In 2012, Fair Elections Center (formerly Fair Elections Legal Network) launched Campus Vote Project (CVP) to focus and expand its work around student voting issues. CVP works with universities, community colleges, faculty, students and election officials to reduce barriers to student voting. Our goal is to help campuses institutionalize reforms that empower students with the information they need to register and vote.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Latest news
Read More
Guests in the audience await the arrival of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Conference at The Mayflower Hotel on April 25, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images/TNS
Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him
Jun 24, 2025
Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on “Liberation Day” as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there’s a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.
Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump’s response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:
“How is it possible for (the CIT judges) to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own ‘thing.’ I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!”
Let’s begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word “tariff” or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the “Penguin Islands” included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.)
Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a “sleazebag” and “bad person.” Note: Leo is neither of those things.
But Trump’s broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it’s fallen to the courts to restrain Trump’s multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That’s why the White House is cynically denouncing “unelected” and “rogue” judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump’s political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a “judicial coup.”
The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different?
Trump has a history of suggesting “my judges” — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That’s why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship.
The significance of Trump’s attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwa that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind.
Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him.
In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump’s image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that’s why the Federalist Society is in Trump’s crosshairs.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia.
(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
U.S. Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites: Trump’s Pivot Amid Middle East Crisis
Jun 23, 2025
In his televised address to the nation Saturday night regarding the U.S. strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks targeted “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.” He framed the operation as a necessary response to decades of Iranian aggression, citing past attacks on U.S. personnel and Tehran’s support for militant proxies.
While those justifications were likely key drivers, the decision to intervene was also shaped by a complex interplay of political strategy, alliance dynamics, and considerations of personal legacy.
From what’s publicly known, Trump’s choice to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities appears to have emerged from multiple forces. Initially, reports suggest he had resisted deeper involvement—going so far as to urge Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to delay a strike. But after Israel launched its offensive, the U.S. swiftly escalated the conflict, targeting sites such as Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Some analysts are already speculating that Trump’s pivot was influenced by pressure from Republican allies and a broader desire to reaffirm U.S. leadership amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty. Historical context adds another layer: Israeli leaders, especially Netanyahu, have long pushed for explicit U.S. support in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump’s decision could thus be interpreted as both an alignment with Israeli strategy and a calculated effort to ensure that the U.S. shaped the narrative and the ultimate outcome.
Whether his motivation was “taking credit” is debatable—but the optics of decisive American involvement, especially after years of projecting strength and unpredictability, are certainly in line with Trump’s political brand. He characterized the strikes as a triumph of U.S. military capability and, notably, called for peace in their aftermath.
In his second inaugural address, Trump forecasted that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier,” despite global conflicts during his tenure. He often highlighted diplomatic initiatives—like the Abraham Accords and his claimed de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan—as evidence of this legacy.
This aspiration—to be remembered as a unifier—creates a fascinating tension. The Israel-Iran conflict presented a real-time test of whether he could maintain that narrative while contemplating direct military involvement.
Trump faced a dilemma. Had Israel achieved a decisive victory alone, it might have complicated Trump’s image. On one hand, staying out could appeal to isolationist-leaning voters and reflect his “America First” philosophy. On the other, refusing to act might have made him appear disengaged in a defining moment—particularly if Israel’s action shifted the balance of power in the region.
In the week leading up to the strikes, Trump’s positioning seemed ambivalent. He praised Israel’s actions as “excellent” while simultaneously offering diplomatic overtures to Iran. His rhetoric—demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and issuing stark warnings to its Supreme Leader—suggested a desire to appear resolute without fully committing U.S. forces.
What shifted in those final days remains unclear. Given Trump’s history of claiming credit for broader institutional successes—economic growth, vaccine development it is reasonable to speculate that a post-facto involvement might have been the ideal outcome: share in the victory without absorbing the initial risk.
Supporters and critics differ on whether this represents strategic brilliance or self-promotion. But in the end, Trump may have orchestrated a best-of-both-worlds scenario—one where Israel bore the immediate burden, and he emerged as a bold, peace-leaning statesman, reinforcing U.S. strength.
There’s no definitive “smoking gun,” but the surrounding context suggests that legacy-building was part of the calculus. The resulting picture is layered: a blend of strategy, symbolism, and personal mythology that historians will undoubtedly scrutinize for decades.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.
