In the run up to the 2022 election, FiveThirtyEight tracked what every single Republican nominee for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state and attorney general said about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Thirty-five percent fully rejected Biden’s win and another 10 percent cast doubt on it. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with reporter Kaleigh Rogers about how candidates who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election did in the midterms.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
- YouTube
Rich Harwood: A Philosophy of Civic Faith
Jun 08, 2025
Rich Harwood is the president and founder of The Harwood Institute.
The organization's mission is to nurture a world where community is a common and enduring enterprise – where everyone can come together amid their differences to solve the complex challenges that affect us all.
I spoke with Rich, whose columns are frequently published on the Fulcrum. He was a guest on a recent episode of the Fulcrum Democracy Forum (FDF). The program engages citizens in shaping a more effective government to better meet the needs of all people. Consistent with Fulcrum's mission, FDF strives to share diverse perspectives to broaden our audience's viewpoints.
He shared the work the institute leads, including his philosophy of civic faith.
"How does change actually happen in a way that both addresses what really matters to people and that strengthens the civic culture of communities," Rich said. "One of the discoveries that we've made is that the biggest predictor of whether communities move forward it's actually the civic culture of our communities and whether or not we have the right kind of enabling environment that allows change to take root and grow and spread over time."
We also spoke about his new book, "The New Civic Path." "I wrote it because I believe that we as a country are stuck, and at the same time that people are hungry for an alternative path forward. We don't need more divisive politics, but that I believe we need a new civic path, a path that begins in our local communities and brings us together," Rich said.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Dedicated to transforming public and political lives by supporting individuals, organizations, and communities in their quest to create change, Rich told us about the four things that inspire his work, including frustration. "Too many nonprofits are afraid to get dirt under their fingernails and do the really difficult work that we need to do in really difficult places. And that too many of us live off of soft money and aren't creating the impact we say we are. I was frustrated by that, and I wanted to see whether or not something else could happen."
SUGGESTIONS:
Michael Rivera: The Importance of Getting Involved
Gregg Amore: Faith in Democracy
Nate Gilliam: Love & Frustration
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Unrecognizable person clinging to a fence deprived of freedom
Getty Images//Stock Photo
Selective Sympathy: America’s Racial Double Standard on South African Asylum
Jun 08, 2025
It's a peculiar feeling to see the United States, a nation built on the bones of the oppressed, suddenly rebrand itself as a sanctuary for the persecuted as long as those seeking refuge are white. The current executive branch of the American government has managed to weaponize the language of human rights for its own geopolitical and racial ends— that is, selective, self-serving, misguided, and immoral.
The Trump administration is sullying the name of America, with barely a fig leaf of evidence, by trumpeting allegations of "genocide" against white South Africans. The chorus rises from right-wing newsrooms to the halls of Congress, fueled by viral videos and the breathless retelling of farm attacks, stripped of historical context or statistical rigor. White South Africans are an endangered species, so told, and America must fling open its doors, granting not just asylum but a fast track to citizenship—no questions asked.
Contrast this with the labyrinth of cruelty that greets Black and brown asylum seekers from Haiti, Central America, the Middle East, or sub-Saharan Africa. For them, there are cages, deportations, and endless bureaucratic purgatory. For white South Africans, there is welcome. There is sympathy. There is an open hand.
I've seen South Africa—its pain, promise, unfinished struggle—up close. In my Fulcrum article, I wrote about my post-apartheid travels, the complicated dance of reconciliation, and the everyday heroism of ordinary South Africans, Black and white, who have refused to let the wounds of history fester into new cycles of vengeance. My cross-cultural work and conversations with survivors, clergy, activists, and families across townships and suburbs all tell a story far more nuanced than the caricature circulating in Washington.
Yes, South Africa is a country haunted by violence. Due chiefly to its legacy of apartheid, centuries of land theft, and economic exclusion. But why, then, does this administration fixate on South Africa? Why the sudden urge to play the benevolent savior to white refugees while ramping up barriers against everyone else? We all know the answer. In America, whiteness still confers an almost magical power to transform suffering—real or imagined—into moral urgency.
