Today's #ListenFirst Friday video focuses on the importance of overcoming political divides and coming together to combat climate change.
Video: #ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
#ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
red and white x sign
Photo by Milan Csizmadia on Unsplash
Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
Mar 23, 2025
On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.
CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.
In an appearance on Fox News this week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick encouraged viewers to buy stock in Tesla, the car company owned by Elon Musk, a “special government employee” advising the president and a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) leader.
The CLC complaint states the following:
“Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) respectfully requests that the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”) and the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) investigate whether Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick violated the federal ban on government officials using their public positions for private gain. Specifically, on March 19, 2025, Secretary Lutnick appeared on a national television news program in his official capacity and told viewers to purchase Tesla stock.1 Public officials are prohibited from promoting any “product, service, or enterprise,” and Secretary Lutnick’s actions require an investigation of this apparently flagrant violation of federal law.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The ethics laws that prohibit using public office for private gain exist to hold public officials accountable to their responsibility of serving the public good. No public good is served when a cabinet official acts as an influencer promoting a company’s stock. If senior officials in the executive branch are allowed to blatantly ignore ethics laws without consequence, it decreases public trust in our institutions. It is therefore imperative that OGE and Commerce investigate whether Secretary Lutnick improperly used his position to promote Tesla stock.”
Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:
“The president’s Cabinet members take an oath to serve the American people, and with that oath comes the ability and privilege to exercise a vast amount of power. Such power is intended to promote the public interest and is legally barred from promoting personal business interests.
Secretary Lutnick’s actions violate the ethics rules that were enacted to hold public officials accountable to the American people. His statement is part of a pattern of behavior showing that Trump’s indifference to ethics is trickling down to his most senior officials.
The American people deserve a government that prioritizes public good. Most people will conclude that promoting a stock is not tied to any public good, and ethics laws agree. The Office of Government Ethics and Commerce ethics officials should hold Lutnick accountable and reassure the public that their officials will face consequences if they use their public office to enrich themselves or their allies.”
Federal Ethics Laws clearly prohibit executive branch employees from promoting any company in their official capacity.
Section 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 states that “employees may not use their public office for their own private gain; [or] for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.” Specifically, the law provides that “employees may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title or any authority associated with their public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise” with two narrow exceptions.
One exception to the rule is if an official offers an endorsement “in furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services, or enterprises.” The second exception is if the endorsement is the “result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency’s mission.”
Since President Trump recently removed the director of the Office of Government Ethics, David Huitema, who was appointed during the Biden administration, and replaced him with Doug Collins, a former Republican Congressman, critics argue that these changes could undermine its ability to hold officials accountable. Complaints such as the one filed by CLC’s are less likely to be adjudicated in impartially.
This is unfortunate since the OGE's mission is to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure ethical conduct, and its effectiveness depends on its leadership's commitment to impartiality.
Despite the possibility that CLC’s complaint won’t be adjudicated impartially it is critical to have complaints such as this one filed so that the public is aware of the seriousness of these potential ethics violations.
Ethical behavior ensures that public officials act with integrity, making decisions in the people's best interest rather than for personal gain. Without ethical conduct, trust erodes, and the legitimacy of democratic governance is undermined.
The very foundation of our democracy relies on citizens having confidence in their leaders and institutions.
To read the full complaint, click HERE.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The U.S. White House.
Getty Images, Caroline Purser
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity
Mar 21, 2025
Presidential Immunity: History and Background
Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.
These cases are as follows:
- Mississippi v. Johnson (1867): When Congress passed the controversial Reconstruction Acts of 1867, the state of Mississippi attempted to block their implementation by asking the Supreme Court for an injunction against President Andrew Johnson to prevent him from enforcing the Acts. The Supreme Court held that they had no right to prevent a president from acting in their official capacity, setting the stage for future immunity rulings.
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): Arthur Fitzgerald was an Air Force employee who testified before Congress about the Air Force’s cost overruns and technical difficulties. When he was later fired during a departmental reorganization under Richard Nixon’s presidency, Fitzgerald sued Nixon on the grounds that his firing was retaliation for his testimony. The Supreme Court held that the president has absolute immunity from civil liability arising from any official action taken while in office, officially creating the privilege of civil presidential immunity.
