Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Can We Disagree Honestly Again? The Pro‑Truth Answer

A bipartisan movement is teaching the habits that make honest disagreement possible again.

Opinion

A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

As misinformation and political polarization deepen in America, the Pro-Truth Pledge offers a nonpartisan, science-backed framework for rebuilding trust, civic honesty, and productive public discourse.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Walk into any family dinner, town hall, or social media feed in 2026, and the diagnosis is the same: we are not just disagreeing anymore. We are operating from different sets of facts.

Oxford Dictionary named "post-truth" its word of the year a decade ago, and the air has only gotten thinner since. AI-generated deepfakes circulate faster than corrections. Cable news rewards heat over light. And ordinary citizens — well-intentioned, busy, exhausted — share things their tribe wants to hear without checking whether those things are real.


The instinct is to blame the other side. That instinct is part of the problem.

Behavioral truthseeking is a skill. Most of us were never taught it. We were taught to argue, not to verify. To win, not to update. To distinguish "us" from "them," not opinion from fact. You cannot have a productive disagreement about immigration, school choice, or election reform if the participants cannot agree on what is actually happening.

The Pro-Truth Pledge was built to fix exactly that problem. And it was deliberately designed to be something both sides of the aisle can carry.

Created by a team of behavioral scientists and now signed by more than 33,000 people — including over 1,200 elected and appointed officials and 1,300 public figures — the pledge asks signers to commit to twelve specific truth-oriented behaviors, organized under three commitments: share truth, honor truth, and encourage truth.

It is, on its face, a list of things any thoughtful person should already do. That is exactly the point. The pledge takes the unglamorous work of civic honesty and makes it visible, shared, and accountable. This matters for civil discourse in two ways our current moment desperately needs.

First, the pledge gives us a way to disagree productively. Its twelve behaviors are nonpartisan by design and apply equally to everyone who signs. The shared standard does not eliminate disagreement; it gives disagreement somewhere stable to stand.

Second, the pledge enables what is mostly missing from American politics right now: solution discourse. Solutions require facts everyone can stipulate to, experts whose consensus is honored even when inconvenient, and the ability to update our beliefs when we are wrong. Each of those is a Pro-Truth behavior.

Two peer-reviewed studies — one in Behavior and Social Issues, another in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology — have measured the pledge's effect on signers. Both found statistically significant improvement: fewer misinformation-laden posts, more sourcing, more balanced framing. The pledge works because it leverages four behavioral levers at once — precommitment, reputation, peer accountability, and clear behavioral standards. In plain terms, it is a science-backed habit change for public conversation.

Signing the pledge is just the first step. Turning the Pro-Truth Pledge from a personal commitment into a national civic movement requires advocacy.

Changing how millions of Americans engage with information happens person by person, conversation by conversation. Pro-Truth advocates do that work: gathering signatures at community events, pitching the pledge to journalists and elected officials, writing letters to local editors, teaching the twelve behaviors in public settings, and gently holding fellow signers accountable when we slip.

That last part is everyone's job, including mine. The pledge is not a purity test. Signers who make honest mistakes are not punished; they are invited, compassionately, to correct the record. The point is not to catch people lying. The point is to make truth-telling the visible, expected, rewarded default.

If you are tired of feeling like the loudest, least honest voices are setting the terms of our public life, the Pro-Truth Pledge is a way to push back without picking a side — and there is a place for you in this movement at every level of time and capacity.

Start by signing the pledge at protruthpledge.org.

Then share it: post it on social media, send it to five people whose judgment you respect, and ask your elected representatives — both parties — to sign it themselves. If you have time to give, volunteer as a Pro-Truth advocate and help us bring the twelve behaviors into your community. If you have resources to give, become a checkbook volunteer; even a modest monthly donation funds the materials, training, and outreach that turn pledge signers into pledge teachers, and pledge teachers into a movement.

The lies are bipartisan. The antidote can be too — and it only works if we build it together.


Alana House is Director of the Pro-Truth Pledge, a project of the nonprofit Intentional Insights.


Read More

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

Ring–Fitzgerald Homestead, Will County (1987). A house still true to its original form, carrying forward the Rings’ steadiness, aspiration, and good citizenship across five generations.

Photo courtesy by Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

They got an early start; the morning light came on fast. The Ring siblings were headed to the Joliet depot with young Angela in tow — the same depot where Lincoln’s funeral train had passed in silence thirty years earlier. Now they were bound for the White City, forty miles northeast. The Columbian Exposition was a turning point for both Angela and America. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, pitched just outside the fairgrounds, rivaled the Exhibition itself.

One photograph captured it all. Taken in a fairground photo booth, the Ring siblings stood in their summer clothes, huddled around eleven-year-old Angela. Their faces were bright and open — a single moment preserved in time. Determined to outshine the 1889 Paris Exhibition and its Eiffel Tower, Chicago answered with George Ferris’s great wheel. At night, the city glowed, outlined in electric white light.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less