Getty Images, Jena Ardell
What if We Fired the Parties?
Jun 23, 2025
Like many Americans, I have been increasingly disappointed by the candidates promoted by political parties because they tend to back candidates who are ultimately focused on personal gain and/or only advancing issues predetermined by party priorities while moving further away from responding to the needs of their constituents. According to The Guardian, in the 2024 election, the number of eligible voters who did not cast their ballot is more than the total of those who voted for either of the party candidates. So, maybe the real issue is that our political party system just isn’t working for most Americans anymore. Assuming this is even partially true, what if, instead of just complaining about the parties or holding our noses and voting for the "lesser evil" every November, we actually fired the parties—took away their grip on our democracy and built something better.
For decades, we've been told we only have two choices. But more and more Americans don't feel truly represented by either major party. We're exhausted by the noise, the blame games, the endless culture wars that solve nothing and only serve to increasingly marginalize portions of our citizenry. Americans want real solutions on housing, healthcare, education, wages, and the future we're leaving for the next generation. And we're not getting them. So, maybe it's time to ask a radical but necessary question: What if the problem isn't just the candidates but the political party system that keeps producing them?
The Case for Firing the Parties
A. They Were Never Supposed to Be Permanent
Political parties aren't mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders didn't design a system based on organized political factions. In fact, they explicitly warned against it. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, foretold that political parties would eventually "become potent engines" for individuals to seize and abuse power, dividing citizens and distracting the government from serving the public good. In a letter written by John Adams in 1780, he regarded the division of the republic into two great parties as "to be dreaded as the greatest political evil." In a 1789 letter from Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
Yet political parties arose almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified. These early versions of political parties formed largely out of necessity to organize debates and mobilize voters. Political parties were tools for winning elections. But over time, the tool began to control the system itself. Today, parties aren't just optional organizers of ideas, they have become gatekeepers of power, often more loyal to themselves than to the people they claim to serve.
B. They're Driving Us Apart
At their best, political parties organize ideas and make democracy more accessible. At their worst, and today, it often feels like the worst, they divide us into warring camps. What used to be policy disagreements have hardened into full-blown cultural and moral divides. According to Pew Research Center and Gallup surveys from the past decade, Americans are more polarized than at any point in modern history, and personal animosity between the two major parties' supporters has exploded.
Several forces have supercharged this divide:
- Partisan media ecosystems: Cable news, talk radio, and algorithm-driven social media relentlessly reinforce extreme narratives and punish nuance.
- Confirmation bias: In an environment flooded with information, people naturally seek out sources that affirm their existing beliefs—and attack anything that challenges them. Parties exploit this instinct, feeding voters curated "facts" that deepen mistrust.
- Gerrymandering: Safe districts create politicians who are more afraid of a primary challenge from within their own party rather than losing to the other side.
- Localization of national issues: Local governance increasingly reflects national political wars, making every issue seem existential.
Today’s parties thrive on conflict because conflict drives turnout, fundraising, and loyalty. But this conflict comes at a devastating cost. Instead of debating solutions, we debate whether the other side deserves a voice at all.
C. They Don't Deliver Results
Political parties often tout their accomplishments, but a closer examination reveals a pattern of overpromising and underdelivering.
The Biden Administration/Democratic party “accomplishments”:
- According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the American Rescue Plan created millions of jobs and stimulated recovery but rising inflation throughout 2022 and 2023 eroded many of those wage gains.
- The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act promised historic investment but implementation has been slow and uneven.
- Student loan forgiveness plans offered hope but were largely blocked, leaving millions in limbo. Student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion in the U.S., according to the Federal Reserve.
The Trump Administration/Republican party “accomplishments”:
- The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act during Trump’s first administration spurred short-term growth but added significantly to the national debt.
- Healthcare promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act fell flat, leaving the system largely unchanged.
- More recently, trade policies aimed to protect U.S. industries have triggered costly trade wars and market instability.
Both administrations can arguably tout tangible wins, but systemic challenges like healthcare access, education affordability, housing, and political corruption remain deeply entrenched. The problem isn't just with the individuals in charge. It's the party-driven system that prioritizes wins over results, elections over solutions.
What Would a Post-Party America Look Like?
