Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Fantasy football coaches take in their weekly scoreboard every Tuesday and analyze what went right and wrong over the weekend. They determine where the weaknesses are on their team and plan to adjust the lineup so that next week the scoreboard is more favorable. This Tuesday, while focusing on one of the country's most divisive presidential elections in history, Americans are also electing representatives from Congress down to village board. We have studied the facts, made our choices, and set our lineups. The decisions may have been easier if we'd had a scoreboard that ranked our lawmakers in a way that gave us insight into what adjustments to make.The Builders Movement is helping with that. They have developed a new scoreboard that has the potential to reshape how we view our lawmakers: the Builders Power Rankings. Their weekly rundown ranks elected officials on their ability to bridge divides and constructively engage in bipartisan efforts. The Builders Power Rankings focus on legislative behavior, collaboration, and the tone of public discourse, aiming to identify and acknowledge those who are "builders" in an era marked by divisiveness.
The rankings split lawmakers across the political spectrum into "Builders" and "Dividers." It's not enough for the Builders to avoid inflammatory language or support occasional bipartisan initiatives. Lawmakers are judged on their consistency in prioritizing policy and people over party lines. Conversely, the Dividers list names those who frequently engage in partisanship, employing divisive rhetoric or obstructive behavior, regardless of their ideological stance.
The scores are generated using AI-powered data analysis in partnership with the Polarization Research Lab, a non-profit initiative of Dartmouth, Stanford, and UPenn. This analysis is followed by a discussion among cross-partisan analysts and commentators about specific comments and how they might affect their status as builders or dividers. This step indicates that the rankings account for necessary distinctions between passionate advocacy and outright divisiveness.
In the month leading up to the election, 250,000 Americans logged onto the ranking site, helping equip them with information on their representatives they need to make a choice that supports candidates that are willing to build toward positive governance rather than contributing to the political disarray.
Building Across the Aisle: Who’s Leading? Who's Failing to Bridge the Gap?
The Builders Power Rankings reveal some leaders that don't always grab the media spotlight but are headlining cross-partisan cooperation. Figures like Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) consistently appear in the top five builders, praised for their ability to work on significant issues that resonate beyond their districts.
Chavez-DeRemer, for instance, focuses on border policies without resorting to divisive, fear-mongering tactics — a rarity in today's political climate. Ossoff, similarly, leverages his platform to address agricultural disaster relief, a pressing need in Georgia following recent hurricanes. His proactive approach to garnering support from both sides has set a bar for constructive bipartisanship.
Interestingly, many of the Builders represent purple states or districts, where their re-election prospects depend on appealing to a broader range of voters. This geographical diversity suggests that some lawmakers feel inherent accountability to moderate their rhetoric and policy, especially in regions that do not lean heavily towards a single party. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) frequently engage with issues that resonate with constituents across political divides, finding solutions that appeal to both conservative and liberal sensibilities.
Garry Kasparov, Founder and Chairman of Renew Democracy Initiative and Builders Power Rankings panelist, pointed out: "The fact is that we're having this conversation two weeks before one of the hottest elections in US history. It definitely affects all the statements and behavior of various actors. And it's very natural that the Builders come from the districts where they have to compete for independence or even just having hoped to get some votes from the other side. While those we call Dividers, they come from the safe seats."
Figures like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX), and Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) made appearances on the dividers list every week in October, spotlighting the tendency of some lawmakers to prioritize party allegiance and viral vitriol over constructive debate. Each week, the rankings shed light on representatives who engage in inflammatory speech or obstructive actions, which, although effective in rallying their bases, may ultimately damage the cohesion of the legislative process.
The Builders Power Rankings also consider context, such as campaign season pressures. Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) made the Builders list the week of October 22nd despite criticism for heated exchanges with his opponent for Senate, incumbent Ted Cruz (R-TX), in a debate. He made the list in part for the signing of his bipartisan Building Chips in America Act, which he co-led with three Republicans, into law. One panelist, Joe Lonsdale, disagreed with Allred's ranking as a Builder that week, with fellow panelist Kimberly Atkins Stohr defending the ranking, distinguishing between bipartisan governance and the words used in a policy debate.
Different and Shifting Incentives
One consistent finding with the Builders Power Rankings is that the elected officials who rank as Builders are far less recognizable to the broader public than their Divider counterparts. This phenomenon speaks to a more significant issue: Divisive figures often attract more media coverage, amplifying their influence. Despite their constructive contributions, lawmakers who remain policy-focused and avoid sensationalism are less likely to make headlines. Consequently, while the Builders work on solutions to pressing issues like health care, disaster relief, and economic reform, the Dividers capture public attention with controversial statements that stoke partisan fires.
The rankings invite the public to reconsider the media's role in shaping political reputations. The Builders Power Rankings suggest that it is time for voters and journalists to place more value on the quiet but impactful work behind the spotlight, where positive change often occurs.
There is a new opportunity for elected representatives to engage with these rankings and make the discussion on social media more than viral negativity. Already, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) re-tweeted his #2 builders spot as a badge of honor, and Rep. Jim Moylan (R-GU) shared his #3 builders spot to his Instagram stories; we can hope that more lawmakers are willing to do what it takes to be able to show off these credentials when they are earned.
Earning a top-5 builders ranking is not something a lawmaker has to be consistently perfect to earn. A weekly analysis is a fluid measurement that allows for representatives to have good and bad weeks but always have another chance the next week to engage with colleagues more positively.
Beyond the Rankings: A Call to Action
The Builders Power Rankings provide more than just a snapshot of weekly behavior; they offer a roadmap for effective governance in a polarized environment. The data analysis is just a starting point - and the panel discussions on the details of the stories that the data represents are a chance to bring the positive stories into the spotlight. We can all take it further and use the rankings report and analysis to start our conversations on what we find unacceptable and worth elevating regarding our representation.
By highlighting figures who prioritize policy over party, the Builders Movement gives voters an alternative lens through which to view their representatives, encouraging a shift in public expectation. In this model, it is not enough for a politician to "hold the line" for their party — they must also work to build bridges, understanding that effective governance often requires difficult, sometimes unpopular, compromises.
The rankings are our scoreboard for setting our lineup for this election cycle and for the future. Let's set a lineup to serve us best and keep the conversation going.
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.