% for the top 1%. A Penn-Wharton Budget Model analysis came to a similar conclusion, saying “The top 10% of the income distribution receives about 80% of the total value of the legislation… lower-income households and some in the middle class are worse off.”
Legislative gimmicks and tricks hide the football
To make things even more confusing, the Trump administration budget designers were clever. They employed legislative tactics to structure the law in a way that front-loaded the tax cuts, allowing Americans to receive them immediately, and the White House would then take credit. However, they postponed the implementation of Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefit cuts, as well as the closure of hospitals, nursing homes, and other aspects of the legislation that would affect millions of people, until after the November 2026 midterm election. Some benefits cuts won’t be phased in until after 2028, when Trump will no longer be president.
Much like Obama once said “If you like your health care plan you can keep it”—which came back to haunt him in the 2010 election -- Donald Trump has claimed that under his law “your Medicaid is left alone.” But that is clearly not the case for millions of Americans. Meanwhile, wealthier Americans will be happy to see their income taxes cut. Unfortunately, this law has created winners and losers, pitting Americans against each other.
Will Trump and the Republicans pay a political price? With 16 months until the November 2026 midterm elections, it’s too early to say. Though recent polls suggest the cuts are unpopular with many voters. Either way, Donald Trump’s big beautiful law has taken another giant step toward dismantling America’s New Deal society, long a right-wing fantasy. What the future holds from here, nobody knows.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
polling station poster on clear glass door
Photo by Elliott Stallion on Unsplash
Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series
Jul 12, 2025
In Part One, Pat Merloe explored the impact of the political environment, the need for constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the malign effects of proof of citizenship on voting.
In the second part of the three-part series, Merloe explores the harmful effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department on voting rights, and the effects of political retribution.
Part Two: Damaging Executive Orders, Weaponizing DoJ, and Effects of Political Retribution
As noted in Part One of this series, while some would like us to believe that “all’s quiet on the election front”, multipoint attacks against trustworthy elections are underway with just 17 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy. The arenas described below are among the active electoral battlefields.
Unless we mount an effective defense of trustworthy elections and broader democracy, Donald Trump’s prediction that “We’ll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote” could become reality. Determining how to join in that defense is a responsibility of democratic citizenship.
Harmful Effects of Executive Order 14248 Beyond Proof of Citizenship
Cynically, EO 14248 does not seek to prevent voter suppression tactics. However, consistent with the irrational MAGA campaign against mailed ballots, the Order negates the states’ electoral power by imposing a national requirement that all mailed ballots must be received by election day. Ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later are counted in 17 states and Washington, D.C. More than 100,000 voters could be affected if the restriction stands, and large numbers of valid ballots could be voided simply due to mail delays. That could affect electoral outcomes up and down the ballot.
The Order includes a dangerous and unworkable instruction that the federal Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC) amend its Voluntary Voting Systems Guideline, apparently in light of certain Big Lie conspiracy theories about voting machines. The EAC is acting on that instruction. It requires all voting systems certified by the FEC for the state’s use to be re-certified within the impracticable period of 180 days. That could mean a mass of voting machines not being certified by election day, which could be used as a pretext for election bashing or possibly interfering in the certification of election results.
Voting system security is also being compromised by mass layoffs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and by CISA cutting a range of programs that support elections. That includes CISA’s efforts to help secure voting systems and share information with state election officials about foreign and domestic cyber threats, all deemed important by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS). Additionally, in February, the Department of Justice (DOJ) disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force, which heightens vulnerabilities that state officials are ill-equipped to address.
The Trump Administration is also cutting federal grants to document incidence and impacts of misinformation and disinformation, which will further undermine information integrity in the electoral environment. As AI advances continue, dismantling information safeguards will contribute to confusion and distrust even as further protections are needed. The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Brennan Center are among those engaging on that subject.
Privacy Offenses Demand Greater Attention
Citizen privacy rights have not been addressed in court rulings on EO 14248 or other election-related actions of the Administration. The Order variously instructs the Social Security Administration, State Department, and DHS to make information from their databases available to state officials and local officials for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of those who registered or are registering to vote.
Plus, the Order instructs DHS – in coordination with DOGE – to review each state’s publicly available voter registry and voter list maintenance activities alongside federal immigration databases. And, for DHS to report, within 90 days, complete information to the Attorney General and state and local officials on all foreign nationals who indicated on an immigration form that they have registered or voted in federal or state elections. Concern about errors and potential misuse is warranted, given DOGE’s other identity data mining activities. Democracy Forward, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and others are challenging attacks on privacy rights.
It is challenging to ensure citizens’ privacy in such broad actions. There is apparently at least one example of a DHS official already briefing a leading MAGA group about how to use federally collected data as part of its efforts to investigate voter lists. That illustrates the intersection of elements of the MAGA elections project.