Firing the parties doesn't mean firing democracy. It means reviving it, and moving beyond political parties could likely increase participation in our country’s democracy, particularly among those disenchanted with the current political party approach who no longer blindly agree with positions or issues championed by either party; as well as those who actively choose not to vote because they find the system too corrupt and unaccountable.
A. Independent Candidates and Open Elections
Without parties controlling the ballot, candidates would stand on their own platforms. Open primaries and nonpartisan general elections would allow for a wider, more diverse field of candidates.
B. Collaboration Over Tribalism
In a system without rigid party lines, coalitions would form around issues, not ideology. Leaders could work together on education, climate, healthcare, infrastructure, and more without fearing party retribution.
C. Power Back to the People, Not Just the Wealthy Few
Private sector business interests have too often hijacked party agendas. In a post-party system, publicly funded elections, stricter lobbying regulations, and greater transparency would put the government back where it belongs: working for citizens, not corporate sponsors.
Common Ground to Build On
The hunger for change is already here. Across the spectrum, Americans agree on term limits, fair elections, ending gerrymandering, and reducing the influence of big money.
Firing the parties isn't about abandoning values. It's about reclaiming them and reclaiming democracy itself. Electing more non-partisan candidates won't fix everything overnight and it won’t be easy. But even small efforts can make a significant impact. A recent Washington Post article highlighted the work of The Independent Center, an organization focused on electing a small number of centrist/independent candidates into Congress. If successful, the organization projects that this would completely remove the opportunity to legislate by a majority from either party, mandating collaboration across party lines, and focusing on issues of importance to their constituents.
Implementation of ongoing reforms like ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting commissions, and nonpartisan primaries show that better systems are possible in the U.S. Above all, we must remember: democracy isn't a finished product, it's a process. It's something we must consistently and conscientiously work on, generation after generation. By examining whether we actually need political parties in America, we will also be committing to improving our democracy. It won't be fast. But it's worth it. Because this country does not belong to the political parties. It belongs to us.
Ms. Alexious Butler is a seasoned global development and foreign policy expert with more than two decades of experience designing and leading complex international programs across Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Her work has spanned crisis response, democratic governance, and institutional reform, with a focus on driving impact in fragile and resource-constrained environments. She has advised national governments, multilateral institutions, and grassroots coalitions, and is recognized for her ability to align diverse stakeholders toward shared goals. Alexious holds degrees from Duke University, Georgia Tech, and the U.S. Army War College, and was recently honored as a national security and foreign policy leader to watch.
Keep ReadingShow less
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
The Medical Community Tells Congress That Telehealth Needs Permanent Federal Support
Jun 23, 2025
WASHINGTON–In March 2020, Stephanie Hendrick, a retired teacher in Roanoke, Virginia, contracted COVID-19, a virus that over 110 million people in the U.S. would contract over the next couple of years.
She recovered from the initial illness, but like many, she soon began experiencing long COVID symptoms. In the early months of the pandemic, hospitals and medical centers prioritized care for individuals with active COVID-19 infections, and pandemic restrictions limited travel and in-person treatment for other medical conditions. Hendrick’s options for care for long COVID were limited.
“No one knew what was going on,” Hendrick said. “No one knew what to do.”
But then, she found a north star: telehealth services. Hendrick contacted MedStar Health, a nearby healthcare provider, and she began meeting online with a physician. Through the computer screen, Hendrick was able to get a prescription for pulmonary cardiac rehab treatment and saw a speech pathologist to help deal with her symptoms.
“For me, if it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have gotten care. I would have just floundered,” she said.
Hendrick’s experience with medical care since the start of the pandemic mimics the experiences of millions of other Americans. Due to the pandemic, many more medical professionals began to see patients online. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 85% of physicians used telehealth services to treat patients in 2021, compared to 15% two years prior.
In August 2020, amid the pandemic, President Donald Trump signed an executive order expanding telehealth accessibility, including loosening restrictions for the 68 million Americans on Medicare. In 2022, President Joe Biden extended those provisions, and Congress has funded them in yearly budgets.
But, many of the expansions of telehealth access expire in less than four months. Without permanent legislation authorizing telehealth, the medical community has been unable to make the necessary investments in IT and other infrastructure to serve patients at or near their homes. In March, Trump and Congress extended telehealth access rules and funding until Sept. 30, but advocates and medical professionals continue to push for permanently enshrining the provisions into federal law.
