Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Young Americans are fearful about the future of democracy

Tattered American flag
tirc83/Getty Images

Young adults, who comprise an increasingly influential voting bloc, are pessimistic about the state of democracy in the United States, according to new polling by Harvard University.

The data, released Wednesday, shows that only 7 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds believe the United States is a “healthy democracy” while 13 percent say it is a “failed democracy.” Another 39 percent describe the U.S. as “a democracy in trouble.” Just over a quarter of respondents said the U.S. is a “somewhat functioning democracy.”

The research team sees the results as a call to action, saying the nation’s leaders must pay more attention to young American adults.


“In the 2020 election, young Americans proved with their record-shattering turnout that they are a formidable voting bloc and eager to make their voices heard,” said Mark Gearan, director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle would benefit tremendously from listening to the concerns that our students and young voters have raised about the challenges facing our democracy and their genuine desire for our parties to find common ground on solutions.”

Those concerns about democracy are echoed in sentiments about the nation’s outlook: 55 percent of young adults said they were “fearful” about the future of America, with only 44 percent saying they were “hopeful.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In addition, only 18 percent said the nation is “generally headed in the right direction” while 45 percent said it’s “on the wrong track” while 37 percent were not sure.

These feelings lead to some dire predictions. One-third of young Americans believe they will see another civil war during their lifetimes, and one-quarter predict at least one state will secede. Forty-six percent of young Republicans think it’s more likely than not that there will be a second civil war, compared to 32 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents.

Young Americans believe that the nation needs to turn a corner, with 78 percent saying it is very or somewhat important that the United States is a democracy. Just 7 percent said it's not very or not at all important.

And a plurality believes the best way to achieve progress is through compromise: 43 percent said elected officials should “meet in the middle” while 21 percent want officials to pursue preferred policies “at the expense of compromise.” (Just over a third said they “don’t know.”)

That split carried across parties, with 49 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans agreeing that it’s better to compromise.

“After turning out in record numbers in 2020, young Americans are sounding the alarm. When they look at the America they will soon inherit, they see a democracy and climate in peril — and Washington as more interested in confrontation than compromise,” said IOP’s polling director, John Della Volpe.

An estimated 50 percent of people ages 18-29 voted in the 2020 presidential election, up 11 points from 2016, according to an analysis by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University’s Tisch College.

While the data tells a story about negative attitudes, there are a number of organizations seeking to create more opportunities for civic engagement about young adults. One of the newer groups in that space is GenUnity, which convenes aspiring leaders for three-month programs targeting the needs of their communities.

While the demographics have evolved from the first cohort, GenUnity started out by marketing to the 18-34 age group.

“The big thing that we focus on when we look at this demographic is there’s record high interest in getting engaged and playing a part in driving change,” said Jerren Chang, GenUnity’s co-founder and CEO. “Young people do care about these issues and do care about getting involved.”

The challenge to getting them more involved, said Chang, is creating an equitable model that allows people from diverse backgrounds to participate. GenUnity’s solution includes working with companies that will cover the costs of employees’ participation and developing flexible schedules.

“We’re bringing together a cohort of people from all different lived experiences. They bring different sets of values and priorities. That creates more inclination toward compromise,” said Chang. “I think that what we've seen in our programs is an ability for folks to work together in a way that would lead to what we think of as compromise rather than winner-take-all solutions.”

Read More

Competitive Authoritarianism Comes for Civil Society

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on April 3, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Competitive Authoritarianism Comes for Civil Society

The following is reposted with permission from his Substack newsletter, The Art of Association.

I make a point of letting readers know when I change my mind about matters that bear on the ongoing discussion here at The Art of Association. I need to introduce today’s newsletter about what the second Trump Administration entails for civil society with just such an update.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025, Phase II: The Bureaucracy

An individual leaving work with their belongings.

Getty Images, RUNSTUDIO

Project 2025, Phase II: The Bureaucracy

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term The Fulcrum has started Part 2 of the series has commenced.

To no one’s surprise, President Trump reinstated his provocative “Schedule F”program as soon as he reentered the Oval Office. The policy that allows a president to redefine—and thus fire— executive branch personnel at will and replace them with loyalists, partisans, and patrons, was controversial when Trump first introduced it in October 2020. That was a mere two weeks before his failed reelection bid and only three months before his 2021 departure from the White House, scarcely enough runway to get the program off the ground.

Keep ReadingShow less
Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

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.

Keep ReadingShow less