Democracy for All 2021 Action is a national campaign committed to building power for the people and making our government work for all of us. Our diverse coalition includes labor unions, think tanks, racial justice, environmental, reproductive health, and community organizations that represent millions of Americans. We are working toward implementing deep reforms in 2021 to unrig our political system once and for all.
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
Bipartisan Support for Legal Status and Immigration Reform
Sep 12, 2026
While immigration is a highly divisive issue in Washington, DC, new surveys in 11 competitive states and 28 congressional districts across the country reveal substantial bipartisan common ground among the public on proposals to address the millions of undocumented people living in the US.
These results come from surveys conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) to nearly 20,000 adults from May 27th to June 25th, as part of its Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted in the run-up to the November election, as well as in a national survey conducted in February with over 2500 respondents.
One of the largest areas of agreement is that undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime should be deported. A position supported by very large majorities of Democrats (70 to 91%) and Republicans (85 to 98%) across all of the states and districts surveyed. Nationally, a bipartisan majority also favors it (Democrats 79%, Republicans 94%, overall 85%).
But a much bigger question is how to deal with millions of undocumented immigrants without a criminal record who have been here for some years. Do Americans favor deporting them?
Apparently not. The proposal that elicits robust bipartisan support is to offer them a pathway to become legal residents, provided they pay a penalty and any owed taxes (Democrats 75 to 89%, Republicans 55 to 78%, overall 65 to 84%). Nationally, PPC found a bipartisan majority in favor (Democrats 84%, Republicans 69%, overall 77%).
Support for this proposal has also been echoed in other surveys by Gallup, Wall Street Journal, and Reuters/Ipsos.
But don’t many Americans have concerns about giving amnesty?
A 2024 survey by PPC – conducted nationally and in six battleground states – presented arguments for and against offering such a path to legal status, and majorities found arguments that this would amount to amnesty convincing. But larger majorities found convincing arguments that it is simply not feasible to deport more than 10 million immigrants who have been living here for some years and that doing so would be harmful, as it would take away workers who play an important role in the economy.
Even larger bipartisan majorities agreed that people brought to the US illegally as children should be offered a pathway to citizenship (Democrats 80 to 95%, Republicans 60 to 82%, overall 70 to 86%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 76%, overall 83%).
At the same time, Americans want to deter illegal immigration going forward.
Since work is the primary motivator for most immigrants coming here illegally, bipartisan majorities across all of the battleground states and districts support a two-part proposal that would steer immigrants seeking work into a legal pathway.
First, it would require employers to verify new employees’ legal status through E-Verify, thereby making it harder for undocumented immigrants to obtain employment. At the same time, it would substantially increase the number of work visas to meet labor demand, opening a legal channel.
This proposal was supported by over two-thirds of Democrats (75 to 90%) and Republicans (67 to 89%) and overall (76 to 85%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority favors it (Democrats 84%, Republicans 82%, overall 83%).
PPC found bipartisan support for this same package in 2024 – nationally and in six swing states – in a survey that included strongly worded arguments for and against the proposal.
The survey also addressed the problem of many immigrants who have applied for asylum and then wait for years to have their cases heard. Bipartisan majorities favor hiring more immigration court judges to speed up asylum cases (Democrats 72 to 87%, Republicans 66 to 83%, overall 71 to 83%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 83%, Republicans 73%, overall 76%).
Overall, it is clear that Americans are uncomfortable with the millions of immigrants living and working in the US in an illegal or ambiguous state. And they do not see mass deportation as a solution, beyond those who have been convicted of crimes, as so many have been effectively assimilated into the American economy.
They primarily support proposals that bring them out of the shadows and integrate them through legal channels, while also strengthening enforcement measures to deter future illegal immigration.
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the seventh in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts.
You can find results for individual states and districts, as well as national results, here.
Dr. Steven Kull is the Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Evan Charles Lewitus is the Associate Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump dances off stage at the end of a campaign rally at the Grappone Convention Center on Friday, Jan. 19, 2024, in Concord, New Hampshire.
(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/TNS)
‘Trumpapalooza’ is a sad, unnecessary spectacle that achieves nothing
Sep 11, 2026
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says the GOP midterm election “convention” will be a “Trumpapalooza.” It’d be better if everyone called it that.
American political conventions are one of the best examples — among way too many — of American institutional decay.
In the 19th century and much of the 20th century, the quadrennial party conventions were indispensable pieces of political technology. I mean that literally. Traditionally, conventions were where party stakeholders — elected officials, party bosses, etc. — chose the nominee. Factions representing regions, interests, even ideas (how quaint!) would debate and horse-trade with each other, sometimes over days of voting, to name someone the party could get behind.
That system started to atrophy in the 1930s, as Michael Barone, the great political analyst, has argued, because of the telephone. The kind of negotiating required for a nominee to win support was impossible to do by letter. It took too long, and besides, putting things in writing risked exposing deals and other favor-trading for which savvy politicians would never want a paper trail. You had to do it face-to-face.
