Paul Norris, who helps lead Braver Angels' Red Caucus, convenes an all-red panel to discuss what liberals, academia, and the mainstream media miss about conservatives. Featuring Mark Reinecke, Elizabeth Doll, and Barbara Farmer.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Jul 23, 2025
Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.
What are Sanctuary Policies?
As immigration has grown politically contentious, some towns and cities have enacted sanctuary policies to limit local agencies’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. First emerging in the 1980s, with San Francisco becoming the first in the nation to pass a sanctuary law relating to immigration, these laws historically reduce and restrict local and federal coordination. Sanctuary city policies often rest on the following arguments:
- Federalism: Cities and states are not required to enforce federal law.
- Public Safety: Immigrants have less fear of interacting with law enforcement and are more likely to report crimes, cooperate, and serve as witnesses.
- Community Health: Immigrants can access basic public services like education and healthcare.
- The Local Economy: Less immigration enforcement cooperation increases economic benefits such as local income per capita, average wages, GDP, and employment rates.
In line with the Tenth Amendment, federalism emphasizes the federal government’s responsibility to enforce federal laws and reduces local and state cooperation to that end. Upheld in Printz v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court has frequently upheld this separation in landmark cases. With respect to immigrant violators of state or local crime, ICE can issue an “immigration detainer” requesting local officials to hold an individual for up to 48 hours beyond their normal release to allow time to secure their federal detention. However, local authorities do not have to honor this request when sanctuary policies are enacted.
Sanctuary policies layer protections on immigrants in interactions with law enforcement regardless of documentation status. Many sanctuary policies prevent police from asking or sharing information regarding immigration status, which advocates say allows immigrants to contact 911 without hesitation in the event of an emergency. Police agencies also argue that these sanctuary policies are essential in encouraging crime reporting and cooperation in case building.
Protections also extend to immigrants’ access to public services, such as public schools and medical care. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 paved the way for legislation implementing these protections, as it held that states cannot prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from attending public schools except in cases of potential threat to state interests. Now, states with sanctuary cities like California can prohibit public schools from making immigration status inquiries.
By increasing immigrants’ geographic security through these protections, sanctuary cities also see a boost in economic activity. In fact, one study at Oregon State University found a correlation between “overall per capita income, wages, GDP, and total employment” and the degree of protection for immigrants under sanctuary policies. Although unable to receive public benefits, many undocumented immigrants also pay taxes and boost local revenues, contributing 37.3 billion dollars towards state and local funds. Also in 2022, immigrants paid 96.7 billion dollars in taxes, of which 59.4 billion dollars was allocated to the federal government.
Opponents of Sanctuary Policies
Sanctuary policies also have their opponents. They argue that such policies undermine:
- The Rule of Law: Sanctuary cities challenge federal prerogatives over immigration enforcement.
- Public Safety: Law enforcement has to release individuals who have committed a crime back into the community despite their pending immigration status.
- The Effectiveness of Immigration Enforcement: Sanctuary laws create a culture of hostility towards federal law and slow down the work of immigration authorities.
- Public Budgets: Jurisdictions spend taxpayer dollars to provide services to undocumented immigrants.
While sanctuary laws are constitutional under the principle of federalism, opponents argue theycontribute to a legal “nullification crisis.” They argue the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration, and states and localities lack the authority to set immigration policy. They point to one federal law that prohibits any level of government from preventing the sharing of immigration status with the federal government. Critics argue that sanctuary laws that prohibit information sharing violate this exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Opponents have also raised concerns about the undocumented immigrants accused, charged, or convicted of committing crimes. In some cases, local police in sanctuary cities might release rather than detain these individuals, potentially facilitating the continuation of their crimes. In 2015, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. Even after facing several felonies and deportations, local officials still declined to honor the ICE detainer request. Even so, many sanctuary laws also include exceptions for serious and violent crimes.
