As co-publisher of The Fulcrum, Debilyn Molineaux's name is synonymous with cross-partisan bridge building and the importance of civil dialogue in a democratic society. In this episode of How to Win Friends and Save the Republic from the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, Debilyn discusses her path from advertising to being a candidate for public office to co-founding some of the most influential bridging organizations in the democracy ecosystem.
Alexander Hamilton famous American politician and US founder. Photo of an original engraving from the "National Portrait Gallery of Eminent Americans" published in 1862.
Last week, my living room transformed into a Broadway stage. With my wife, kids, and I singing along to the Hamilton soundtrack, conversations inevitably spiraled from lyrics about revolution and ambition into discussions about today’s news. My daughter, home from summer camp and sporting a growing curiosity about history, became my sounding board as we talked about government, justice, and the state of American politics. After a family debate about the latest Trump executive order, I asked the kids, “What do you think Hamilton would say if he were alive today?” Their answers were both honest and hopeful, and ultimately inspired this essay.
If Alexander Hamilton were to return and take stock of the United States in 2025, I believe he would recognize a nation that has delivered on some founding hopes but has dangerously betrayed others. The framework he helped construct—designed to check tyranny, balance competing interests, and elevate national unity—is still standing. But the forces he feared most—demagoguery, factionalism, and civic apathy—have gained alarming momentum.
As Ron Chernow’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography shows, more than any other Founder, Hamilton understood the fragility of republics. In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned of men who would “commence demagogues and end tyrants”—those who exploit public trust to seize power. These were not hypothetical fears; they were urgent warnings aimed at a future generation. Today, centuries later, the country is still struggling with leaders who place personal ambition above principle, who stoke division to consolidate power, and who test the limits of law and accountability.
By Hamilton’s standards, Donald Trump is not simply a controversial president or a populist showman, but a stress test for the American republic itself. Trump’s open disdain for the judiciary, flirtation with authoritarian rhetoric, and persistent efforts to delegitimize democratic institutions are, as historian Richard Brookhiser observes, precisely the kind of executive abuse Hamilton worked desperately to prevent.
Yet, as troubling as Trump’s conduct may be, the real challenge—as Chernow and Brookhiser have shown—lies not in any one person but in the deeper erosion of civic trust and constitutional knowledge. Hamilton would not be surprised by the rise of a charismatic demagogue; what would truly shock him is how readily our carefully constructed system has yielded to the pressures of partisanship.
Hamilton believed in a strong executive, yes—but one constrained by law, reason, and duty. He insisted the presidency be subject to oversight, never above the courts, Congress, or the Constitution itself. Power, Hamilton believed, was a force for good only if wielded responsibly and for the public benefit. As Chernow explains, Hamilton’s greatest contribution was the idea that unchecked executive power is a recipe for tyranny.
What might disturb him even more is the dysfunction of Congress and the widespread public cynicism about justice. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch,” reliant not on force, but on public confidence and judgment. Today, when judicial rulings are dismissed as partisan and judges are harassed, Hamilton’s warnings feel especially urgent. He would see this not as a vigorous democratic debate, but as the unraveling of the rule of law.
If Hamilton were among us now, I imagine he would write—furiously—and strive to build coalitions of citizens determined to defend the Constitution. As Brookhiser has noted, republics die not only by coup or invasion, but by the slow corrosion of norms and the triumph of tribal loyalty over national unity. Hamilton would challenge leaders to rise to their oaths, not shrink from them. He would implore lawyers, legislators, educators, judges, and regular citizens—including parents and children like us, wrestling with these questions around the kitchen table—to take seriously the responsibilities of self-government.
Chernow argues, and I agree, that the true moral ambition of our founding was not to hoard power, but to distribute it wisely. Hamilton understood that written documents and legal framework cannot preserve a republic without leaders who practice restraint, citizens who value truth, and institutions that prize law over loyalty and principle over popularity. The real test of a constitutional system is not how it handles stability and peace, but in moments when spectacle and bitterness threaten to replace reason and law.
For families like mine, discussing Hamilton’s legacy is more than a history lesson or a Broadway sing-along. It’s about grappling with what it means to be engaged, to ask hard questions, and to demand that our institutions serve the public good. As my daughter observed, the strength of a republic depends on citizens who care, not just about winning, but about doing what is right.
Today, we face the same choice Hamilton understood so well: Will we be ruled by laws or by personalities, by reason or by resentment, by a Constitution or by spectacle? Hamilton’s legacy is a warning and a challenge. History will remember which path we take.
Let it remember that we chose the republic.
Dr. David Lopez-Herrera teaches in San Antonio and writes about criminal justice, law, politics, and civic engagement. He lives on the city’s North Side with his family, who, along with the Hamilton soundtrack, inspired this op-ed.
"Scott Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics..." writes Luke Harris.
Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.
During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.
An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment.
Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act.
He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance—accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy—to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction.
The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner’s previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline.
More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and “flag” any that mentioned Donald Trump.
It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon’s “Enemy List”: revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass, restricting AP reporters’ access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for “fake news” or calling journalists “nasty.”
