Winning just nine more House seats than Democrats in the 2022 midterms means the Republican caucus has very little room for error.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.
Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records
Jun 30, 2026
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.
Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.
County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though a total number was not immediately available. In addition, they found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through DPS, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.
In Travis County, for example, voter registrar Celia Israel asked the state to check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens in the county against DPS records. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office did so, and found that out of the 97 individuals flagged as potential noncitizens in the county, 11 had already provided proof of citizenship.
Adkins during the meeting said that Travis County officials were the only ones who had requested that the state conduct the check of the records through DPS, according to a recording of the Secretary of State Office’s meeting with county election officials obtained by Votebeat. Now, the state is conducting these checks for flagged voters statewide.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office had previously told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate.
That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
In the meantime, local election officials in some counties have already removed some flagged voters from the voter rolls after they did not respond to requests to provide proof of citizenship.
It’s not clear why the Texas Secretary of State’s Office is checking the list of potential noncitizens against DPS records now and how county election officials will be directed to respond to the findings. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment for this story.
Officials push for additional safeguards to use the SAVE database
The federal database state election officials used to identify potential noncitizens is known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database. The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and it has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.
Experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE database’s accuracy and reliability, and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s changes and how SAVE is being used.
According to the recording, Adkins said the state did not initially check the list of potential noncitizens identified by SAVE against DPS records because that agency already uses the SAVE database.
“Initially, we didn’t think that there would be any kind of substantial difference, but obviously, we have found that there are some discrepancies,” Adkins said in the meeting.
Adkins said the discrepancies affected a “small fraction” of the total list and could be a result of outdated information kept by the SAVE database or by DPS — for example, some of the individuals flagged by the SAVE database may have recently become naturalized citizens — or due to clerical errors.
“No dataset is going to be 100% perfect,” she told county officials. “That’s why we can’t cancel voters outright” without additional investigation.
Adkins said another reason the state didn’t check DPS records before sending the lists to counties in October is because DPS must manually check each record, which takes a long time, and would have left counties with less time to investigate ahead of the March 3 primary election. Federal law restricts election officials’ ability to conduct systematic voter list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election, meaning the window for counties to investigate ahead of the primary ended in early December.
“We wanted to get that data in your hands, where you could at least address some of the kind of low-hanging fruit, is the way I would say it,” Adkins said.
In an emailed statement after this story initially published, DPS officials said the agency is working with the Secretary of State’s Office to “review and provide information from the Driver License System as it relates to registered voters, and requests to verify voter citizenship status are being prioritized.”
During an interim House Elections Committee hearing earlier this month, state lawmakers discussed how the state can ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote. At that hearing, Travis County election officials told lawmakers the state’s move to cross-check the results from the SAVE database with DPS data should be the standard moving forward. Others told lawmakers to consider the amount of time and resources it takes election officials — in counties already strapped for funding — to investigate whether a registrant is a potential noncitizen.
Last year, Texas lawmakers proposed a bill that would require Texans to provide documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, but it failed to pass before the end of the legislative session. The bill was among the most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals introduced anywhere in the country, applying not only to new applicants for voter registration but also retroactively to 18.6 million voters already registered in the state.
Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records was originally published by Votebeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The 50: Indiana
In Indiana, Three Organizations Push Back Against Barriers to Democracy
Jun 29, 2026
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana —After months of political pressure and millions of dollars spent backing primary challengers, President Donald Trump was largely successful in urging Indiana Republican voters to remove several GOP state senators who opposed the congressional redistricting plan during the May primary election. The shake‑up has intensified debate over how Indiana’s political maps are drawn — and who ultimately benefits.
- YouTube youtu.be
The League of Women Voters of Indiana argues that the state’s current redistricting system has produced a level of single‑party dominance that weakens democratic accountability. According to the organization, supermajorities can operate with little incentive to compromise, negotiate, or engage the public.
“We’re not attacking Republicans. We’re attacking supermajorities,” said Barbara Tully, a League Board member. “Right now, the Republican caucuses have all the power… Everything goes on in secret behind the doors. There’s no negotiation between the two. That’s not right.”
League leaders say the consequences are most visible at the ballot box. When districts are drawn in ways that all but guarantee one party’s victory, they argue, candidates have fewer reasons to engage with voters outside their base.
Linda Hanson, President of the League, said noncompetitive districts erode the basic expectation that elected officials should answer to the public as a whole.
“If you have candidates who are not in competitive districts, they’re also not going to feel they need to talk to all the public,” Hanson said. “They just want to put an R or a D by their names and have that stand for who they are.”