- Clinton v. Jones (1997): Paula Jones alleged that Bill Clinton had sexually harassed her while he was Governor of Arkansas. The federal judge assigned the trial delayed it until Clinton was out of office under the belief that sitting presidents are immune from all civil suits. However, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a civil lawsuit against a current president to proceed if it is unrelated to behavior that occurred during time in office. This is because executive immunity does not apply to actions committed outside of executive office.
- Trump v. United States (2024): When indicted for his connections to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, former President Donald Trump claimed that he could not be prosecuted for his acts unless he had been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court held that former presidents can never be prosecuted for actions relating to the core powers of their office and that they are presumptively immune from criminal liability, in addition to civil liability, for their official acts. However, they also held that presidents have no immunity for unofficial acts and preserved the possibility of prosecuting presidents for some acts within their formal responsibilities.
There are two important distinctions to make in examining these cases and their holdings. The first is between a civil suit and a criminal prosecution. Historically, presidential immunity has only been extended to civil suits. However, Trump’s recent Supreme Court case has now sparked a debate over the potential validity of criminal immunity. The second distinction is between an official and an unofficial, or private, act. An official act is an action taken within the scope of the president’s powers as outlined by Article II of the Constitution. All other actions undertaken by a president, even those which occurred during their term, are considered private acts. Much of the controversy around Trump’s claims of immunity arises from uncertainty as to whether his actions should be considered official or private.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Arguments in Favor of Presidential Immunity
One argument in favor of presidential immunity is that it prevents retaliatory and politically biased prosecutions against presidents. Without established immunity, politically biased prosecutors could unfairly target presidents for arbitrary reasons once they leave office. For example, most U.S. presidents are accused of insufficiently enforcing a federal law at least once during their term. Most of the time, these accusations go nowhere. However, without the privilege of presidential immunity, these accusations could turn into prosecutions by their political opponents.
This contributes to another popular argument in favor of immunity — that it protects the ability of the executive branch to function effectively. Proponents argue that presidential immunity allows presidents to freely make decisions based on the public interest, rather than choosing a less optimal but “safer” option to avoid future prosecution. This protects the independence of the executive branch by giving the president free reign to exercise their powers and perform their duties without fear of the courts. Supporters of presidential immunity claim that it maintains the separation of powers between the three branches of government, allowing the president to act without excessive oversight from other branches or parties.
Arguments Against Presidential Immunity
Critics of presidential immunity, especially as defined in Trump v. United States, claim that it compromises presidential accountability. They state that it translates to an absence of legal consequences for the executive, and thus eliminates deterrents to breaking the law. President Joe Biden, a prominent critic of expanded presidential immunity, points to Trump’s alleged incitement of the January 6 attack as an example of something future presidents could do without legal consequences. Opponents also believe that expanded immunity empowers presidents to operate without oversight and increases the risk of corruption and abuse by shielding presidents from legal scrutiny.
Opponents further argue that expanded presidential immunity weakens the American system of checks and balances. They claim that it eliminates a key check on executive power. Critics say that executive power has already grown out of proportion in relation to the other two branches, as seen in the increased use of executive orders in recent presidencies. They believe that expanded immunity only worsens that imbalance by diminishing the judicial branch’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable.
Finally, critics of expanded immunity believe that it threatens democratic rule of law by placing the president above the laws that all citizens must obey. Under presidential immunity, they argue, the law is not equally applied to all. Some fear that this open exemption for the executive will cause citizens to lose faith in their ability to hold elected officials accountable, weakening collective faith in the democratic process. Opponents also believe that expanded immunity has already allowed Trump to get away with anti-democratic behavior, such as attempting to overturn the 2020 election. They claim that protecting actions such as these is a threat to American democracy.
Conclusion
In summary, the state of presidential immunity has changed over time due to various Supreme Court holdings. Those in favor of presidential immunity argue that it prevents retaliatory prosecutions and protects the ability of the executive branch to function. Those in opposition to the recent definition of presidential immunity argue that it compromises executive accountability, weakens checks and balances, and threatens the democratic rule of law.