“This should be a no-brainer for them,” Hendrick said. “There shouldn't be any questions about it.”
Telehealth usage by Medicare recipients has decreased since 2020, but remained about double what it was before the pandemic, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Members of Congress have introduced more than a dozen bills to expand telehealth services. Some have passed, such as the expansion of telemental health coverage, which was made permanent in 2021. But most have not progressed through Congress.
In March, Senator Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced the sweeping bipartisan CONNECT for Health Act, which would make many of the temporary provisions permanent. The bill would remove geographic requirements for telehealth services provided under Medicare and broaden the scope of medical professionals who may provide services.
However, the same bill was previously filed in 2019, 2021, and 2023, and Congress failed to act.
Experts said that by relying on one temporary provision or extension after another, Congress has hurt the medical industry and patients.
“In so many ways, this is an example of the muscle memory Congress has, of how it operates. It's a clear juxtaposition to state policy,” said Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telehealth Association.
Many state governments have implemented new telehealth rules to increase options for customers over the last five years. States like Florida and Oregon allow out-of-state telehealth providers to deliver services. As of last year, every state, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico offer telehealth services for those covered by Medicaid.
The Trump administration has been a vocal supporter of telehealth. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz both support expanding quality healthcare access, a Health and Human Services spokesperson said to the Medill News Service.
“They believe that leveraging technology is essential to modernizing our healthcare system and ensuring that all Americans, especially those in rural areas, receive the care they need,” the spokesperson said.
Lawmakers from both parties have also backed legislative changes to enshrine the telehealth provisions. Republican lawmakers, who disproportionately represent rural areas, support telehealth. Rural regions support telehealth investments due to a lack of medical specialists and important medical equipment. Democrats support telehealth services because they offer convenience for people who may not be able to leave work or family for a regular doctor's checkup.
Dr. Ethan Booker, MedStar Health’s chief medical officer for telehealth, said the medical community cannot make the needed investments in telehealth until Congress passes a law to support telehealth. MedStar was an early adopter of a telehealth model in 2016. Booker noted that the massive growth of telehealth demand during the pandemic sparked public and private investment.
“There was a lot of excitement around a sort of continued ramp (up) in volume of telehealth, and I think there was a fair amount of speculative investment,” Booker said.
As the pandemic died down, so did the exponential investment in the industry. Congress’s failure to make increased telehealth permanent created “a challenge for the health system.”
“I know we can deliver outstanding care,” Booker said. “I think permanence and more certainty around the regulatory environment will allow us to do much more effective cost-effectiveness research.”
Neither Zebley nor Booker anticipated that the telehealth provisions would disappear on Sept. 30. They expected the law to pass or for Congress to approve further extensions.
Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., one of the five senators who sponsored the CONNECT for Health Act, said the bill should pass “without delay and make affordable, high-quality care more accessible, no matter where they live.”
However, despite the September deadline for the provisions, the bill has seen no movement after being referred to the Senate Finance Committee in April.
Booker said that passing laws to support telehealth will help towards the goal of integrating telehealth services with standard medical care for patients across the country.
“People often ask what will success look like in telehealth, in digital health, in these new care models. And my answer usually is when we stop talking about it that way and we're just talking about healthcare,” Booker said.
This reality is also reflected in the lives of patients. Hendrick has friends and family in Roanoke who live in both suburban and rural regions. Hendrick's family is deeply connected to the medical community. Her father was a doctor, her mother and sister nurses, her brother is a medic, and her daughter is a physician assistant. She says telehealth is part of all of their careers.
For Hendrick’s circle, filled with medical personnel, telehealth is the norm.
“It shouldn't be that if you can't get to a doctor's office for whatever reason, you don't get medical care,” Hendrick said. “There should be a way for all of us to be able to look at a physician or a nurse face-to-face [on a screen] and be able to say, ‘Here's what's going on,’ and them to be able to say, ‘I can help you.’”
Ismael M. Belkoura is a graduate journalism student with the Medill News Service at Northwestern University. He specializes in health, business, and legal reporting.
To read more of Ismael's work, click HERE.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Please help the Fulcrum's NextGen initiatives by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More