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
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature has siphoned off some of the governor’s traditional powers. Democrats argue that the moves have affected the state’s democracy and the everyday lives of its residents.
Makiya Seminera/AP
How GOP Lawmakers’ Power Transfers Are Reshaping Everything From Utilities to Environmental Regulation in North Carolina
Jan 10, 2026
North Carolina voters have chosen Democrats in three straight elections for governor; the state’s Republican-led legislature has countered by siphoning off some of the powers that traditionally came with the job.
These power grabs have had a profound effect on both democracy in the state and on the everyday lives of North Carolina residents, Democrats argue.
The changes are “weakening environmental protections, raising energy costs, and politicizing election administration,” Josh Stein, North Carolina’s governor, said in a text message responding to questions from ProPublica.
Republican leaders in the General Assembly did not respond to requests for comment or emailed questions about the power shifts. In the past, they have defended these actions as reflecting the will of voters, with the senate president describing one key bill as balancing “appointment power between the legislative and executive branches.”
Former state Sen. Bob Rucho, a Republican picked to sit on the state elections board after lawmakers shifted control from Stein to the Republican state auditor, said the changes would fix problems created by Democrats.
“Republicans are very proud of what’s been accomplished,” Rucho said. Shifting authority over the elections board, he argued, would “reestablish a level of confidence in the electoral process” that Democrats had lost.
ProPublica recently chronicled the nearly 10-year push to take over the board, which sets rules and settles disputes in elections in the closely divided swing state. Decisions made by the board’s new leadership — particularly on the locations and numbers of early voting sites — could affect outcomes in the 2026 midterms.
Below, we examine how other power transfers driven by North Carolina’s Republican legislature are reshaping everything from the regulations that protect residents’ drinking water to the rates they pay for electricity to the culture of their state university system.
How North Carolina’s Governor Got Weaker Over the Past Decade
ProPublica tracked 29 executive powers and prerogatives traditionally held by North Carolina’s governor and other Democrats that have been targeted by its Republican-majority legislature since the end of 2016. We found many have been stripped away, leaving the governor the nation’s weakest.
Environmental Management Commission
What it is: The Environmental Management Commission adopts rules that protect the state’s air and water, such as those that regulate industries discharging potentially carcinogenic chemicals in rivers.
Power transfer: In October 2023, Republican legislators passed a law shifting the power to appoint the majority of the commission’s members from the governor to themselves and the state’s commissioner of agriculture, who is a Republican.
What’s happened since: The new Republican-led commission has stymied several efforts by the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to regulate a potentially harmful chemical, 1,4-dioxane, in drinking water.
Advocates for businesses, including the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, had criticized some regulations and urged the commission to intervene. “Clean water is worth the cost, but regulators should not arbitrarily establish a level that is low for the sake of being low,” the chamber said in a press release.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has pressed the state to regulate the chemical, has said the commission’s rulings are “crippling the state’s ability to protect its waterways, drinking water sources, and communities from harmful pollution.”
Utilities Commission
What it is: The North Carolina Utilities Commission regulates the rates and services of the state’s public utilities, which include providers of electricity, natural gas, water and telephone service. The commission also oversees movers, brokers, ferryboats and wastewater.
Power transfer: In June 2025, a trial court sided with the General Assembly in allowing a law passed in 2024 to take effect, removing the governor’s power to appoint a majority of the commission’s members and transferring that power to legislative leaders and the state treasurer, who is a Republican.
What’s happened since: The state’s primary utility, Duke Energy, has backed off from some plans to rely more on clean energy and retire coal-fired power plants. In November, the company said it would seek the commission’s approval to raise rates by 15%.
In response to a new resource plan the company filed in October, the executive director of NC WARN, a climate and environmental justice nonprofit, said in a statement that Duke’s actions would cause “power bills to double or triple over time” and increase carbon emissions. The state’s governor and attorney general, both Democrats, have said they oppose the rate hike.
Garrett Poorman, a spokesperson for Duke Energy, said that the company is “focused on keeping costs as low as possible while meeting growing energy needs across our footprint” and that the company had recently lowered its forecasted costs.
The commission will decide whether to approve the proposed rate hikes in 2026.