“The conventions were thus communication devices,” Barone writes, “in which campaign managers assessed candidates’ strength — and responded. Votes would be held back, so as to show momentum on later ballots. Favorite-son candidacies would be launched, in the hopes that they could be withdrawn later for reward or parlayed into a dark-horse nomination. No one had an accurate idea of how many delegates candidates had.”
The telephone changed that. In 1936, President Roosevelt used the new technology of long-distance calling to organize support well in advance of the convention.
Polling, and then television, further sapped away the function of conventions. Who needs party bosses to tell you the mood of the rank and file, when polling can deliver a much richer picture? Why put floor fights and other fodder for opponents on TV? Better to offer a picture of solidarity and excitement.
But the real death knell came in 1972 with the “reforms” promulgated by Democrat George McGovern, which were quickly adopted by the GOP. These reforms — which I think were deformations of our democratic system — took the power to nominate a candidate away from the stakeholders and gave it to rank-and-file voters. We thus became the first and one of the only advanced democracies where parties can no longer choose their own candidates.
I think that was a disaster, but that’s a column for another time. One of the consequences of that disaster was that party conventions essentially became infomercials ratifying a fait accompli. The brokered convention — even the prospect for one — is gone now, replaced by a coronation.
But at least the coronation still serves a purpose. It’s still a necessary function of our electoral system. A boring, intelligence-insulting, performative function, but a function all the same.
This midterm “convention” isn’t even that. No one will be formally nominated. It’s just an opportunity for President Trump to put on a show — about himself.
Defenders might say there’s precedent for this, but their argument proves my point about decay. Democrats in 1974, 1978 and 1982 had midterm conventions. But those conventions involved various committee meetings in which party rules and resolutions were proposed and debated.
In 1978, President Carter defended the midterm convention.
“I believe it is very important for me, as a president, and also as head of the Democratic Party, to have my success and failures assessed objectively and openly by Democrats representing the grassroots of our party around the nation,” Carter said. “I think that was done in a very forthcoming way.”
The Washington Post reported that John C. White, the Democratic Party chairman, was worried that delegate disputes could “turn the convention into a public relations failure.”
“Of course we have a broad range of opinions on some issues within our party,” White said. “But if we get foolish, if we go beyond proper political division and look quarrelsome, these are things that could hurt the Democratic Party and the Democratic president.”
If you think the Dallas Trumpalooza is going to include an open and objective discussion of Trump’s failures, or feature even the slightest political division, I want to congratulate you for having just emerged from a decade-long coma.
This is a commercial with a live studio audience and nothing more. Indeed, the rot of our political institutions on display is not confined to the GOP. One of the featured keynote speakers is Attorney General Todd Blanche. Whether the already ethically compromised AG’s appearance at an expressly partisan event is a violation of the Hatch Act is something for the lawyers to debate. But the spirit of it is grotesque, and a sign that our parties aren’t the only institutions that have lost their way.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.
Gary Hershorn/Getty Images
How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship
Sep 11, 2026
Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.
To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.
The meaning of 9/11 has evolved alongside America itself. The grief, unity, questions, and enduring tensions all reflect the ongoing effort to build a healthier democracy. These reflections remind us that citizenship is not a static role; it is a daily practice shaped by the moments that challenge us most. My hope is that this collection encourages us to examine honestly where we are today and to recommit to the mission of strengthening the bonds that unite us.
David L. Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Beyond the initial shock of the attacks and the inevitable changes to our collective psyche, I have several sharp memories of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. First was a deeply personal call with my sister. She was witnessing the posters of missing people as she walked the streets of Lower Manhattan, while I sat in a pizza parlor in California. The dissonance was palpable. A few days earlier, her phone call alerted me to the attack, as she checked in to say she was OK. I remember hearing stories in the days that followed from friends whose friends had miraculously missed being in the Twin Towers. Another friend missed the Boston flight. As a result, the attack felt deeply personal. Many friends also grieved those who had been lost. Upon reflection, it may have been my disappointment with Congress that our political unity was so short-lived, which contributed to my entry into good governance organizations in 2003. I'm still dedicated to that cause, 25 years later.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including serving as a catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and as the host of the podcast Terrified Nation. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation.
On September 11, 2001, I was a young father and seminarian, still figuring out what it meant to lead and serve. The day started like any other—dropping off my child, heading into work—until everything changed. News spread faster than understanding. Words failed. In those first hours, I searched for something to hold onto—some meaning, some comfort.
But in the days that followed, what stood out wasn’t only fear or sorrow. I remember neighbors praying, strangers helping, communities leaning on one another. In the midst of tragedy, ordinary people showed remarkable care.