Given the Trump v. United States decision and Donald Trump’s recent reelection, the debate around presidential immunity is more relevant than ever. Due to his election as president, the cases against Trump will likely end, and it is improbable that we will see how far presidential immunity extends under the court’s 2024 decision. Trump’s election brings a new concern for critics, who believe that Trump may be more willing to stretch the law than he was during his first term due to the expanded immunity now afforded to presidents.
However, expanded presidential immunity is not necessarily permanent. President Biden recently proposed a No President is Above the Law amendment, which would eliminate immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. This is unlikely to pass in the next few years due to a Republican-majority Congress, but it does raise questions about the future of criminal immunity for presidents in administrations to come.
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity was originally published by The Alliance for Citizen Engagement and is shared with permission. Kailey Emmons is a sophomore at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she is currently pursuing a double major in Political Science and Biology.
Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape
Mar 20, 2025
With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.
Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.
So, how did we get here?
I originally began researching this very question a few years back during the first Trump administration. My investigation culminated in a book,American Schism, which argues that we cannot comprehend today’s polarized political landscape without historical context. To understand our contemporary divisions and address how we might bridge them, we need to determine their source and appreciate their evolution over history. The book’s investigative tracing of the antecedents leads us back to our founding in the late 18th century when the original seeds were planted. In fact, today’s acrimonious split is largely derivative of that first American Schism, which arose during our founding.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In this era, once the Revolutionary War was won, our founders faced the daunting task of governing the newly independent nation. The original Articles of Confederation formed by the 13 former colonies were wholly incapable of addressing the urgent problems on the ground. It was in this context that the original American Schism first surfaced.
In this process of designing a blueprint, two distinctive governing visions vied for prominence. On one hand, founders like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton believed that the mechanisms of governance were enormously complicated and required the dedication of the best and the brightest. Pressing problems, such as addressing the war debt and establishing foreign allies, demanded pragmatic solutions with a broader purview that transcended the governing model of any of the individual states. The most educated leaders of the day deployed a range of competencies to forge intricately complex solutions with national scope. At the time, this governing model was referred to as an “aristocratic republic” and promulgated government by the elites.
In the other camp were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, who believed that a representative democracy in which people selected delegates as advocates was the only sustainable republican form. Having emerged from the chains of the British crown, this group’s adherents were very circumspect of centralized power and favored governance closer to the dispersed communities and with strict limits on centralized power. Herein lie the origins of the deep distrust of elites and suspicion among what became known as “populists.”
The fight between these two factions became quite rancorous and drove the formation of the first political parties in our country: Hamilton’s Federalists and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. Had it not been for the skill and foresight of James Madison, who bridged the two groups during its drafting, we might never have succeeded in ratifying the U.S. Constitution, the great compromise.
But, well past our founding period, these same tensions lingered and, in fact, have been omnipresent throughout much of history. Frequently, during our most difficult periods, this elite-populist tension festered below the surface. Underneath the partisan policy issues lie foundational yet unresolved questions: who should have the power to govern? To whom does the phrase “we, the people” vest governing authority?
As chronicled in the book, much of American history evinces a pendulum-like swing between the two conflicting answers to this core question. After 30 years of Federalist dominance, when much of the federal government foundation was originally established, the Jacksonian movement ushered in a new era of populism. Later, as the country industrialized in post-Civil War America, the elites in the Northeast—railroads, oil, banking—accumulated tremendous wealth in what became known as the Gilded Age. However, a bottom-up populist movement in the late 19th century, called the Farmers’ Alliance, confronted these powerful forces by educating and empowering independent farmers across the South and West. Despite limited initial success, reforms during the progressive era of the 1920s represented a pendulum swing back.
In the last decades of the 20th century, the U.S. establishment laid the foundation for a new globalist economy within which Americans could thrive. But today, the tables have turned once again as formidable populist forces strive to dismantle much of the very infrastructure built since the middle of the 20th century.