Conversion of DOJ Voting Rights Efforts and Targeting Truth Tellers
A crucial part of the MAGA elections project is evident in developments at the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division and its Voting Rights Section. Changes in leadership, line managers, and mission statements, accompanied by the dismissal of prior cases seeking to protect voting rights, demonstrate a shift in both words and actions.
The conversion includes prioritizing EO 14248 and bringing pressure against election administrators in certain states, including Arizona, North Carolina, and - all battleground jurisdictions. Colorado and Pennsylvania recently received a troublesome DOJ election data request, which poses burdens on those states. DOJ joined the defense of Wyoming’s proof of citizenship and proof of residency requirement, among other actions, to burden voting.
New DOJ initiatives established by US Attorney's offices, including investigations and task forces focused on election issues, also reflect this change. President Trump’s recent call for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate what he falsely claims as the fraudulent 2020 presidential election adds a further threat to election officials and judges who ruled against MAGA's fabricated challenges to that election. Rumblings that the DOJ is exploring the possibility of bringing criminal charges against state and local election officials are also threatening.
Political retribution that threatens past and future truth tellers is another part of the MAGA election plan. The targeting by Presidential order of former Trump-appointed CISA Director Christopher Krebs is obvious retribution for Krebs reporting that the 2020 presidential election was trustworthy. The order calls for an investigation into Krebs and instructs that security clearances be suspended for all persons associated with him, including those at his current workplace.
The personal targeting of Christopher Krebs fires a warning shot at federal, state, and local election officials who are called upon to tell the truth about elections, even when it means a MAGA loss is real. Election officials at all levels continue to face extraordinary stresses from accusations and threats. Many states have enacted laws to protect them from threats of violence, although 15 states still require legislative action. Enforcement of such protections is a challenge, and the threat of political retribution adds another layer of complexity. The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) and Issue One are among those defending election officials.
Several presidential Executive Orders target law firms that have represented Donald Trump’s electoral opponents and that offer assistance to voting rights initiatives. While courts have ruled against some of the law firm's EOs, they harm the electoral and broader political environment. The American Bar Association (ABA) filed a federal lawsuit against the Administration’s “deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like.” Various law firms and organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), are also fighting such EOs, though more may well be issued.
The MAGA barrage against the rule of law includes mining the field of electoral justice. Part Three of this series addresses attacks on the courts and additional challenges to the principle of universal and equal suffrage, which is essential to trustworthy elections.
Part Three will examine the impact of attacks on the courts and the necessity of defending universal and equal suffrage.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
Keep ReadingShow less
Serafin Sierra Torres with his rooftop solar panels. After losing power for nine months during Hurricane Maria, Serafin and his wife, Iris, had solar panels installed with the help of Casa Pueblo.
Photo provided
As Puerto Rico’s Power Grid Crumbles, Rural Medical Patients Are Turning to Rooftop Solar
Jul 12, 2025
In this two-part series, Lily Carey reports on energy instability in rural Puerto Rico and its impact on residents with chronic medical conditions. Faced with limited government support, community members have begun building their own power structures from the ground up, ranging from solar microgrids to community health clinics.
In Part One, Carey reports on the lasting impacts of Hurricane Maria and how mismanagement of Puerto Rico’s electric grid in the years since has led to ongoing instability.
Luz María Torres Sierra walked into her bedroom, switching on the light and gesturing to a tall machine that sat next to her bed.
It was a bright afternoon in her town of Adjuntas, Puerto Rico, and sunlight poured through the hallway behind her, seeping through the slats in her windows. But in the bedroom, the windows stayed closed so that Luz María could disinfect the room — and the life-saving equipment inside.
Two years ago, Luz María was diagnosed with kidney failure, a medical condition in which patients’ kidneys become unable to filter waste out of the bloodstream. The equipment beside her bed is a peritoneal dialysis machine, which helps pump fluid into her abdomen to absorb this waste.
Now, every night at 9 p.m. as she prepares for bed, Luz María attaches a bag of fluid to the machine, and connects a tube from the machine to her abdomen. It automatically pumps the fluid through her abdomen as she sleeps, and when she wakes up at 6:30 a.m., she’s able to leave the dialysis machine in the bedroom and go about her day as normal.
“I get to sleep, and the machine does all the work,” she said. “I have all day free, until the night, when I do it again.”
Luz María’s daily routine used to look much different. For a year after she was diagnosed with kidney failure, she had to use a manual dialysis machine, which she had to connect to her body every four hours and operate by hand in order to keep her organs running. Like much of Puerto Rico, Adjuntas sees frequent blackouts, meaning that an automatic machine wasn’t an option for Luz María — if the power had gone out, the automatic machine wouldn’t be able to operate, putting her in a life-threatening situation.
Today, her automatic dialysis machine continues to operate steadily each night, even when other houses on her block go dark. The reason? A set of solar panels, installed on her rooftop this past September.
“Sometimes, we used to go days without power, but now that I have the solar system, it has helped me a lot,” she said.
