Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Forward Party to endorse midterm candidates this week

Andrew Yang, Forward Party

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang (above) is headed to Utah to help Evan McMullin, an independent running for Senate in Utah.

Marco Bello/Getty Images

The Forward Party, a new political entity led by former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, is planning to announce its first round of election endorsements this week.

While Yang and Whitman would not confirm the list of candidates the party will endorse, Yang did acknowledge it will be weighing in on at least one particular Senate race.

“I will likely be heading to Utah to help Evan McMullin,” Yang said, referring to the Republican turned independent who is challenging the GOP incumbent, Sen. Mike Lee.


The Forward Party’s support for McMullin is not a surprise given that Yang previously announced his personal support for McMullin – and that McMullin founded one of the three organizations that merged to become the new party.

The current iteration of the Forward Party is the result of combining the original version formed by Yang, the Serve America Movement and the Renew America Movement. SAM was created by Republicans, Democrats and independents, and it is led by former Republican Rep. David Jolly. RAM, which started out as Stand Up Republic, was founded by McMullin, a former Republican who ran for president as an independent in 2016, and Miles Taylor, who served in Donald Trump’s administration. Its leadership team includes a number of other former GOP leaders.

According to Yang and Whitman, the Forward Party is going to endorse candidates in federal, state and local races, and the list will include Republicans, Democrats and independents.

The top priority on McMullin’s campaign website covers strengthening democracy and reducing extremism. He has been endorsed by the state Democracy Party, which decided to throw its support to him rather than running a long-shot candidate of their own. Recent polling shows Lee with a 7-point lead.

“Where we see an extreme candidate versus one leaning in our direction, that’s where we put our efforts,” Whitman said, explaining that they are looking for candidates who support two specific proposals to reform the political system: open primaries and ranked-choice voting.

Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, which usually develop platforms on policy issues (health care, the economy, immigration, etc.), the Forward Party is instead focused on electing “solutions oriented” candidates who support three concepts it has identified as “free people,” “thriving communities” and “vibrant democracy.”

“Tens of millions of Americans want a positive unifying third party movement in the country,” Yang said.

The data backs up Yang’s claim. Last week, Gallup released its last survey on third parties, finding that more than half (56 percent) of Americans believe a third major political party is necessary because the Democratic and Republican parties do a poor job representing the people.

That includes 75 percent of self-described independents, 45 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats.

“We have dozens of conversations with people of both parties who are fed up,” Yang said. “Many are in conversations with us to join or work together.”

Since announcing the formation of the party in July, Whitman, Yang and the other leaders have relied on a grassroots effort to build support.

So far, the Forward Party has enlisted 25,000 activists across all 50 states, and “10 times that number” on the party’s mailing list or engaged in some other way, according to Yang.

Whitman believes that early growth, coupled with media coverage and events, has generated momentum that could accelerate with this week’s endorsements.

“Once we show them we’re real and the commitment we have and the spread we have, people will come to it,” she said, stressing that a small number can make a big difference. “But remember, we don’t have to get them all. You can make change .. with just 5 percent or 7 percent” of the electorate.

(Joe Biden won the popular vote in 2020 by less than 5 percentage points. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by 2 points.)

In addition to engaging in the midterm elections and growing the party base, Forward leaders are continuing the work necessary to qualify for ballots around the country. Their goal is to be on the ballot in 15 states by the end of this year, double that by the end of 2023 and in every state by 2024. They intend to hold a national convention next summer.

“This sort of movement cannot succeed without thousands of us and eventually millions of us who want something better for our country than we can get with a dysfunctional two-party system that represents fewer people each passing day,” Yang said.

But they realize it’s going to take time to build the party.

“This isn’t going to happen overnight,” Whitman said. “But we’re committed to it.”

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less