By elevating the plight of white South Africans, the administration feeds the anxieties of its base, stokes the flames of racial resentment, and distracts from its failure to confront domestic racism. The narrative of "white genocide" conveniently erases the ongoing economic and social violence faced by Black South Africans while allowing American politicians to posture as champions of human rights. However, there is a cost for selective morality.
A moral democracy assumes every person, regardless of race or origin, should have the right to seek refuge from violence and persecution. Yet the present federal approach is not about principle; it is about power. The Trump administration's policy is not grounded in a careful assessment of need or risk; it is animated by an old and ugly logic, one that privileges whiteness and treats Black and brown lives as disposable.
I've visited with South Africans—white, Black, and "colored"—whose lives have been touched by violence. I've visited the inner cities and the rural and affluent communities where fear and hardship are a daily reality. But I've also seen the tenacity of reconciliation, the struggle for justice, the messy, unfinished work of building a nation out of the ashes of apartheid. Truthfully, it is not up to Americans—least of all American politicians who have less than informed working knowledge of cultural life in Johannesburg, Soweto, Hoedspruit, Pretoria, or Cape Town—to define or distort the reality of contemporary South Africa. And it is certainly not the role of the U.S. government to selectively amplify one group's suffering while erasing or minimizing the suffering of others.
There exists a reality behind the rhetoric. Credible researchers—including the South African Human Rights Commission and independent international observers—have found no evidence of a government campaign to exterminate white South Africans. Farm murders, tragic as they are, represent a fraction of the country's overall violent crime, which overwhelmingly affects Black South Africans. Nevertheless, the Trump
administration has ignored these findings, preferring the sensationalism of viral hoaxes and the lobbying of far-right interest groups. It's no coincidence that the loudest voices calling for white South African asylum are the same ones who championed the Muslim ban or who cheered on the mass deportation of Haitian refugees last year.
A call of conscience is before our nation. Together, we must challenge this nation's leaders and all those who enable its policies to answer for this betrayal of our deepest ethical commitments. America cannot claim to champion global human rights while practicing racial triage at its borders. We cannot claim to have moved beyond our apartheid-like practices while importing its logic into our laws.
Moreover, if we are serious about justice, we must extend the same dignity and protection to all who seek refuge—not just those whose suffering flatters our prejudices. We must listen to the people of South Africa, in all their diversity, and resist the temptation to reduce their reality to propaganda.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
What our nation needs is a broad-based, pro-democracy civic movement
LeoPatrizi/Getty Images
The America I Love
Jun 07, 2025
The country that I love is behaving like a spoiled child. There is a new approach to governance in the American government that replaces trust with fear, understanding with punishment, and reason with retribution.
After World War II, the United States became the moral standard for the world. We weren’t perfect, but we were way ahead of most of the rest of the world. We were self-serving and primarily looked out for our own interests, but we achieved this by being helpful to other nations, not through cruelty and deception, and we were not vindictive.
Following World War II, President Truman initiated the Marshall Plan to aid in the reconstruction of Europe. We had seen what exacting retribution on Germany after World War I had done. Seeking reparations had bankrupted our former enemies and created conditions in Europe that fostered a bitterness towards the victors, leading to dictatorship and a desire to replace the shame of losing the war with a policy of nationalistic hatred and revenge. It almost succeeded. Eventually, American strength and resolve were all that stopped it.
America did well by doing good. We were powerful, but we shared the power. We were prosperous, and we helped other nations prosper as well. We were self-serving, but we served others. Why? Because gratitude is more enduring than envy, and trust is stronger than fear.
In the name of America, we did great things for most of the world. We were looked up to.
Those days are gone
And the road back, if we ever decide to take it again, will be a long one. Like an unfaithful spouse, forgiveness can come quickly, but trust takes years and years to rebuild.
And what has been the purpose, the motivation that propelled us into this darkness? Imagined slights and wrongs that have led to government attacks on our greatest assets. You can dismiss the quest of learning for the sake of knowledge alone, but there’s a lot of money to be made by exploiting that knowledge through capitalizing it. You can dismiss “diversity” whatever you believe that to mean, but if you want to replace it with uniformity, you have some excellent examples to show you the way, like China and Russia, where individualism is criminal behavior.