Sanctuary laws also hinder the work of immigration enforcement. Even if ICE does not utilize local facilities, they can foster a culture of hostility towards ICE operations and reduce effectiveness. In 2018, Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland tweeted a warning to immigrants of ICE activity in the city. ICE respondedby criticizing Schaaf’s action as endangering agents and allowing targets to avoid arrest.
Despite economic benefits to the greater city, critics argue that undocumented immigrants place a fiscal burden on local jurisdictions. From public education to medical services, Fair reported that illegal immigration had accrued a net cost of 150.7 billion dollars to United States taxpayers by 2023. In Tennessee, educating undocumented students costs the state 3.9 million dollars annually, and in Florida, two billion dollars are spent providing education and healthcare to undocumented immigrants. Even with the current cost of the undocumented migrant crisis in New York City, research estimates its five billion dollar cost for the two years will double in 2025.
Conclusion
The divide between federal, state, and local governments over immigration enforcement is a contentious and unresolved issue. Despite sanctuary cities’ laws and disputed net gains, the conflict ultimately boils down to a legal debate over federal and state jurisdiction. In lieu of an answer, President Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 to end federal funding for sanctuary cities, kicking off a storm of reactionary lawsuits which may yield a settlement.
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement was originally published by the Alliance for Citizen Engagement and is republished with permission.
Jack Guan is an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley, double majoring in American Studies and Political Science in addition to double minoring in Political Economy and Public Policy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump Slams Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians Over Name Changes
Jul 22, 2025
Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump has reignited controversy surrounding the Washington Commanders football team, demanding the franchise revert to its former name, the “Redskins,” a term widely condemned as a racial slur against Native Americans.
In a series of posts on Truth Social this past weekend, Trump declared, “The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team.” He went further, threatening to block the team’s $3.7 billion stadium deal in Washington, D.C., unless the name change is reversed.
The Commanders, formerly known as the Redskins until 2020, adopted their current name in 2022 following years of public pressure, corporate backlash, and advocacy from Native American groups. The original name was dropped amid a national reckoning over racial injustice, with major sponsors like FedEx and Nike urging the team to rebrand.
Trump’s latest remarks come as the team prepares to relocate from its current home in Landover, Maryland, to a new stadium at the site of the former RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C., projected to open in 2030. The president suggested he would use his influence to halt the deal, stating, “I won’t make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington” unless the name is changed back.
“The president was serious,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters when asked about Trump’s new warning to block a proposed stadium.
The Commanders’ ownership has responded cautiously. Managing partner Josh Harris previously stated, “For obvious reasons the old name can’t come back,” but emphasized efforts to honor the team’s heritage through throwback uniforms and branding.
Trump also called on Major League Baseball’s Cleveland Guardians to revert to their former name, the Cleveland Indians—another move that has reignited a long-standing debate over Native American imagery in sports.
The Cleveland franchise officially adopted the Guardians name in 2021 following years of criticism from Native American groups and activists who viewed the “Indians” name and the “Chief Wahoo” mascot as culturally insensitive. The rebranding was part of a broader assesment in American sports, spurred by the social justice movements that followed the death of George Floyd.
Guardians president of baseball operations Chris Antonetti responded calmly to Trump’s remarks, saying the team is focused on building its brand and is “excited about the future”.
Trump’s post on Truth Social claimed there is “a big clamoring” for the team to restore its original name, asserting that “our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen” and that their “heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away”.
Harmful Stereotypes in Play
Native American organizations swiftly condemned Trump’s comments. The Native American Rights Fund called the remarks “a distraction from the real harm this administration continues to inflict on Native Peoples,” adding that such mascots “reduce us to caricatures”.
Despite Trump’s claims, recent studies and statements from tribal leaders suggest otherwise. A 2020 survey found that at least half of Native Americans polled were offended by the Washington Commanders' former name.
Native-themed mascots often rely on caricatured imagery: feathered headdresses, exaggerated war cries, and stylized depictions of tribal warriors. These portrayals distort reality and reduce diverse Indigenous cultures to monolithic, outdated tropes.
Many team names and logos were created during eras with little regard for Indigenous sovereignty or representation. This historical context matters — using Native identities without consent perpetuates the power imbalance established during colonization.