Turner accepts the status quo—having to keep silent, among many things he raised his voice against in the past, to maintain his position, to cause change, or to hold power. This is perfectly exhibited in the current situation with Trump’s attempts to suppress the Epstein situation and his general attitude towards the press; Much less, in the past, provoked Turner to denounce his colleagues for a lack of transparency. The Turner case is a more nuanced example of how politics and principle, strategy and idealism, are in constant struggle. Voters need to check the ambitions of politicians, whether they drive improper conduct or complicity through power-seeking or good-faith intentions to pursue their policy goals.
Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets like the North American Anglican and the Conservative Woman.
Ghislaine Maxwell, September 20, 2013
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, has met twice this week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—a move that’s raising eyebrows across Washington and reigniting public demands for transparency in the Epstein saga.
Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison, reportedly initiated the meetings herself. According to her attorney, David Oscar Markus, she answered “every single question” posed by DOJ officials over the course of nine hours of interviews. Sources indicate that she was granted limited immunity, which allowed her to speak freely without fear of self-incrimination.
The meetings come amid mounting pressure on the Trump administration, which has faced backlash for walking back earlier promises to release all Epstein-related documents. Reports from The Wall Street Journal and CNN indicate that Donald Trump’s name appears multiple times in the Epstein files, though officials stress that being named does not imply wrongdoing.
The House Oversight Committee has now subpoenaed Maxwell to testify remotely in August, potentially opening the door to public revelations about Epstein’s network and its ties to powerful figures. Legal experts believe her testimony could shed light on the alleged “client list,” travel arrangements for underage victims, and whether influential individuals—including politicians and celebrities—were involved.
While the DOJ has stated that no further charges are expected and that no client list exists, critics argue that Maxwell’s cooperation suggests otherwise. As Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz put it, “She is the Rosetta Stone. She knows everything”.
Whether these developments lead to new indictments or deepen public mistrust remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Maxwell’s voice is no longer silent, and Washington is bracing for what she might say next.
Trump has responded with a mix of deflection, denial, and strategic distancing.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House before departing for Scotland, Trump said he had “nothing to do with the guy,” referring to Epstein, despite years of documented social ties between the two. He dismissed questions about Maxwell’s cooperation with the DOJ, stating, “I haven’t thought about a pardon,” though he acknowledged he was “allowed to do it”.
Critics have pointed to the conflict of interest in Blanche’s role, given his past ties to Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the private interviews “glaring corruption,” while others questioned whether the DOJ’s outreach was a genuine pursuit of justice or a political maneuver.
Trump, meanwhile, shifted focus to other figures linked to Epstein, including Bill Clinton and Larry Summers, saying, “You should focus on them. I sure as hell didn’t live with Epstein”. He also denied sending a lewd birthday letter to Epstein in 2003, calling it “another fake news story” and suing The Wall Street Journal for libel.
The White House communications team has dismissed reports that Trump’s name appears “multiple times” in the Epstein files as “fake news,” despite Attorney General Pam Bondi allegedly briefing him on the matter in May.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and is the publisher of the Latino News Network.
A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23, 2025 in New York City.
In May 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informed President Donald Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the government’s files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier convicted of sex trafficking. The revelation, confirmed by sources cited in The Wall Street Journal and CNN, has reignited public scrutiny over the administration’s handling of the Epstein case and its broader implications for democratic transparency.
The new reports contradict an account given earlier this month by the president, who responded "no, no" when asked by a reporter whether Bondi had told him that his name appeared in the files.
Not surprisingly, the response from a White House spokesman to the increasing controversy was labeled as a "fake news story."
The Epstein files are a trove of federal documents, including flight logs, communications, and investigative materials tied to Epstein’s criminal activities. While being named in these files does not imply criminal wrongdoing, the presence of high-profile figures—including Trump—has fueled demands for full disclosure.
During his presidential campaign last year, Donald Trump pledged to release files related to Epstein.
Since then, frustration has mounted among his supporters over the administration’s handling of the matter—particularly its failure to disclose the rumored “client list” allegedly tied to Epstein’s network. Earlier this month, however, a joint memo from the Justice Department and the FBI stated that no such list exists, challenging long-held speculation and fueling calls for greater transparency.
Polls show that only 17% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files. Even among his supporters, there’s growing frustration over the administration’s reluctance to release more documents. Critics argue that withholding information undermines public trust and contradicts Trump’s earlier promises.
The controversy underscores a broader tension between government accountability and political damage control. For many, the Epstein files represent a test of whether powerful individuals can be held to the same standards of transparency as ordinary citizens. As calls for disclosure grow louder—including from victims’ advocates and bipartisan lawmakers—the administration faces mounting pressure to act.
When officials prioritize image management over truth-telling, they may obscure facts, shift blame, or exploit media cycles to minimize fallout. Strategic messaging isn’t inherently bad—but when it replaces substance, it can erode trust and confuse voters about what’s actually at stake. Political damage control can protect institutions from chaos, but overused, it insulates power from responsibility.
Citizens can’t make informed decisions if public officials operate in secrecy or sidestep scrutiny. Accountability ensures policies and actions are visible, debatable, and correctable. When leaders disclose conflicts of interest, respond to investigations, and accept oversight, it signals to the public that governance is in service of people—not power. Mistakes or misconduct don’t have to be the death knell of democracy. Accountability creates the conditions for repair, apology, and reform.
Ultimately, true democratic resilience stems not from flawless governance, but from the willingness to confront flaws openly.
U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
