Messafi is the founder of Teens Building Bridges, a nonprofit focused on promoting interfaith programming between teens. He interned at Civic Spirit over the summer and compiled information from leading nonprofits in the bridge-building space.
“There is a belief in ideological purity on the left and right, meaning that you have to have pure beliefs, and one large ideological difference destroys any effort of bipartisanship.” -Noah Silverman, Interfaith America
The 2020 presidential election and the controversies associated have caused divides and stereotypes that have still not been resolved to this day. As more people have been getting involved in politics because of these large divisions, the lack of civic education has proven to cause big problems in society. Constant misinformation on social media and a lack of knowledge of governmental institutions have led to many false and extreme opinions being spread, as well as more division.
At this moment, many organizations in the bridge-building space are scrambling for answers and looking for strategies to move forward. After interviewing members of Interfaith America, Combat Antisemitism Movement, Braver Angels and Bridge Alliance (which operates The Fulcrum), I have compiled a list of the strategies that will best help organizations trying to get through this period of tension in our history.
The biggest theme regarding political polarization solutions involves creating the conditions necessary for peaceful and productive debate:
- “When resolving political polarization, we need to ensure that people are knowledgeable about our governmental systems and how they work to have discussions.” (Alex Edwards Bourdrez, Braver Angels)
- “We both want what is best for this country, and we should have a conversation with each other about what we want best for this country. Find some similarities and make both of our ideas better by talking to each other.” (Noah Silverman, Interfaith America)
- “We are stubbornly neutral. How I think the country should run is irrelevant. What is relevant is making sure Americans understand all of their options, and how the system works to the best of its ability. We have member organizations whose solutions I disagree with. It doesn’t matter. Lots of organizations are trying to network like this, but Bridge Alliance represents all parts of the self-governance movement, as well as promotes all perspectives on equal footing. We do not endorse any solutions instead of trying to empower the American people, helping people vote, and having a healthy American system.” (Jeremy Garson, Bridge Alliance)
Bridge-building is about bringing the right people into the room and working together to focus on their most important issues. Divides can be avoided by discussing topics unrelated to these points of conflict, and by working together to benefit both communities. Outreach issues in the bridge-building space have been overcome by bringing in people who have connections to community leaders and organizations.
When the self-interests of both sides are satisfied, it leads to a successful, more personal bridge-building process. Bridge-building can be seen as a “fair trade,” where both sides would like to receive something to benefit their community in return for helping the other:
- “It’s much better to bring people in who are a part of these minority communities themselves. Bring in organizations that have certain political values instead of people who represent them. We bring in priests of congregations and others who understand the needs of communities and are a part of communities. Organizations need to understand the needs and problems of communities.” (Garson)
- “Rates of antisemitism go up with the rates of Islamophobia, anti-Christian, and anti-Mormon bias. If we fight religious bigotry in general, everyone wins. We can benefit both ourselves and the broader community by doing this.” (Silverman)
- “When interacting with those who differ from you, you mustn't allow one issue or one disagreement to ruin a conversation and relationship. Sometimes it’s hard for Catholic groups to talk about the Holocaust. We find a topic that is common and important to both and builds relationships from there.” (Arthur Maserjian, Combat Antisemitism Movement)
- “Operate like a two-way street by highlighting their work first, then ours. CAM always asks, “What can we do to support your work instead of what can you do for me? By doing this, CAM is more easily able to create connections with other groups.” (Maserjian)
- “The best way to make collaboration happen is to bring very smart, well-intentioned people into the room together, and let them do their thing. We do not force anyone to work together, but we appeal to self-interest by saying collaborating benefits them and the organization.” (Garson)
- “Finding common ground also means catering to both sides. When talking to members of the National Hellenic Society about the Holocaust, CAM caters to the Greek perspective, specifically discussing Greek individuals who saved Jews during the Holocaust. It is important to engage with positive elements of their history to have them advocate for issues important to us.” (Maserjian)
Organizations need to begin the bridge-building process on college campuses, where a smaller, more unified community can form future bonds as students move into the workforce.
- “If you build interfaith cooperation in colleges, you will build a generation with more cultural appreciation, and better leaders that focus on interfaith.” (Noah Silverman-Interfaith America)
While organizations recognize that bridge-building and resolving differences in every ideological conflict is an impossible task, meaningful steps in the right direction can connect communities that were previously on bad terms, or simply did not understand each other’s beliefs. With the help of new tactics for bridge-building and the presence of many great organizations that do this work constantly, we could work to stop division and make our communities more diverse to further end the vast divide in our country today. The emergence of new organizations that connect diverse groups through unique strategies and partnerships can involve more people in the movement, and gradually work to resolve our everlasting political tension.
Ben Droz
Ben Droz
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.