Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

Opinion

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.


“The second,” Whitehouse continued, “this gets a little bit boring, so I won’t go into it in detail, but as the appropriations bill moves forward, we can bake in increases above Trump’s budget, to the agencies we care about, guardrails against Trump’s mischief, and assurances and even hooks to make sure that the funding that we’ve appropriated actually gets spent and not blockaded by [Office of Management and Budget Director] Russ Vought. That we have until January 31st to do, when the current continuing resolution would expire. And then if they haven’t done those things we can go right back to insisting that they have to do them or face another government shutdown.”

The process that Whitehouse called “a little boring” provided an unexpected victory a few days later. Jeremy Lewin, the undersecretary of state for foreign assistance, humanitarian affairs, and religious freedom at the State Department, announced that the United States would provide $4.6 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria over three years. The Global Fund and its partners have saved 70 million lives since 2002. Lewin, a former Elon Musk lieutenant at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), helped oversee the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID,) which was our nation’s primary international aid agency.

The $4.6 billion was smaller than the previous Biden-era pledge. But it represented something important: a reversal by the Trump Administration.

In Trump’s budget for fiscal year 2026 (FY26), the President proposed slashing the Global Fund from the $1.65 billion enacted in FY25 to $800 million for FY26, a cut of more than 50%. Over three years, that would total just $2.4 billion. Instead, the administration nearly doubled that to $4.6 billion. Why?

Because Congress had already begun “baking in” increases above Trump’s proposed cuts, as Sen. Whitehouse called for.

On April 28, 160 House members—led by two Republicans and three Democrats—signed a bipartisan letter urging appropriators to maintain robust FY26 funding for the Global Fund and PEPFAR. They were rejecting the President’s proposed $850 million cut and signaling a clear expectation: hold the line.

The House Appropriations Committee followed through, allocating $1.5 billion for FY26 instead of Trump’s $800 million. Over three years, that totals $4.5 billion—almost exactly the size of the administration’s eventual pledge.

The matter moves next to the Senate, where appropriators often increase the House’s number in global health.

A few days before Lewin’s public announcement, a journalist asked him whether the United States would make a pledge to the Global Fund. Lewin’s answer was revealing: “We are in the midst of active consultations with Congress… we will be making a pledge… in the coming days, after our consultations with Congress.”

There it is—the quiet power Whitehouse was pointing to. The appropriations process may look boring, but it forces administrations to respond to Congress's will. And Congress often responds to its constituents' will.

Because here’s a truth that rarely makes headlines: the baking isn’t done only by elected officials. Citizens do it.

I know volunteers who have spent years and even decades bringing their members of Congress into the kitchen and over to the oven on issues like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Most of the 160 House signers entered Congress, never having heard of the Global Fund. It was engaged constituents, doing their homework and getting training, who taught them.

That is transformational advocacy, citizens awakening to their power. And you can join them.

Sam Daley-Harris is the author of “Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen’s Guide to Transformational Advocacy” and the founder of RESULTS and Civic Courage. This is part of a series focused on better understanding transformational advocacy: citizens awakening to their power.


Read More

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

View of the Pier C Park waterfront walkway and in the background the One World Trade Center on the left and the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal Clock Tower on the right

Getty Images, Philippe Debled

The City Where Traffic Fatalities Vanished

A U.S. city of 60,000 people would typically see around six to eight traffic fatalities every year. But Hoboken, New Jersey? They haven’t had a single fatal crash for nine years — since January 17, 2017, to be exact.

Campaigns for seatbelts, lower speed limits and sober driving have brought national death tolls from car crashes down from a peak in the first half of the 20th century. However, many still assume some traffic deaths as an unavoidable cost of car culture.

Keep ReadingShow less