Common Cause Indiana points to a deeper structural issue: lawmakers draw the very districts they run in. Julia Vaughn, Policy Director for the organization, calls it a built‑in conflict of interest that fuels partisan gerrymandering and can dilute the voting power of diverse communities by splitting up established communities of interest.
“This was an attempt not just to silence the voices of Democratic voters but also to silence communities of color,” Vaughn said. “The two congressional districts that were targeted are by far the most diverse communities in our state.”
Both groups say the solution is to remove redistricting authority from elected officials and hand it to an independent, politically balanced citizen commission with no personal stake in the outcome.
Alongside its policy advocacy, the League is investing in long‑term civic engagement through a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program. The initiative hires and trains students to promote voter registration and education within their own schools, aiming to build stronger civic habits among future voters.
Investing in the Next Generation
Even as they push for structural reform, advocates are working to strengthen civic engagement among young Hoosiers.
The League of Women Voters of Indiana is investing in a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program that hires and trains students to serve as voting advocates within their schools.
Meanwhile, the Indiana Bar Foundation is expanding civic literacy statewide through classroom resources, competitions, and teacher training.
“We provide professional development, trainings, and resources for teachers,” said the Foundation’s Executive Director, Charles Dunlap. “They’re on the front lines in the classroom, and we see our role as supporting them.”
The Foundation tracks engagement in programs like High School Mock Trial and We the People to measure impact.
Kate Hollingsworth, a 2026 spring intern with the Indiana Bar Foundation, represents the kind of civic‑minded young leader these programs aim to cultivate. Fresh off her high‑school graduation, she and her We the People team advanced from the state finals to the national competition.
“It’s such a good experience — something all students should do,” Hollingsworth said. “It gives you civic perspectives you can use no matter what career you pursue.”
Hollingsworth believes young people must develop their own political voice rather than inherit one from older generations or party labels. She said meaningful civic engagement requires separating issues from partisanship and listening respectfully to different viewpoints.
“I’ve spoken about current issues in a mature way, and I’ve gotten negative feedback from older people,” she said. “But I respond respectfully. It’s important not to shut out other opinions.”
She added that political identity should not dictate every belief.
“People get stuck on having a certain party label,” she said. “But what matters is thinking about what’s best for our country.”
Though their strategies differ, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and the Indiana Bar Foundation share a common purpose: protecting and strengthening democratic participation in Indiana.
In a moment when voting rights are contested and civic trust is fragile, their work offers a reminder that democracy is not self‑sustaining. It requires advocates, educators, and institutions willing to stand up for the principles that bind a nation together.
And in Indiana, those voices are speaking loudly.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The 50 is an award-winning documentary series. The four-year multimedia initiative led by The Fulcrum, travels to communities in every state to uncover what motivated Americans to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Through in-depth storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns—and highlights civic-focused organizations that inform, educate, and empower the public to take action.
Keep ReadingShow less
People watch as US President Donald Trump makes a national address on television at Brooklyn Diner Times Square on April 1, 2026 in New York City. US President Donald Trump's address to the nation is expected to lay out the framework for ending the conflict in Iran.
Adam Gray / Getty Images
When Duty Isn’t a Priority: A Megalomaniac President Abuses the Nation
Jun 29, 2026
What does it mean when the presidential oath becomes a performance instead of a promise? It means the nation is left vulnerable to a leader whose actions suggest that personal power may matter more than the Constitution he swore to defend.
He raised his right hand and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Yet millions of Americans have watched a president whose conduct repeatedly raises doubts about his commitment to that oath. His attacks on constitutional limits, his hostility toward oversight, and his tendency to treat institutional constraints as obstacles to personal objectives have led many to conclude that constitutional duty is no longer his governing priority. When the oath becomes symbolic rather than binding, the consequences are carried by the public.
Across the country, Americans feel something deeper than political disagreement. Many describe instability, exhaustion, and concern about an administration that often appears more focused on loyalty, image, and personal power than on public service.
A megalomaniac leader is defined not by a single act, but by a pattern of behavior. Political psychology associates such traits with grandiosity, inflated self‑importance, a need for admiration, intolerance of criticism, and a desire for control. Critics argue that the president’s conduct reflects these traits: demanding loyalty, attacking opponents, rewarding flattery, and framing disagreement as betrayal.
His public image appears central to his leadership style. He has promoted portrayals of himself as a heroic, powerful, symbolic figure. Supporters may view these as political theater; critics see a leader preoccupied with personal greatness. A president grounded in constitutional duty does not require constant self‑mythologizing—the office itself carries authority.