University of North Carolina System
What it is: The University of North Carolina System encompasses 17 institutions and more than 250,000 students, including at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, considered one of best in the nation.
Power transfer: Though the legislature has traditionally appointed the majority of the trustees for individual schools, the governor also made a share of these appointments.
In 2016, the legislature passed a law that eliminated the governor’s ability to make university trustee appointments.
In 2023, changes inserted into the state budget bill gave the legislature power to appoint all of the members of the state board that oversees community colleges and most of those colleges’ trustees. The governor had previously chosen some board members and trustees.
What’s happened since: The system has created a center for conservative thought, repealed racial equity initiatives, suspended a left-leaning professor, gutted a civil rights center led by a professor long critical of Republican lawmakers and appointed politically connected Republicans to the boards.
Republicans say the moves are reversing the system’s long-term leftward drift.
“Ultimately, the board stays in for a while, and you change administrators, and then start to moderate the culture of the UNC schools,” said David Lewis, a former Republican House member who helped drive the changes to the university system.
Democrats, including former Gov. Roy Cooper, have criticized the board changes as partisan meddling.
“These actions will ultimately hurt our state’s economy and reputation,” Cooper said in a 2023 press release.
Doug Bock Clark is a ProPublica reporter covering threats to democracy, elections, and voting rights.
Mollie Simon contributed research. Graphics by Chris Alcantara.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Building a Stronger “We”: How to Talk About Immigrant Youth
Jan 10, 2026
The speed and severity with which the Trump administration has enacted anti-immigrant policies have surpassed many of our expectations. It’s created upheaval not just among immigrant communities but across our society. This upheaval is not incidental; it is part of a deliberate and consistent strategy to activate anti-immigrant sentiment and deeply entrenched, xenophobic Us vs. Them mindsets. With everything from rhetoric to policy decisions, the Trump administration has employed messaging aimed at marking immigrants as “dangerously other,” fueling division, harmful policies, and the deployment of ICE in our communities.
For those working to support immigrant adolescents and youth, the challenges are compounded by another pervasive mindset: the tendency to view adolescents as inherently “other.” FrameWorks Institute’s past research has shown that Americans often perceive adolescents as wild, out of control, or fundamentally different from adults. This lens of otherness, when combined with anti-immigrant sentiment, creates a double burden for immigrant youth, painting them as doubly removed from societal norms and belonging.
It is easy to feel overwhelmed and disheartened by these ongoing attacks. Communicating about immigrant youth has always been challenging, but the stakes today require more than routine messaging. They demand a shared framing strategy, one that pushes back against dangerous rhetoric and policies today while building support for immigrant youth over the long term. We have proven tools to change how the public understands immigrant youth, and those tools work best when we use them consistently and together, now and in the future.
Here’s the strategy:
- Appeal to our shared humanity.
Lead with the idea that we all value human dignity and that supporting immigrant youth is an essential expression of that shared humanity. Start with this idea before discussing human rights. - Link immigrant youth’s wellbeing to our collective wellbeing.
Make clear connections between their wellbeing and the wellbeing of our communities and our society. Explain how we all benefit – now and in the future – when immigrant youth have what they need to thrive. - Spotlight healthy adolescent development.
Talk about adolescence as a critical period of opportunity and growth for immigrant youth. Draw on the well-framed elements of the Core Story of Adolescence to demonstrate what immigrant youth need to thrive and how we can support them. - Pivot to humane, pragmatic solutions.
When encountering opposition, shift toward practical, achievable, nonpunitive policies that benefit everyone. Describe solutions in concise, concrete, and collective ways. - Move from crisis stories to policy stories.
The current immigration situation is a crisis, but crisis framing can backfire. Rather than build sustained momentum, crisis messaging can lead to fatalism and fatigue. Instead, illustrate the urgency of this issue by contrasting humane and pragmatic immigration policies with the current punitive policies that negatively impact immigrant youths’ development. Counter fatalistic thinking by explaining how policies that provide pathways to legal status, protect families from separation, and allow access to health care, education, and social services support immigrant youth’s development and wellbeing. - Center lived expertise.
Build understanding and drive support for policy change through storytelling that highlights how young people’s experiences as immigrants have cultivated deep expertise and unique insights into the immigration system and the moment at hand. - Explain how harmful policies affect all immigrant youth.
