Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

‘Government’ is the biggest problem, according to Gallup poll

U.S. Capitol
Mandel Ngan/Getty Images

The past few years have been rocked by the Covid-19 pandemic, inflation, and debates over race relations, education and border security. But none of those are the biggest problem facing the nation, according to Americans. Rather, the government itself is the most important problem – and not for the first time.

In fact, this is the seventh time in the past 10 years that government has been the No. 1 problem in Gallup’s annual assessment, but the numbers have been trending down.

The highest rate of dissatisfaction occurred in 2019, at 27 percent, but has been declining and hit 19 percent this year.


Gallup notes in its summary that “government” is a catchall term that includes multiple response options that include the president, Congress, partisanship and gridlock.

As with most issues, there is a partisan divide on responses, with government ranking as a bigger problem among Republicans (25 percent) than Democrats (18 percent) and independents (16 percent).

Most important problems mentioned in Gallup poll

The poll of 1,020 adults was conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2. It has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

The Fulcrum asked a number of experts on improving government their thoughts on how to restore trust in government.

Julia Roig, founder and chief network weaver, The Horizons Project:

In a democracy, what many have forgotten is that government is the responsibility of all of us, accountable to all of us, and the way in which we care for each other as citizens. If there is dissatisfaction, the answer is to get involved, be a part of the solution, participate actively and organize within your community while respecting the many different opinions and perspectives we have in such a diverse country. Americans have such ingenuity, but we are stuck in a story that government is the problem as opposed to an opportunity for innovation and positive change. It’s time to flip the script and imagine what’s possible, and then work for it together.”

Peter Levine, associate dean, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University:

I suspect that the people who name ‘government’ as the biggest problem hold a wide range of opinions about why it’s problematic. They may include people from all the way across the political spectrum. This ideological diversity makes it hard to develop a response that would really improve public opinion across the board.

In my opinion, a priority is to spend the very large amounts of money authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act in ways that are – and that appear – fair and that engage a lot of Americans. People should feel they can influence the spending and that they can be part of the actual work: for instance, helping to build infrastructure or reduce carbon emissions. In turn, spending the federal money well will require adequate investments in processes and training.

Norman Ornstein, emeritus scholar, American Enterprise Institute

The results didn’t surprise me. Let’s face it – if you go on a multi-decade assault against the government it’s going to have an impact. The thing I find unsettling about this is there isn’t much of a response to the direct threat to our democracy. … It’s a testament to the failure of our journalists in not sounding the appropriate alarms.

Thirty percent of Americans elect 70 percent of the U.S. senators. That is not representative of the country and its diversity. [Ornstein said he doubts whether even a tragedy like 9/11 could pull the country together today.

Prabha Sankaranarayan, president and CEO, Mediators Beyond Borders

This is quite frankly a time of national emergency and what I know is that we can come together with a resolve. Not a single person can afford to be uninvolved. People are working hard at every level and the country is abuzz with what is possible. We are in the middle of re-imagining our democracy, in lots of ways. We are engaged in creating shared narratives of who we want to be as a nation; we are focused on reforming our electoral system, we are addressing our history of harm and resilience ... and so much more.

So instead of taking this Gallup poll in isolation, I keep in mind all these activities (that don't get reported enough) as well as other things like More in Common's research on the “perception gap” in our views of each other and know that we have work to do.

We have to move beyond binaries – that is our job as peacebuilders – to introduce nuance and layers into every attempt to reduce things to simplistic dichotomies. We are capable of better than that. We are capable of creating this next iteration of our democratic republic.

What we can all do is encourage and support all forms of civic engagement – from parents in communities who want to ensure the best education for their children by reshaping their local school board meetings to be constructive spaces, to those involved in updating our electoral system, our healthcare, our safety and security systems.

Read More

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

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."

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less