CAPTION: Luz María Torres Sierra stands in her bedroom in Adjuntas.
Life is difficult for Puerto Ricans with chronic medical conditions. Many of these patients need electricity or Wi-Fi to operate life-sustaining machines, like Torres Sierra’s automatic dialysis machine. But the island’s energy grid is notoriously unstable and sees frequent blackouts, including two island-wide blackouts since the start of 2025. When the lights go out, it’s not just an inconvenience — for sick and elderly Puerto Ricans, especially those living in rural towns such as Adjuntas, it’s something that could put their lives at risk.
Now, community groups in Adjuntas and across the island are working to install solar panels on the rooftops of at-risk households, using private funding to cover the costs. As Puerto Rico’s privatized energy grid continues to falter, many rural residents see solar as the only way to become truly energy independent.
“What we're doing is building a reference for change in which the energy infrastructure is decentralized, democratized in the hands of people and communities,” said Arturo Massol-Deya, executive director of Casa Pueblo, an environmental justice organization based in Adjuntas. “This way, the wealth associated with power generation will be retained within the community — for local development, for reinvestment, for better quality of life, for climate adaptation — and as we're doing that, we're building a model of self decolonization.”
Though issues with Puerto Rico’s power grid have grown more severe in the past few months, the struggle isn’t new.
“During Hurricane Maria, it was horrible, we were nine months without power,” said Iris González Cruz, who lives in Vegas Arriba, a small mountainside neighborhood near Adjuntas. Iris and her husband, Serafín Sierra Torres, were trapped in their house for a week after the hurricane when the mountain they live on collapsed. “We suffered a lot, we lost food, and I thank god that we were blessed.”
When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico as a Category 5 hurricane in October 2017, it destroyed an estimated 80% of the island’s energy grid, leading to the largest blackout in U.S. history and the second largest in the world. In Adjuntas and neighboring mountain towns, many residents lived without power for over six months, and it took 11 months for the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) to fully restore power to all 1.5 million of its customers.
Many Puerto Ricans remember Hurricane Maria as the event that broke the grid, exposing its weaknesses. But the island’s government had already been saddled with immense debt since the early 2000s, mostly as a result of borrowing to fund failed infrastructure upgrades. And between 1974 and 2016, PREPA accumulated over $8 billion in debt — more than any other governmental agency on the island. So when Hurricane Maria hit, PREPA was already out of resources, leaving it paralyzed for months after the storm.
The island began the process of privatizing PREPA in 2018 under direction from the Financial Management Oversight Board, an unelected authority established by the federal government to manage Puerto Rico’s debt. Officials hoped that private companies would be able to rebuild the power system — and take some of the financial responsibility off their plate.
LUMA Energy, a commercial Canadian-American company, took over the island’s transmission system in 2021, and Genera PR signed a contract to run all electric generation facilities in 2023. But under these private companies, the electric system has remained unreliable. Last April, LUMA reported that the average customer experienced 1,414 minutes of service interruptions over the course of a year. In November 2016, this annual average was only 960 minutes.
CAPTION: A LUMA Energy billboard outside of the town of Utuado.
Meanwhile, the price of electricity per kilowatt hour has risen to 27.1 cents in 2025, well above the average cost of electricity in the U.S. at 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
To many Puerto Ricans, mismanagement of the grid under LUMA is the real reason for the current energy instability. LUMA and Genera aren’t directly overseen by any Puerto Rican governmental authority, meaning they don’t have any real incentive to lower electric costs for their customers. According to Ingrid Vila, founder of the political advocacy group Cambio, this leaves the government with very little negotiating power, allowing utilities to request — and obtain — increasingly expensive contracts.
“Any private entity is going to say, ‘well, no, I need more money in order to [operate in Puerto Rico], because there seems to be a risky environment that I will be entering,” Vila said. “We knew that the privatization model and the way that LUMA was brought in was not going to be favorable for the people of Puerto Rico.”
That’s why solar has taken root in mountain-side communities like Adjuntas. Luz María, Iris, and Serafín had solar panels installed on their Vegas Arriba home in 2023 with the help of Casa Pueblo. Serafín is diabetic and needs consistent electricity to preserve his medications and operate his sleep apnea machine.
Now that they’re no longer reliant on LUMA, Serafín said his electric bills have decreased significantly, and Iris said she feels they have a “better quality of life.”
Still, watching their neighbor’s lights flicker on and off during storms reminds them of the abandonment their community still feels.
“No politicians come here,” said Serafín. “They have the tools in their hands, but they do nothing for the people. They know that [solar] functions, and that it’s going to help many families, but they look always for their benefits, and that the people suffer.”
In this Part Two, published tomorrow, Carey reports on how local activists are providing for sick and elderly residents in Puerto Rico’s Cordillera Central.
Lily Carey is a graduate student in journalism at Northwestern University.
Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More