"Native Americans are not mascots, nor should our cultures be misappropriated as such. Race or ethnic-themed mascots or school nicknames perpetuate the stereotypes and racism that harm Native and non-Native students," Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, statement to Guilford Public Schools.
“It’s very difficult to live in a world that thinks you don’t exist except in the context of these mascots," said Madison Eagle, a specialist of Cherokee heritage with the Multicultural Center’s Native American and Indigenous Student Initiatives.
As the debate intensifies, the Commanders and Guardians remain firm in their current identity.
Critics accuse Trump's flurry of wide-ranging posts on his social media of trying to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
SUGGESTION:
MAGA Tension Over Why Hasn’t Trump Released the Epstein Files
U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Keep ReadingShow less
News media's vital to democracy, Americans say; then a partisan divide yawns
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images
Public Media Under Fire: Why Project 2025 Is Reshaping NPR and PBS
Jul 22, 2025
This past spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part, nonpartisan series examining Project 2025—a sweeping policy blueprint for a potential second Trump administration. Our analysis explored the proposed reforms and their far-reaching implications across government. Now, as the 2025 administration begins to take shape, it’s time to move from speculation to reality.
In this follow-up, we turn our focus to one of the most consequential—and quietly unfolding—chapters of that blueprint: Funding cuts from NPR and PBS.
Last week, Congress approved a proposal from the Trump administration to eliminate $1.1 billion in funding previously allocated to NPR, PBS, and their affiliated member stations.
Following the vote, NPR CEO Katherine Maher denounced the cuts as an “irreversible loss,” describing them as “an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions” and “an act of Congress that disregards the public will.”
Two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, joined Democrats in opposing the measure. Nonetheless, the Senate version of the bill retains the cuts to public broadcasting.
Because the Senate revised the legislation, it must now return to the House for final approval. If the House adopts the Senate’s version, the bill will head to President Trump’s desk for signature. Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which regulates congressional handling of presidential rescission requests, the deadline for passage is Friday, marking the end of a strict 45-day window.
Whether this legislation supersedes Trump’s Executive Order is a complex constitutional question. In practical terms, the bill reinforces rather than repeals the restrictions outlined in Trump’s May 1, 2025, directive, which instructed federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to halt all direct and indirect support to NPR and PBS. The order also mandated revisions to existing contracts and funding rules to block future aid.
In short:
- The executive order established the policy intent.
- The legislation enforces it financially.
Absent judicial intervention or new congressional appropriations, both the executive order and the bill are poised to jointly eliminate public broadcasting funds beginning October 1, 2025. While laws passed by Congress can be challenged, such cases typically proceed only after enactment—and courts generally defer to Congress, viewing its legislation as an expression of the will of an elected body.
Now past the 100-day mark of his administration, President Trump’s policy rollout shows strong alignment with Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for governance. Despite repeated campaign trail assertions that he had “nothing to do with” the document and had not read it, the resemblance between his actions and Project 2025’s recommendations is striking.
Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr notified NPR and PBS leadership that the agency had opened an investigation into content aired across their 1,500 member stations, as reported by The New York Times.
These stations are licensed by the FCC as noncommercial educational broadcasters. They operate on reserved frequencies, are exempt from licensing fees, and are legally prohibited from airing commercial advertisements. In a letter dated April 2023 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Carr warned that certain broadcasts may breach federal standards:
“I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, NPR and PBS member stations may be broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements.”
Carr further questioned the necessity of continued federal support for NPR and PBS, citing shifts in the media landscape. PBS CEO Paula Kerger responded by noting that the cuts would “devastate PBS member stations,” particularly in smaller and rural communities.
Carr is the author of the FCC chapter in Project 2025’s policy blueprint. Another section calls on Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides grants to NPR and PBS.
According to Project 2025, "stripping public funding would, of course, mean that NPR, PBS, Pacifica Radio, and the other leftist broadcasters would be shorn of the presumption that they act in the public interest and receive the privileges that often accompany so acting."