Avoid the “worthiness trap” by clearly explaining the role of harmful policies for all immigrant youth, regardless of status or circumstances, then discuss effects for particular subsets of young people. - Frame your data.
Contextualize data with explanations and solutions. Instead of merely showing data, explain what it conveys, what solutions it calls for, and why we should care.
Building a Stronger “We”: How to Talk About Immigrant Youth was first published on FrameWorks and was republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani announces a series of top appointments, including the city’s new schools chancellor, ahead of his swearing-in on December 31, 2025, in New York City
Getty Images, Spencer Platt
Congress Bill Spotlight: MAMDANI Act, Blocking Funds to NYC
Jan 09, 2026
After New York City’s new mayor was inaugurated on January 1, should federal funds still go to the Big Apple?
What the bill does
The MAMDANI Act would ban federal funds from New York City while newly elected Zohran Mamdani is mayor.
The bill’s acronym, MAMDANI, stands for Moving American Money Distant from Anti-National Interests.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA1) introduced a House version on November 7, three days after Mamdani won the general election on November 4.
Notably, the bill only appears to apply to Mamdani himself – not even a potential mayor who would share similar beliefs. If Mamdani were ever to resign or take another political position, his spot would be filled by the city’s Public Advocate: currently Jumaane Williams, who himself endorsed Mamdani.
Context: Who is Mamdani?
In June 2025, Mamdani shocked the political establishment by winning New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary. The 34-year-old defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, a more centrist moderate candidate who was projected to win.
Mamdani began his campaign with far less name recognition, as a representative in New York’s State Assembly, representing a part of the borough Queens. But almost overnight, Mamdani became “one of the five most recognizable names in the party,” according to political analyst Nate Silver. For example, Mamdani now has 11 million Instagram followers, compared to Cuomo with less than 1 million.
Mamdani has proven controversial, for multiple reasons. Here are five:
- Economics: His economic ideology of “democratic socialism” makes him arguably the most powerful person in America to espouse that philosophy – even more than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14). Both are certainly famous, but neither has held a top leadership role in quite the same way. Critics say socialism has wrecked economies such as Venezuela and Cuba, while supporters point to Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.
- Israel: Mamdani also vowed to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for allegedly committing war crimes if Netanyahu ever sets foot inside New York City – likely to visit the United Nations. (In response, Netanyahu said he would still come to NYC under Mamdani’s tenure.) Mamdani also initially refused to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” though he later said he would “discourage” the phrase and wouldn’t use it himself.
- Law enforcement: In 2020, during the height of the George Floyd protests over race relations and police tactics, Mamdani tweeted: “We don't need an investigation to know that the N.Y.P.D. is racist, anti-queer, and a major threat to public safety.” (Though he backed off that position somewhat in a 2025 interview with Martha MacCallum on Fox News.)
- Dual citizenship: Mamdani moved to the U.S. in 1998 at age seven, becoming a U.S. citizen in 2018 – but maintains dual citizenship with both the U.S. and Uganda. Cuomo exploited this as an attack line: "Why would you keep a citizenship in Uganda?" Cuomo asked. "You are a citizen of Uganda, running for mayor.” (Since Mamdani was born in Uganda, he can’t become president.)
- Religion: Mamdani is arguably the most powerful and prominent Muslim-American politician ever, and the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Several prominent figures and politicians on the right have attacked him on that basis, including Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC1). “After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget,’” Mace posted on X (formerly Twitter) alongside a photo of Mamdani. “I think we sadly have forgotten.”
Mamdani proved controversial even within his own party. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is also a Democrat from New York, but wouldn’t endorse Mamdani for the general election.
What supporters say
Supporters of the MAMDANI Act argue that cities and states, which are supposedly better-run than New York City, shouldn’t bail it out or financially support policies they oppose.
“In the United States of America, a nation built on freedom, taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund communism and antisemitism,” Rep. Carter said in a press release. “Georgians want nothing to do with Mamdani’s radical beliefs, and their hard-earned money should not be wasted on programs that will bankrupt the financial capital of the world.”
“Any New Yorker with common sense is welcome to move to the great, FREE state of Georgia.”