That impulse extends into efforts to attach his name, image, and personal brand to public institutions and national symbols. The significance of monuments, commemorative projects, and branding efforts lies not in any single proposal, but in what they suggest about governing priorities. Symbolic projects become revealing when they overshadow substantive policy needs.
A president’s priorities are revealed not only by what he says but by what he chooses to pursue.
Americans have repeatedly expressed concern about housing affordability, healthcare costs, wages, infrastructure, and economic stability. Yet public attention is often drawn toward symbolic projects and political spectacles centered on the president himself. Critics argue that this contrast reflects a deeper imbalance: while citizens seek solutions to urgent problems, government attention is redirected toward personal recognition.
The issue is not simply vanity. The issue is governance.
Every hour devoted to personal glorification is an hour not devoted to public problems. Taxpayer resources are not unlimited, and government attention is not symbolic—it is consequential. Public funds exist to solve problems, maintain infrastructure, protect rights, and address national needs, not to elevate individual political figures.
While families struggle with housing costs, healthcare expenses, childcare, and economic uncertainty, critics argue that governance often shifts toward symbolic displays, political grievance, and personal branding. Whether through naming efforts, public spectacles, or highly visible self‑referential projects, many Americans see a government increasingly oriented around one individual rather than the population it serves.
This is where concerns about megalomania become relevant. The issue is not a clinical label, but a governing pattern: when self‑focus becomes dominant, priorities shift. Public attention, political capital, and taxpayer resources risk being diverted toward sustaining a leader’s image rather than addressing public needs.
The pattern extends beyond symbolism. The president has frequently attacked judges who rule against him, characterized oversight as persecution, and portrayed institutional constraints as obstacles to his agenda. Supporters argue he is confronting entrenched interests, while critics see a deeper unwillingness to accept limits on presidential authority.
Independent courts, congressional oversight, inspectors general, and accountability mechanisms exist to prevent the concentration of power. When a president repeatedly challenges those safeguards, concerns about executive overreach become clear.
The same concerns arise when examining promises and performance. Presidents of all parties fall short of campaign promises, but critics argue that this presidency is marked by a recurring pattern of sweeping claims, shifting explanations, and refusal to accept responsibility. When narrative becomes more important than accountability, public trust erodes.
Over time, this produces consequences that extend beyond politics. Trust in institutions weakens, polarization intensifies, public servants operate under increased pressure, and citizens become less confident that government is acting in their interest. These are not abstract outcomes—they shape how people experience government in daily life, from economic stability to institutional reliability.
The consequences accumulate into something more serious: erosion of shared confidence in democratic systems themselves.
This is where the risk becomes structural. Political psychologists and constitutional scholars warn that when leadership centers on personal ambition, erodes accountability, and treats safeguards as illegitimate, it creates the conditions for democratic backsliding. Tyranny does not appear in a single moment; it grows when limits on power are steadily weakened or dismissed.
A presidency that concentrates attention on loyalty, undermines oversight, and elevates personal image above institutional restraint does not immediately become authoritarian. But it creates an opening for authoritarian drift: reduced accountability, weakened institutional independence, and normalization of personal power over constitutional limits.
When duty is abandoned, the nation absorbs the abuse—through weakened institutions, distorted priorities, and a presidency centered on personal power rather than public service.
The Framers anticipated this danger. They designed a system of separated powers precisely because they understood that no leader could be trusted with unchecked authority. The Constitution was not written for ideal leaders but for flawed ones—and for moments when ambition overwhelms restraint.
The events surrounding January 6 intensified concerns about how fragile democratic norms can become under strain. Millions watched violence unfold at the Capitol as Congress carried out its constitutional duty. What alarmed many Americans was not only the attack itself but what they viewed as an inadequate response from a president whose foremost responsibility was to defend constitutional order. Critics argue that the episode revealed how quickly institutional stability can be tested when loyalty to a leader competes with loyalty to the Constitution.
Concerns about presidential priorities also extend to foreign policy. Critics argue that several major decisions have contributed to instability, uncertainty, and economic disruption. When projecting strength becomes the goal rather than a strategy, the result is volatility rather than security.
Restoring duty requires every branch of government to fulfill its constitutional role. Congress must exercise oversight, use its power of appropriations, pass legislation, and, when necessary, pursue impeachment. Courts must uphold the law, protect due process, and enforce constitutional limits. Public institutions must remain accountable to the Constitution rather than to any individual officeholder.
Citizens have responsibilities. They must remain informed, reject normalization of abuses of power, participate in civic life, demand accountability, and vote. The Constitution provides remedies, but those remedies depend on a public willing to use them.
A republic survives only when its citizens insist that leaders serve the country—not themselves.