The danger of having a leader with no comprehension of how governments work, with no understanding of how nations interact, gives us a leader whose greatest knowledge of those things is seen through “The Art of the Deal” and how deal-making works. That is, who comes out ahead in the short run. But in the long run, it is trust that matters, not how you can manipulate others on occasion.
The problem is that winning in the short run does not do anything for those of us who are going to be living in the long run. Trump may be good at what he does, but is it good for the rest of us?
Since the end of World War II, the United States has maintained stability in the world order for 80 years. We were the only nation to do so consistently. Did we do it because we were just being nice? No, we did it because when other nations prosper through an economic stability guaranteed by America, America prospers, too, economically and morally.
It was good while it lasted.
A version of this column was first published in the Daily Inter Lake.
Jim Elliott served 16 years in the Montana Legislature as a state representative and state senator. He lives on his ranch in Trout Creek.
Keep ReadingShow less
A golden trump head stands before stacks of money.
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash
Just the Facts: Who Holds the Cards: The United States or China in Tariff Negotiations
Jun 07, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
What is the current status?
Recently, both countries agreed to temporarily reduce tariffs for 90 days, lowering reciprocal tariff rates to 10%. However, the U.S. still maintains a 30% baseline tariff on Chinese goods, while China has removed some non-tariff countermeasures
On Monday, May 12, 2025, the White House and China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) released a joint statement in which they committed to lowering reciprocal tariff rates from 125 percent to just 10 percent for a period of 90 days. The existing 20 percent tariff on Chinese goods remains in place, meaning the final tariff rate on Chinese goods will be 30 percent. This tariff is levied in addition to the most-favored-nation tariff, as well as other existing tariffs on China, such as the Section 301 tariffs. However, they are not stacked on top of the sector-specific Section 232 tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum, and auto parts.
What percent of total China exports are to the United States
China's exports to the United States accounted for 15% of its total exports in 2023. This amounted to approximately $501 billion out of China's global exports of $3.4 trillion. Despite ongoing trade tensions, the U.S. remains China's largest single-country export market. In 2021, exports to the U.S. accounted for 17% of China's total exports, whereas in 2023, this dropped to 15%. The decline is largely due to ongoing trade tensions, supply chain shifts, and efforts by both countries to diversify their trade partnerships.
How does a decline in exports to the U.S. affect China's economy overall?
China's economy has been impacted by the decline in exports to the United States, but it has shown resilience by diversifying its trade partnerships and boosting domestic investment. The reduction in exports to the U.S. has contributed to a slower GDP growth rate, with estimates suggesting a 1.2 percentage point decline in growth due to the ongoing tariff war. However, China has responded with economic stimulus measures, which are expected to add 0.5 percentage points to growth, bringing the projected rate to around 4.5% for 2025.
Despite pressure from U.S. tariffs, China has maintained strong export growth to other markets, such as the EU and ASEAN, which helps offset losses. Additionally, China has been focusing on high-tech manufacturing and equipment investment, which has helped sustain economic momentum.
Overall, while the decline in U.S. exports has created challenges, China’s economy remains adaptable, leveraging alternative trade routes and domestic policies to mitigate the impact.
If China were to completely cut off imports of American products, it would have significant consequences for the U.S. economy, particularly in industries that rely heavily on Chinese demand. The most impacted sectors would likely be:
- Agriculture: China is a major importer of U.S. soybeans, corn, and pork. A full cutoff would severely harm American farmers, especially in states like Iowa and Nebraska, where agricultural exports to China are a key source of revenue.
- Technology & Semiconductors: U.S. tech companies, including chip manufacturers, rely on Chinese buyers. A halt in exports could disrupt supply chains and reduce revenue for firms like Qualcomm and Intel.
- Automobiles & Aerospace: China is a major market for American-made cars and aircraft. Companies like Boeing and Tesla would face significant losses if China were to stop purchasing U.S. vehicles and planes.
- Energy: The U.S. exports liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil to China. A cutoff would impact American energy producers and could lead to lower prices domestically due to excess supply.