Twenty-five years later, remembering alone isn’t enough. This anniversary asks what we’ve done with our grief, what we’ve learned, and who we’ve become. We are summoned to a way of being I call weaving: drawing together memory, pain, difference, and hope to create a more compassionate common life. Our healing—and our democracy—depend on remembering honestly, empathizing deeply, and working together. That is the living memorial we owe the future.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, my daughter’s neighborhood playgroup gathered at our home. Four four-year-olds were picking apples on a perfect late-summer day.
I watched the little girls playing as the television blared the same images over and over again: planes exploding into New York City’s Twin Towers, the aftermath of the crash into the Pentagon.
These contrasting scenes: innocent children playing in an orchard under a clear blue sky, and the terrible evil unfurling as the towers collapsed and the smoking skies darkened…an unfathomable juxtaposition.
How could both exist in the same country at the same time?
Now, twenty-five years later, those little girls grown, I still wonder. How can so many believe in our nation, and so many disparage it?
That very long day unraveled into that very long week. The plight of Flight 93 unfolded, the story of its brave passengers instigating a takedown, their intentional sacrifice.
Leading the charge to seize control of the plane, Todd Beamer’s words still thrill and inspire me: “Let’s roll!”
Yes. Let’s do.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
In New York on 9/11, I was working as a journalist when the first tower was hit, and the city I knew so well became unrecognizable in an instant. I didn’t go home for days. I stayed in the newsroom, trying to make sense of what we were witnessing as we documented the grief unfolding around us.
When I finally returned home, I remember stopping in place. House after house on my block had raised an American flag — a quiet, collective gesture that felt like the neighborhood was exhaling together after holding its breath for days. The first thing I did was put up my own flag.
In that moment, the flag became more than a symbol of the nation; it became a reminder of the responsibilities we share as citizens. It wasn’t an act of patriotism as much as a gesture of mourning and connection — a way to say we are still here, we belong to one another, and that even in the face of unimaginable loss, we can choose to rebuild the civic fabric that holds us together.
The memory of 9/11 continues to shape how many Americans understand citizenship today: not just as a legal status, but as a commitment to community, service, and showing up for one another in moments of crisis.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a“ Steel Across America” event ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks on the Ellipse near the White House on Sept. 8, 2026 in Washington, D.C. President Trump welcomed 9/ 11 first responders to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation’ s“ Steel Across America” event featuring a 16,900- pound, 21- foot steel beam recovered.
For Trump, even 9/11 is an opportunity
There was a reason organizers of the 9/11 ceremony in Manhattan told President Trump he could not speak at this year’s memorial service.
A good one, it turns out.
Because in a speech he gave on Tuesday in Washington, he did exactly what they were presumably worried about — he made it about himself.
According to The New York Times, Trump had wanted a speaking role at the service, but the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum, which oversees the site, said no, as they’ve maintained for the past decade-plus that the venue and event should be nonpartisan.
Trump has long used awful tragedies to either puff himself up, trash political opponents, or sell lies to the American people.
He blamed a deadly plane crash at Washington National Airport last year on diversity, equity and inclusion policies. He blamed Puerto Ricans for the devastation they endured after Hurricane Maria in 2017. He reportedly considered withholding disaster relief after the California wildfires based on the way affected regions voted. In an interview on Fox News meant to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, he used the occasion to slam former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…with graves of the dead behind him.
And now, as we approach the 25th anniversary of what many New Yorkers consider the darkest day in modern history, Trump has done it again.
He told a rambling, nonsensical story — one he’s told before — about going to Ground Zero just after terrorists flew two commercial jets into the twin towers. In the story, which no one has been able to verify, despite multiple attempts, he says firefighters had to carry him out of One Liberty Plaza, also known as the U.S. Steel Building, because they thought it was about to collapse.
As CNN fact checker Daniel Dale notes, there’s no evidence Trump went into this building, especially at a time when NYPD and NYFD had locked down the area. There’s no evidence that building was collapsing — in fact, it was deemed structurally sound and reopened within two months of the attacks. There’s no evidence he was carried out of it by firefighters.
But the lie isn’t even the worst part. Pretend it was all true — why would the leader of our country, and a New Yorker, decide to make that tragic day about himself?
Because that’s who Donald Trump is. He’s a malignant narcissist.
He’s also, incidentally, a terrible and ineffectual president, who’s made ill-fated decisions that he has to keep defending, and there’s nothing he won’t do to make himself look and feel better.
Within the first two minutes of his speech, he was cravenly using 9/11 to justify and promote his dumb war in Iran — two events separated by 25 years and 6,000 miles.
“And I will tell you, we’re right now fighting because we have a certain nation that wanted a nuclear weapon, they were very close to getting it, and now they have no chance at getting it. They will never have a nuclear weapon. Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. And they’ve been punished greatly. As you know, we’ve really taken it to them.”
As a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, still one of the worst days of my life, I’m utterly sickened by Trump’s crass, political, and self-promotional framing of that awful day.
And I’m relieved he won’t be given a platform to do it again on Friday’s anniversary in lower Manhattan.
Because for Trump, everything is his for the taking, and absolutely nothing is sacred.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.