An abusive president who seeks to place his name, image, and personal brand at the center of public life is not simply building a legacy. Critics argue he is attempting to make himself inseparable from the nation itself. The taxpayers who fund government deserve more than spectacle, branding campaigns, political retaliation, and displays of personal grandeur. They deserve constitutional leadership focused on their needs.
The Framers understood the danger of leaders who confuse themselves with the country they govern. They wrote the Constitution not to flatter presidents, but to restrain them—especially those who place personal ambition above public duty. The Republic survives only when the Constitution, not the president, defines the limits of power.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about democracy, constitutional duty, and the role of citizens in strengthening public life.
Keep ReadingShow less
A Georgetown student reflects on democracy, political polarization, civic engagement, and why empathy, dialogue, and informed citizens are essential to America's future.
Eugene Mymrin / Getty Images
Democracy is a Responsibility, Not a Guarantee
Jun 29, 2026
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Alexis Tamm, a student at Georgetown University and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
I grew up surrounded by symbols of democracy, as if it was something that would simply always exist in the United States.
“This is the best country in the world,” my grandfather used to tell me. As an immigrant from Latvia fleeing WWII and the Soviet regime, his family embraced the American Dream narrative and built a life for themselves here from next to nothing. And I never had reason to question his assertion. I stood among my classmates with my right hand over my heart as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at the instruction of the cackling loudspeaker of my public elementary school classrooms. My family used to count how many American flags we could spot flying from the houses we passed on our way to the local Fourth of July parade. Our democracy is so well-woven into the fabric of our country’s history and the symbolism of American life that I thought I would never need to doubt its health and stability.
Democracy as a form of government literally means power vested in its people. But it’s much more than just elections or government institutions—it’s a relationship among its citizens. And in a country of more than 342 million people of all backgrounds governed by fifty semi-independent states, there will never be a singular consensus about anything. Today, our democracy has grown fragile because it depends on its citizens’ willingness to engage with each other, and growing polarization has been eroding that foundation.
A recent Pew Research Center study found that the health of our democracy notably declined in 2025 following a pattern of weakening over the past decade, according to multiple evaluations that have long tracked the performance of democracies around the world. And this decline is perceived among the public: in a March 2026 survey, 69% of American adults reported dissatisfaction with the way our democracy is working. But the irony of this dissatisfaction is that our democracy and its future don’t lie solely in the hands of those in office. While elected officials may bear the heaviest weight of democracy, it is built on its people—a foundation that has been strengthened by centuries of collaboration, discourse, and debate.
During my time in college, I noticed many people seemed to feel that it was their responsibility to impose their beliefs on others, or actively (and often vocally) isolate themselves from those with different viewpoints. I watched as people unfriended classmates on social media when they discovered such a difference, whether it be a political party they supported or a campus organization to which they belonged. I even had a friend urge me to rethink my relationship with my grandparents—who I have always been very close to—because they held the “wrong” political views. But when did disagreement validate exclusion—and how are we supposed to uphold the same democracy if we refuse to even acknowledge each other?
This is the crux of the issue: we are too focused on exerting our own beliefs and surrounding ourselves with people and media who support our way of thinking. In a world where information has never been so accessible, it is easy to put ourselves in an echo chamber, whether we do so consciously or not. By consuming only information that enforces our own beliefs, we risk isolating ourselves from perspectives and experiences outside our own. The problem is not that many people hold strong convictions—this, in fact, is the very thing that keeps our democracy in check—but rather that they refuse to acknowledge or are quick to dismiss others with different perspectives. By doing so, we remove any possibility of bridging differences to find a common solution that benefits us all or, at the very least, understanding what makes our belief systems so distinct, even if we will never actually agree. A strong democracy requires a balance between conviction and coexistence.
Democracy isn’t self-sustaining; it is practiced daily by every citizen in the smallest of ways. Yes, we must continue to uphold our critical role in maintaining democracy as voters and voices to advocate for ourselves and our beliefs. But more importantly, we must consciously think about the role we play in strengthening our democracy. It can start with a few simple actions: diversify your information sources. Have a conversation with someone you disagree with—and listen to understand, not to respond. Don’t jump to judge others before you take the time to learn what drives their beliefs.
Disagreement is inevitable—in fact, it’s necessary in a nation so large and diverse. But unless we can agree to disagree in ways that allow us to develop empathy and understanding for people different from ourselves, we will never be able to save our democracy’s fragile foundations.
Alexis Tamm is a Fulcrum Fellow and a student at Georgetown University. An avid writer and aspiring journalist, she is passionate about solutions-focused reporting and driving change through storytelling.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More