Consequently, the document argues these outlets should no longer qualify as noncommercial educational broadcast stations.
The Fulcrum published over 30 columns in the three months leading up to last November’s election, offering a cross-partisan analysis of Project 2025. Our editorial stance was clear:
“We believed this would serve as a guide for citizens and elected representatives to safeguard the healthy democratic republic we all desire.”
The possibilities we spoke of then are now becoming reality. The negative impact of Project 2025 on institutions that have served Americans for generations is no longer speculative. It is unfolding before our eyes.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.
Hill Street Studios/Getty Images
New York City’s Ranked Choice Voting: Democracy That’s Accountable to Voters
Jul 22, 2025
New York City’s election has gotten a lot of attention over the last few weeks, and ranked choice voting is a big part of the reason why.
Heads turned when 33-year-old state legislator Zohran Mamdani knocked off Andrew Cuomo, a former governor from one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent families. The earliest polls for the mayoral primary this winter found Mamdani struggling to reach even 1 percent.
But polls don’t get to pick the winner. Voters do. And voters in New York City got to choose with ranked choice voting, which created the best of all possible worlds: A positive, issue-driven campaign with a wide range of candidates who could only win by engaging with voters.
While pundits have looked for clues in Mamdani’s messaging and social media strategies, the real takeaway from New York City isn’t what it means for Democrats, Republicans, or the 2026 midterms; It’s that better elections can empower voters to choose candidates who are accountable to them.
Ranked choice voting helped create an entirely different campaign in New York. It put voters back in charge – at a moment when record numbers of voters of all backgrounds are dissatisfied with the state of our democracy. With RCV, over one million New Yorkers – larger than the electorate in 17 states – experienced a better way to vote, and offered lessons for the rest of the nation.
Pundits thought that Cuomo’s name recognition and Super PAC funding would make him unstoppable – and that it would be very difficult for any serious challenger to emerge from a field so large. In other words: That the polls, his last name, and all that money would decide the race. Voters would merely ratify it.
That’s not how a ranked choice election works. When voters can rank their favorite candidates in order, rather than just picking one, plurality winners from divided fields become a thing of the past. And when politicians need to win with majority support and campaign to be voters’ second and third choices, they campaign broadly and talk to as many different voters as possible. Instead of going negative, they build coalitions and focus on issues important to voters.
The campaign in New York City did not resemble politics as usual – and that’s a good thing. Mamdani and city comptroller Brad Lander not only cross-endorsed each other, but bicycled across Manhattan to events together, and even shared the couch on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson expressed their support for Cuomo.
Cuomo, however, declined to rank anyone other than himself – while Mamdani recognized that RCV favors candidates who engage with voters. He and his volunteers did that more doggedly than anyone.
Ranked choice voting has no party bias. Republicans and Democrats have won RCV races in cities and states nationwide, as have liberals, conservatives, centrists, and independents. But it absolutely has an engagement bias: The best way to win is to take your message to the most voters and persuade them. That’s what politics should be.
Most importantly, voters in New York City resoundingly liked voting with RCV, and the more constructive politics it delivers.
An exit poll conducted by SurveyUSA found that 96 percent of voters found it easy to complete their ballot. More than three-quarters want to keep ranked choice voting, or even expand it to additional races.
Turnout skyrocketed to its highest mark since 1989, with over 1 million New Yorkers voting. And most importantly, 95 percent of voters weighed in between the top two vote-getters.
That includes more than 158,000 voters who put someone other than Mamdani or Cuomo first, but still indicated their preference for one over the other on their ballot. They experienced firsthand how RCV can give voters both more choice and more voice at the ballot box.
When 96 percent of New Yorkers can agree on something, perhaps it’s worth taking notice. Instead of polarizing us further, our elections can be an opportunity to build coalitions behind a future that a majority of voters support.
It’s a simple step, but a powerful one: It’s time to bring ranked choice voting to more cities and more states – and ensure that how we elect our leaders truly reflects the will of voters.
Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More