Jon Meacham is one of America’s leading thinkers on how the country’s political history can inform the present. He recently visited Penn State to present a lecture on his 2018 book The Soul of America and joined us for a wide-ranging conversation on the war in Ukraine (and whether Zelensky really is like Churchill), American polarization polarization, the changing media landscape, and more.
Check out his recent interview on "Democracy Works."
Listen now
US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition
The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.
The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.
That shift tells us that the United States, even under leaders who claim to reject interventionism, still defaults to force when diplomacy becomes slow or inconvenient. And it tells us that Latin America, despite decades of rhetoric about autonomy and non‑intervention, remains structurally vulnerable to the decisions made in Washington.
Predictably, governments across the region expressed shock. Some condemned the raid as a violation of sovereignty. Others issued carefully worded statements about “regional stability.” But the truth is that many of these same governments had privately urged the U.S. to “do something,” as migration pressures, criminal networks, and political instability spilled across borders.
This is the quiet contradiction at the heart of hemispheric politics: countries want the benefits of U.S. power without the responsibility of endorsing it. They want stability without fingerprints. They want intervention without admitting they asked for it.
The operation was not a spontaneous strike. It was the endpoint of a strategic buildup: intelligence escalation, regional pressure, and a belief that Maduro’s inner circle was fracturing. But the U.S. has now inherited something far more complicated than a criminal case.
It has inherited the story.
Washington will now be blamed for whatever comes next—whether Venezuela fractures, whether migration surges, whether foreign powers attempt to fill the vacuum. The U.S. chose to remove a head of state; it cannot now pretend to be a bystander to the consequences.
The country stands at a crossroads with no easy path forward:
Maduro’s capture may feel like justice to some, but justice without a plan is simply disruption.
The question now is not whether the U.S. was justified. The question is whether the hemisphere is prepared to confront the implications of what it quietly allowed to happen.
If Latin America wants sovereignty, it must build the institutions that make sovereignty real. If the U.S. wants stability, it must resist the temptation to treat military success as political strategy. And if Venezuela wants a future beyond strongmen—whether homegrown or foreign—it must craft a transition that centers legitimacy, not expedience.
Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It is the start of a far more complicated chapter.
Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient was first published on the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the publisher of the Latino News Network executive editor of The Fulcrum.
When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.
Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.
Billionaire Harlan Crow purchased and renovated Clarence Thomas’s mother’s home, allowing her to remain rent-free. Justice Samuel Alito accepted a luxury fishing trip from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, whose firm later had cases before the Court. These were not harmless tokens; they were violations of ethics and moral conscience, exposing how billionaire money bends justice to privilege.
Billionaire influence seeps even into prisons, creating a pattern of billionaire privilege. The rule of law collapses when billionaires and their allies receive leniency while ordinary citizens face harsher realities. In prison, the late Jeffrey Epstein secured perks and delays unavailable to ordinary inmates. Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted of aiding his crimes, likewise received privileges that ordinary prisoners could never expect. Money and influence bend the rules of justice for the rich, while ordinary prisoners live under rigid, standardized conditions — yet we are supposed to believe that no one is above the law.
Meanwhile, across Congress, billionaire influence may be silent, but it is bold in the policies and laws they shape — and in the campaign funds that sustain leaders. The billionaire‑driven, Big Beautiful Bill is proof: it slashed Medicaid, SNAP, and student aid while delivering billions in tax breaks to the wealthy. Families in every state pay their fair share while billionaires avoid theirs.
In this current system, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer — Republican, Democrat, or Independent, in red, blue, and purple states. The damage done by billionaires affects the well‑being of all Americans, regardless of party. Politicians in Congress do not appear to empathize with their own constituents crying out for food, housing, and healthcare relief — begging for a piece of the American dream, hanging on the promises made in the Constitution’s principles. Instead of listening, too many leaders bend to donors, leaving families desperate while billionaire interests thrive.
Trump claims to serve the forgotten men and women of America, yet he openly embraces quid pro quo. His presidency itself left a money trail — donations in, favors out — and Americans watched as it happened. He refused to divest from his businesses, allowing foreign governments and lobbyists to funnel money through his hotels. He staffed his properties with immigrant workers on temporary visas, even as he railed against immigration. His golf courses abroad carried heavy debts, yet he used taxpayer-funded trips to promote them. And now, he seeks to reacquire his former Washington, D.C. hotel, once a hub for foreign dignitaries and lobbyists, to again profit from public office. Transparency is undermined, and hypocrisy is glaring, as citizens cannot see where public duty ends and private profit begins.