What opponents say
Mamdani disputes characterizations of himself as either an antisemite or a communist.
“As mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter). Also: “No, I am not,” he responded when asked by Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press if he was a communist.
Communism is a political system, while socialism is an economic system. Though the two have often been incorporated together in world history, most famously in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they don’t necessarily have to be. Mamdani calls himself a “democratic socialist” to clarify that he prefers socialism as an economic system but democracy as a political system.
What has Trump said?
The day before November’s election, President Donald Trump suggested that he might withhold federal money from New York City unilaterally from the White House.
“It is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds, other than the very minimum as required,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “It can only get worse with a communist at the helm, and I don’t want to send, as president, good money after bad. It is my obligation to run the nation, and it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a complete and total economic and social disaster should Mamdani win."
Mamdani responded that he didn’t take the ultimatum seriously.
“I will address that threat for what it is: it is a threat. It is not the law,” Mamdani said the day before his election. “Too often, we treat everything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth as if it is already legal, just by virtue of who is saying it.”
“This funding is not something that Donald Trump is giving us here in New York City,” Mamdani continued. “This is something that we are, in fact, owed in New York.”
A few weeks after the election, Trump and Mamdani met for the first time at the White House, in a meeting described as “surprisingly cordial,” with Trump adding, “I’ll be cheering for him.”
What happens now
The bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Republicans.
It awaits a potential vote in either the House Appropriations or Oversight and Government Reform Committees.
Similar legislation
At least three similar pieces of legislation have been introduced by congressional Republicans in response to Mamdani.
A different MAMDANI Act
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) introduced an unrelated bill also called the MAMDANI Act in July.
Though it wouldn’t actually change public policy, it would require the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to conduct a study on government-owned grocery stores. Mamdani wants to create a pilot program, establishing five such taxpayer-funded grocery stores, one in each New York City borough.
The acronym MAMDANI in this bill stands for Measuring Adverse Market Disruption And National Impact.
The bill’s supporters argue that Mamdani’s plan would establish too much government control and potentially raise prices.
“Government-run grocery stores raise serious questions about market fairness and taxpayer accountability,” Rep. Lawler said in a press release. “The [bill] ensures we carefully assess the potential impacts of such proposals before public funds are committed, or they risk undermining local businesses and disrupting supply chains, ultimately leaving consumers worse off.”
Opponents counter: the plan is “a public option for produce, an understanding that for far too many New Yorkers, groceries are out of reach, and the importance in city government of reasonable policy experimentation," Mamdani said.
The bill has attracted one cosponsor, fellow New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY2). It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act
The Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act would ban Mamdani from ordering Netanyahu’s arrest if the Israeli leader comes to New York City.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY21) introduced the House version on September 16. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) introduced the Senate version two weeks later, on September 29.
Technically, the legislation would ban any government or law enforcement officer working for a state, territory, or municipality – such as a mayor or a police officer working for a mayor – from arresting anyone based on an ICC (International Criminal Court) warrant. The ICC issued such an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024, contending his government committed war crimes during its invasion of Gaza.
The bill’s supporters argue the U.S. shouldn’t carry out arrests on behalf of an international institution for which they’re not even a member.
“The United States is not part of the International Criminal Court," Rep. Stefanik said in a press release. "That is why I introduced the [bill] to protect American sovereignty and prohibit radicals like Mamdani from illegally arresting the leader of our democratic ally Israel."
Opponents counter that if Trump won’t arrest Netanyahu, then Mamdani should.
“It is my desire to ensure that this be a city that stands up for international law,” Mamdani told the New York Times. “This is a moment where we cannot look to the federal government for leadership. This is a moment when cities and states will have to demonstrate what it actually looks like to stand up for our own values, our own people.”
The legislation has attracted two House cosponsors, one Republican and one Democratic: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ5). However, no Senate cosponsors have yet signed on.
It awaits a potential vote in either the House or Senate Judiciary Committees.
A resolution about socialism
In November, the House voted 285-98 on a symbolic concurrent resolution from Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL27) to “denounce the horrors of socialism.” 86 Democrats voted in favor, while no Republicans opposed it.
While the concurrent resolution was ostensibly about socialism in general, the House vote was intentionally scheduled the same day as Trump’s meeting with Mamdani.