One of Trump’s great insights was to sense this latest reversal more than a decade ago. He astutely identified an accumulating mistrust in government amongst the working classes. Moreover, he adeptly weaponized this trend in his ultimately successful quest for political power. By demonizing coastal elites, Trump wielded a robust cleaver and split the elite-populist wedge wide open. By characterizing working-class rural Americans as “forgotten,” Trump reinforced their loss of faith in American institutions, a key theme of the MAGA era.
The globalist economic model underlying today’s schism
While the forces underlying the American Schism are omnipresent as mentioned above, their manifestation continues to evolve. In order to understand today’s vicissitudes, a 40-year perspective is valuable—within this timeframe the economic model we call “globalization” became dominant. Every economic model has winners and losers and, in this case, many Americans connected to this new global economy prospered. However, millions of Americans in huge industrial and rural swaths of the country suffered terribly as we outsourced large sections of economic activity.
The consequences of this vast variation in economic outcomes drove a major reorientation in the political landscape. For most of the 20th century, our partisan divisions were anchored in the post-WWII “left-right” continuum, the central determinants of which pertain to the degree of prescribed government intervention in the political economy. Laissez-faire movements on the right maintain that the capitalist model is the true driver of prosperity and are extremely circumspect of government interventions in the economy.
On the left side of the continuum, proponents maintain that governments must actively address the market failures that inevitably emerge in such an economy (e.g. providing public goods, addressing externalities, limiting monopolistic power). Others on the left raise fundamental questions of equity and endorse a stronger safety net for those members of society whom capitalism leaves behind. The social democratic models in Europe have largely embraced this approach.
Today, the left-right continuum is still quite relevant but it has been eclipsed by the elitist-populist clash described above. Millions of Americans who suffered the ravages left behind by globalization progressively became more distrustful of the policymakers on the coasts. To add insult to injury, the establishment of both political parties ignored their concerns and showed them nothing but disdain. The resulting social and ideological divisions represent yet another swing of the pendulum.
The Schism Beyond America
One of the interesting questions that arises from this analysis is the degree to which this elite-populist tension exists in other liberal societies. In 2014, Christophe Guilluy pennedLa France Périphérique and it proved to provide a prescient analysis of the polarization that has arisen in French society since the adoption of the globalist model. Guilluy describes how the schism’s fault lines are formed by those parts of France that have benefited from the global economy and those parts of France that have suffered under it. The explosion of the “gilets jaunes” movement in recent years in France is a clear manifestation of the model Guilluy describes, as is the Brexit movement, and the results of recent elections in Germany.
One recent and comprehensive analysis presents these trends as part of one overall movement. In 2019, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in “Cultural Backlash” clearly describe the interconnections across Western societies. They demonstrate how the political and social fault lines form a consistent pattern across geographies, albeit with regional differences. Yet, despite these differences, a common thread across all countries is a revival of authoritarianism and populism in the twenty-first century.
Moving forward
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the pent-up working-class rage toward the establishment erupted in a reckoning. Trump rallied his MAGA troops in cult-like fashion to “throw the bastards out,” and reclaim the White House, with promises to dismantle the elite set of institutions that have been built over decades.
Does this represent perhaps the apotheosis of the MAGA era here in the U.S.? Regardless of where we are in the cycle, we can only move forward if we look into the rearview mirror and see the complexity of the elite-populist schism in its historical context. What my analysis reveals is that, in fact, both the elite and populist models have made significant contributions to our republic. In fact, at times in our history, we deployed a “magic formula” for balancing these two conflicting visions and finding a middle ground. When deployed, this secret sauce allowed us to more adeptly navigate deep divisions and led to better outcomes.
This raises a key set of questions: What ingredients make up this formula? How did we successfully leverage elite expertise when required to solve complex problems, whilst also ensuring that egalitarian forces kept the elites in check? Tragically, what we observe in today’s environment is the grim reality that we have discarded reasoned historical analysis and abandoned the vital framework of compromise. As a society, we have yet to embrace the idea that history can act as a salve for our wounds if only we would apply it. To bestow our democratic republic to the next generation we must do better.
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Advisory Councils at Business for America, RepresentUs, and The Grand Bargain Project.This is the third entry in the American Schism 2025 Series.