At the same time, Elon Musk illustrates another dimension of billionaire privilege. The trail of money to Elon Musk is visible and cannot be overlooked. His billions are fueled not only by private ventures but also by taxpayer-funded government contracts. Musk’s billions also influenced the 2024 election, as his platforms and contracts amplified billionaire voices while ordinary citizens were drowned out. His wealth was not just private fortune — it became political leverage. In the billionaires’ world, ordinary citizens have no place. Families struggle to keep health care, while billionaires use their power to strip protections away. Equality is shattered, as billionaire money bends institutions while ordinary citizens are excluded.
By contrast, Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden demonstrated what it means to work for the people, by the people. Obama expanded health care through the Affordable Care Act, created jobs with the Recovery Act, and protected families with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Biden lowered prescription drug prices through the Inflation Reduction Act, capped insulin costs, and defended voting rights. These policies lifted ordinary Americans. Yet Project 2025 proved to be a blueprint for wealthy conservatives to control government — expanding tax cuts for billionaires, dismantling social programs, and silencing diversity.
The people elect leaders to serve us, yet too many ignore their oaths and work instead for billionaires. The Constitution they swore to uphold becomes secondary to donor checks, luxury gifts, and promises of power. Their allegiance is not to the citizens who trusted them, but to the wealthy interests that fund their campaigns and shape their votes. This betrayal is the money trail in action — democracy bent to serve the powerful, not the people. Thus, the principles of democracy — popular sovereignty, equality, justice, accountability, transparency, representation, and rule of law — are compromised when billionaire money dominates.
The money trail runs long and spreads wide. In silence, billionaire money and influence in our country are taking over our Republic. Yet silence is complicity, and when the people stay silent, they surrender to billionaire power.
To refocus on the people, to reclaim government for the people, by the people, citizens must demand campaign finance reform; insist on transparency in Congress and the Supreme Court; hold leaders accountable to their oaths; and press for binding ethics laws that prohibit donor‑driven policymaking and protect social programs from cuts designed to enrich the wealthy.
The Supreme Court must adopt enforceable ethics codes; end acceptance of gifts; strengthen recusal rules; and reaffirm equal justice under law. Citizens must also demand transparency laws requiring full disclosure of donations, lobbying contracts, and government perks; dismantle dark money networks; end gerrymandering through independent redistricting commissions; and protect election integrity with stronger safeguards.
Above all, I demand that Congress and the Supreme Court honor their oaths, hold themselves accountable, and have the courage to act ethically, make moral decisions, exercise the checks and balances, and the separation of powers. I demand that our country return to a sense of normalcy.
The money trail must be broken — and democracy restored.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and healthcare justice.
U.S. President Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida.
CARACAS, Venezuela — Hours after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a large‑scale military operation, President Donald Trump said the United States would “run the country” until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” can take place. The comments immediately triggered a global debate over who should govern Venezuela during the power vacuum left by Maduro’s removal.
Trump said Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in as interim president.The president said that “we’ve spoken to her [Rodriguez] numerous times, and she understands, she understands.” However, Rodríguez, speaking live on television Saturday, condemned the U.S. attack and demanded "the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. The only president of Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro."
With Maduro detained and flown to the United States to face federal charges, Venezuela now confronts a constitutional crisis, competing claims to authority, and intense international scrutiny.
Under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the vice president assumes power when the presidency is vacated. That makes Rodríguez, Maduro’s longtime deputy, the constitutional successor.
Rodríguez has served as vice president since 2018 and has been central to Maduro’s political apparatus. State media reported she was coordinating emergency communications after the U.S. operation, though independent confirmation remains limited.
Analysts warn that Venezuela’s military high command may assert control during the crisis. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López has vowed that Venezuela will “prevail” and “not negotiate” with the United States.
Several opposition leaders—long sidelined under Maduro—are now being discussed as potential successors.
Some analysts view Nobel Peace Prize recipient and prominent opposition figure María Corina Machado as a leading contender. Experts told Fox News she and ally Edmundo González have broad public support.
Recognized by the United States as the legitimate winner of Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, Edmundo González is also considered a viable transitional leader.
Opposition groups argue that a civilian‑led transition is essential to restoring democratic institutions.
President Trump has said the United States will be “very involved” in determining Venezuela’s next leader, arguing that Washington cannot allow “somebody else” to take over and recreate the conditions that existed under Maduro.
Trump’s assertions that the United States will “run the country,” maintain a “partnership” with Venezuela’s oil industry during the transition, and keep American forces positioned for additional action have intensified concerns about U.S. overreach and the legality of unilateral intervention.