Beyond specific industries, a full trade cutoff could slow U.S. economic growth, increase unemployment in affected sectors, and force companies to find alternative markets. However, some industries may adapt by shifting their exports to other countries, although this would take time and likely result in financial losses in the short term. The broader impact would depend on whether China imposes gradual restrictions or an immediate halt.
Which economy would be hurt more if all imports and exports were cut off between the US and China?
A complete cutoff of trade between the U.S. and China would have severe consequences for both economies, but the impact would differ based on their economic structures and dependencies.
Impact on the U.S.:
- Supply Chain Disruptions: Many American industries rely on Chinese manufacturing, especially in electronics, machinery, and consumer goods. A sudden halt would lead to shortages and price increases.
- Agriculture Losses: The U.S. exports large amounts of soybeans, corn, and pork to China. Farmers would struggle to find alternative buyers.
- Technology & Semiconductor Setbacks: China is a major market for U.S. tech companies. Losing access would harm firms such as Apple, Qualcomm, and Intel.
- Economic Growth Decline: The U.S. economy could experience a 0.8% drop in GDP due to lost trade.
Impact on China:
- Export Revenue Loss: The U.S. is one of China’s largest export markets, accounting for 15% of total exports. Losing this market would be a major financial hit.
- Manufacturing Slowdown: Many Chinese factories produce goods primarily for U.S. consumers. A trade cutoff would lead to job losses and production declines.
- Foreign Investment Decline: U.S. companies invest heavily in China. A trade halt could reduce foreign capital inflows.
- GDP Impact: China's economy could see a 1.2% decline in growth, as it relies more on exports than the U.S..
Who Would Be Hurt More?
China would likely suffer greater economic damage due to its higher dependence on exports and foreign investment. The U.S. would experience inflation and supply chain disruptions, but it has a more diversified economy and could recover faster. However, both nations would face long-term consequences, including job losses, slower growth, and global economic instability.
Who has more leverage politically- Trump or Xi Jinping?
Both Donald Trump and Xi Jinping hold significant political leverage, but in different ways.
- Economic Pressure: Trump is pushing for a direct call with Xi to negotiate trade terms, especially after China blocked U.S. access to critical minerals.
- Tariff Strategy: The U.S. recently lowered tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China reduced its duty rate on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%. Trump sees this as a bargaining chip.
- Domestic Politics: Trump is under pressure to secure a favorable trade deal without losing political capital at home.
Xi's Leverage:
- Control Over Trade: Xi has been firm in restricting exports of rare earth minerals, which are crucial for U.S. manufacturing.
- Strategic Patience: China is signaling that it won’t rush into concessions, making Trump’s eagerness for a deal a potential disadvantage.
- Global Influence: Xi’s leadership enables China to shift its trade relationships with other nations, reducing its reliance on the U.S.
Who Has More Leverage?
Trump is eager to reset trade talks, but Xi appears to be holding firm, making negotiations difficult. While Trump has economic tools at his disposal, Xi’s long-term strategy and control over key resources give him strong leverage. The outcome will depend on how each leader plays their cards in the coming weeks.
Who is a better negotiator - Xi or Trump, and what past negotiations might offer insights?
Xi is known for long-term strategic patience, while Trump relies on high-pressure tactics. Trump himself has admitted that Xi is “extremely hard to make a deal with”, suggesting that Xi’s approach may be more effective in maintaining control over negotiations. However, Trump’s unpredictability can force quick decisions, making him a formidable negotiator in fast-moving situations.
- Trump’s Influence: Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy pressured China into making concessions, including commitments to purchase $200 billion in U.S. goods over two years.
- Xi’s Influence: Xi ensured that China retained flexibility, agreeing to purchases but avoiding structural economic reforms that the U.S. wanted.
Geneva Trade Truce (2025)
- Trump’s Influence: Trump pushed for a temporary tariff reduction, lowering U.S. tariffs from 145% to 30%, while China reduced its duties from 125% to 10%.
- Xi’s Influence: Xi maintained control over rare earth exports, using them as leverage in negotiations.
Challenges in Reaching a New Deal
- Trump’s high-pressure tactics have led to quick agreements but often result in short-term instability.
- Xi’s long-term strategic patience enables slow but calculated negotiations, ensuring China retains control over key industries.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More