Keep ReadingShow less
A speakerphone locked in a cage.
Getty Images, J Studios
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault
Mar 19, 2025
On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.
The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”
We’re about 1/3rd of the way through the Heritage Foundation’s 180-day blueprint and have witnessed 129 executive orders, resulting in 113 legal challenges (Litigation Tracker), which should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Rather than just claim that the Trump administration has authoritarian tendencies, I feel it is more worthwhile to explore the question more fully. Five books were cited in the June 4 op-ed to assist readers in better understanding how an authoritarian dictator acts and can—rather quickly—convert a democracy into a totalitarian and oppressive-ruled country. Four of the books were written by the contemporary authors Anne Applebaum, Barbara McQuade, Heather Cox Richardson, and Timothy Snyder. The other book was George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”
You might like to know the #1 most banned book by right-wing agents is Orwell’s “1984,” which warned against autocracy’s reign of terror. After Donald Trump made unprovable and “alternative fact” statements in 2017, sales of “1984” soared 9,500 percent. After Trump’s 2024 election victory, “1984” sales went “soaring off the shelves” (Axios, Nov. 8).
In Orwell’s “1984,” Big Brother and his acolytes installed the practice of eliminating words, called ‘Newspeak.’ 'The Party’ was the name of the totalitarian government that used Newspeak to delete words, discourage free thought, limit people’s ability to think critically, and control its citizens.
Jump to 2025, and the term `Newspeak’ will now be applied to a portion of our 47th president’s administration. Despite Mr. Trump claiming to be the “champion of free speech,” The New York Times found that hundreds of words used in Trump 2.0 documents have disappeared on hundreds of federal document websites and more than 5,000 pages.
A partial list of words that Mr. Trump has eliminated from America’s lexicon includes advocacy, biologically female, Black, clean energy, climate science, cultural heritage, disability, discrimination, diversity, equal opportunity, equity, female, females, feminism, gender, hate speech, Hispanic minority, inclusion, Latinx, LGBTQ, mental health, minority, multicultural, Native American, pregnant person, race, sex, social justice, transgender, tribal, under-represented, victims, and women.
Notice what words are not on Trump’s banned list: male, man, men, and White.
Another example of Orwellianism in Trumpism exists...
In George Orwell’s “1984,” several citizens in the authoritarian superstate of Oceania work for the Ministry of Truth, whose job was to alter historical records to fit the needs of ‘The Party.’ On the sixth day of Trump’s 47th presidency, he ordered that “the U.S. Air Force will no longer teach its recruits about the Tuskegee Airmen, the more than 15,000 Blacks pilots (first Black aviators in the U.S. Army), mechanics, and cooks in the segregated Army of World War II.” Trump’s very own ‘Ministry of Truth’ is attempting to erase the history of active Black fighters from 1940 to 1952, who flew in over 15,000 sorties and destroyed more than 100 German aircraft.
Recall one of the words Mr. Trump has eliminated from U.S. documents: Black.
Orwell’s Big Brother also wanted to destroy the literature of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Bryon, etc., so he could control how people could think, how much they could believe, and what they could think about.
In a similar literature vein, Donald Trump has controlled what news agencies can work at the Pentagon; CNN, The Washington Post, The Hill, War Zone, NBC News, NPR, New York Times, and Politico have been kicked out (AP, Feb. 7). Four news agencies (i.e., Associated Press, Reuters, HuffPost, and Der Tagesspiegel) have been barred from attending Trump cabinet meetings. Americans are being controlled over what the media can report to us and, therefore, how much to think and what to think about.
Evidence is replete. Mr. Trump is not only following the Heritage Foundation’s right-wing playbook with his multitude of executive orders but many of the actions are employed by the fascist rulers and tenants of George Orwell’s “1984.”
Now is the time to act. Life often imitates art, and perhaps this is one of those circumstances, as the words of “1984” serve as a warning as to where the current trajectory of Democracy in America might result in.
Call your two Senators and U.S. Rep. (202-224-3121) to remind them that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press and demand it is their job to put a stop to Trump’s 2.0 anti-free speech and anti-freedom of the press dystopian movement.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More