The resolution’s supporters argue that socialism has produced terrible results, in both the past and present.
“It has never delivered justice or equality, only fear, censorship, poverty, and broken nations. I represent thousands of families who fled their homelands because socialist regimes promised paradise and delivered prisons,” Rep. Salazar said in a press release. “Today, the House is making it clear: we will not allow socialism’s failed ideology to take root in the United States.”
Opponents counter that the resolution is a scare tactic to demonize some of America’s most popular and successful institutions and policies.
“This very resolution goes further by using the specter of socialism to undermine some of the most important government programs in our country like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA43) said in a House floor speech. “These are programs that help everyday Americans put food on their plate and care for their children.”Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, 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 Votes With Only One House or Senate Dissenter, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance’s Tiebreaking Senate Votes, 2025
Keep ReadingShow less

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris debate for the first time during the presidential election campaign at The National Constitution Center on September 10, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Getty Images, Win McNamee
Trump’s Rhetoric of Exaggeration Hurts Democracy
Jan 09, 2026
One of the most telling aspects of Donald Trump’s political style isn’t a specific policy but how he talks about the world. His speeches and social media posts overflow with superlatives: “The likes of which nobody’s ever seen before,” “Numbers we’ve never seen,” and “Like nobody ever thought possible.” This constant "unprecedented" language does more than add emphasis—it triggers fear-based thinking.
Reporters have found that he uses these phrases hundreds of times each year, on almost any topic. Whether the subject is the economy, immigration, crime, or even weather, the message is always the same: everything is either an unprecedented success or failure. There’s no middle ground, nuance, or room for finding common ground.
This is not just a personal habit. It’s a deliberate strategy to shape public perception. When every issue is called the greatest, worst, biggest, or most disastrous, people react emotionally rather than think critically. Communication studies show that crisis-driven messaging strengthens partisan loyalty and hinders cross-partisan engagement. The world begins to feel in crisis, with the leader as the only solution.
Is this how we want our leader to behave? When leaders exaggerate every challenge as new or disastrous, it weakens democracy, erodes trust, and highlights divisions. Shouldn’t we want leaders who foster unity and thoughtful discussion instead?
Trump uses the same approach when talking about people. His attacks rely on extreme labels: “weak,” “lazy,” “dumb as a rock,” “crazy,” and “incompetent.” These are not criticisms of ideas or policies; they reduce people to a single exaggerated flaw.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, he called Kamala Harris “mentally impaired.” In that speech, he spent far more time mocking her intelligence and character than addressing policy differences. The goal was not to debate her ideas but to demean her as a person and make her seem unworthy before any conversation began.
Trump’s aim is not to persuade, but to dominate. He seeks to define opponents so thoroughly that people stop considering them. This approach reduces issues, treats complexity as weakness, and views cruelty as strength.
This rhetoric affects more than politics. When leaders use absolutes, people do the same. When public figures reduce opponents to caricatures, others follow. Calling every problem unprecedented or catastrophic makes it harder to build steady, patient groups needed in a democracy. Doesn’t decency matter? Isn’t our civic health tied to leaders who show restraint?
We know this because we teach it to children. We tell kids not to call names, judge by a single flaw, or win by putting others down. We teach that words can hurt, respect is vital, and disagreement doesn’t require meanness. When a leader ignores these basics, it tells us that mocking is an argument, put-downs are power, and taking someone’s dignity is just another tactic. This damage is real; it erodes the shared decency that enables a diverse society. Research on civic norms shows that playground rules, such as respect and understanding, apply to public life. Studies find that values from childhood shape adult behavior, and breaking these rules weakens society.
As a country, we want to succeed. We need strong institutions, a stable economy, and leaders who can navigate complexity. But can’t we meet these goals with honor? Don’t strength and decency go together? American history’s greatest moments—from expanding civil rights to landing on the moon—came from cooperation and humility, not insults or exaggeration.
Exaggeration may excite crowds, but it can’t sustain a nation. For that, we need commitment to truth, to each other, and to democratic values. The question isn’t whether we want America to succeed but whether we believe success requires integrity and whether we expect our leaders to live by the values we teach our children.
David L. Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