Governments across Latin America have expressed alarm at the prospect of U.S. administration of Venezuela.
“The Colombian government rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America,” Petro said, urging an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where Colombia currently holds a seat.
In Chile, outgoing President Gabriel Boric also condemned the attack. But President‑elect José Antonio Kast — who campaigned on promises to crack down on migration and crime — struck a sharply different tone. In a post on X, he called Maduro’s arrest “great news for the region.”
“Now begins a greater task. The governments of Latin America must ensure that the entire apparatus of the regime abandons power and is held accountable,” said Kast, who will be sworn in on March 11.
Venezuelan officials have condemned the U.S. operation as a “grave military aggression” and accused Washington of violating international law.
Venezuela faces a volatile and uncertain period. With Maduro detained abroad, competing factions—constitutional, military, opposition, and foreign—are now vying to shape the country’s future.
What remains clear is that the question of who should run Venezuela is no longer merely a domestic matter. It is now a geopolitical struggle with global implications.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.
After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."
With my doctor’s approval, I’ve collected a few short excerpts from the pieces I wrote this year, ranging from Trump’s comments about Rob Reiner’s death to the dehumanizing idea of the so-called "Gold Card" for immigrants. Each situation is different, but they all have one thing in common: treating people as props, enemies, or punchlines instead of citizens who deserve dignity.
To illustrate how these themes have surfaced throughout the year, I’ve gathered several of my 2025 columns below. Each examines a different moment, yet together they reveal a consistent pattern in the public conduct I’ve been tracking. The headlines and links offer a clear record of how these episodes unfolded and why they raised concerns about how citizens are spoken to and treated.
Back in February, Kristina Becvar and I wrote a column in The Fulcrum that described a dilemma this piece brings back into focus:
“Our challenge as a publication, dedicated to keeping our readers informed so we can repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, is not to be overly reactive or partisan. At the same time, we must not ignore the dangers of the administration’s degrading, hostile, and accusatory language and dangerous actions when they occur, while also acknowledging inappropriate responses when they occur.”
We concluded that it is all too easy to react to President Trump’s behavior. But if we only do that, we risk losing sight of The Fulcrum’s mission. We invite you to help us make The Fulcrum a place where people inside and outside politics can learn, meet, talk, and work together to repair our democracy and make it part of daily life.
We work toward that mission by:
Sticking to this mission while also calling out dangerous language from the administration is a tough balancing act. It’s possible to strongly criticize harmful words or actions and still admit that some concerns may have a bit of truth. Finding that truth and sharing it responsibly is one of our main goals.
With that mission in mind, I share these examples of how our President has repeatedly gone against the principles of freedom, trust, and honorable success. If that means I have "Trump Derangement Syndrome," I accept it. And if standing up for truth, reason, civility, and the dignity of every person, no matter their background, means The Fulcrum is labeled with this so-called syndrome, we’ll wear it proudly.
The real danger isn’t that some people speak out too loudly about indecency. The real danger is that too many have become numb to it. This numbness manifests in alarming ways: voter participation dwindles as people lose faith in the power of their voice; important policies stall because collective advocacy wavers; and the erosion of moral accountability quietly gains ground. It’s this passive acceptance of the unacceptable that poses the gravest threat to our democracy.
In the words of President Ronald Reagan: “This Nation must remain and will remain a beacon of hope for all who strive for human dignity.” And again: “We will be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom.”
As we begin a new year, my hope is simple: that readers of this column take a moment to consider what they can do in 2026 to strengthen the democratic principles they value. Imagine what might happen if you committed just one hour a month to exploring a viewpoint fundamentally different from your own—and then sought out a respectful conversation with someone who holds that perspective. Or consider joining a local organization dedicated to bridge‑building in your community, offering your time, your skills, or simply your willingness to listen. These are small but meaningful ways to turn concern into action, and to help ensure that America grows stronger through the shared efforts of people across the political spectrum.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It asks something of each of us. If we choose to remain on the sidelines in 2026, we risk losing our influence over decisions that affect our daily lives and the future of our communities. The absence of active participation may lead to policies that do not reflect our collective values, gradually eroding the very freedoms we cherish. So let us make a collective pledge to do our part: to engage, to learn, to show up, and to help ensure that our nation remains, in President Reagan's words, a beacon of hope for all who strive for human dignity. By committing to active involvement, we not only preserve our democracy but also strengthen it, securing a better future for generations to come.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
