Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

For the People Act falls victim to partisan dysfunction

Sen. Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin drove the final nail into the For the People Act's coffin.

Pool/Getty Images

When Sen. Joe Manchin's office told CNN this week that he opposes the For the People Act, the West Virginia Democrat struck a fatal blow to his party's signature legislation to overhaul the elections, redistricting, campaign finance and ethics rules.

From its debut in 2019, the legislation was considered a long shot at best and likely nothing more than a messaging platform for Democrats. That prediction -- the first article written by The Fulcrum -- has come to fruition two and a half years later as the parties avoided attempts at compromise and fought over congressional rules that stymied passage.


In March 2019, Democrats forced the bill through the House on a strictly party-line vote while knowing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was never going to allow a vote in the Republican-run Senate.

But after Joe Biden won the presidency and Democrats took control of a 50-50 Senate, the bill's backers thought they might have a real opportunity to enact the popular legislation (known to many as HR 1 and S 1). However, while the Democrats again won passage in the House (this time with one Democrat joining all Republicans in opposition), they still faced the daunting challenge of overcoming the Senate filibuster.

The chamber's rules allow senators to obstruct a vote by prolonging debate indefinitely. The only way to end the debate and move to a vote is to "invoke cloture," which requires 60 senators to vote in favor of ending debate and moving to a vote on the subject at hand. In recent years, cloture votes have become the norm for any partisan bill -- even without any senators actually engaging in a filibuster.

A number of Democrats have called for abolishing the legislative filibuster this year (the Senate previously ended the practice of filibustering presidential nominations) in order to pass the For the People Act. But two Democratic senators, Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, have said they oppose ending the Senate tradition. If both of them changed their minds, the filibuster could be abolished and only a bare majority would be needed to pass the For the People Act. (This last step could be achieved if all Democrats voted in favor and Vice President Harris broke the anticipated tie.)

With Manchin opposing the bill, there's no path forward.

So how did we get here?

First, the For the People Act has been a partisan play from the beginning. Democrats set it as a legislative priority and never invited Republicans to help craft or change the legislation. Of course, Republicans did not seek a meaningful role -- both sides dug into their deep-rooted positions with no room for compromise.

And then there's the filibuster, which for more than two centuries has been cited as a tool for preventing a majority from running roughshod over the political minority, helping the Senate cool any tempers flaring in the House of Representatives. In order to overcome opposition, senators were forced to reach a compromise accepted by both parties.

But opinions have shifted and some reformers have cited the filibuster as a leading cause of legislative dysfunction, saying one cranky lawmaker (or the minority as a whole) can gum up the works when a majority is trying to serve the people.

While the massive bill, which has demonstrated bipartisan support in polling, has nowhere to go, perhaps it could be scrapped for parts. Republicans might be willing to accept some components that prove popular among their constituents, as long as they can still say they are preventing a federal takeover of elections. But don't hold your breath.

Read More

Draining the Safeguards

Donald Trump

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Draining the Safeguards

A loyalty-forward government has formed right before our eyes. Jared Kushner has been tapped to help lead the Israel–Hamas talks. He wasn’t chosen for his expertise in delicate diplomacy; he was chosen because he’s the president’s son-in-law—and because some around him seem to treat his Jewish identity as if that alone were a qualification aligned with a pro-Israel posture. Identity and proximity are not expertise. That’d be like putting Linda McMahon in charge of the Department of Education because she once (seemingly!) went to school. Oh wait, we did that too. What are we doing here?

Zoom out from the Kushner headline and the method snaps into focus. First, elevate friends, family, donors, and media allies into roles once filled by deeply vetted and experienced professionals. Second, lean on “acting” titles and novel personnel rules to dodge scrutiny and degrade accountability. Third, purge the referees—advisory boards, inspectors general, nonpartisan civil servants—so the only guardrail left is personal loyalty. It’s governing by who you know, not what you know.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dwight Eisenhower
Without leaders like Dwight Eisenhower we will once again find ourselves on the precipice of a "world devoid of hope, freedom, economic stability, morals, values and human decency," writes M. Dane Waters.
Moore/Getty Images

The General's Warning: What Eisenhower Knew About Power

On September 28, 2025, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to American cities for domestic law enforcement, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing 200 Oregon National Guard members for a 60-day deployment to Portland. A federal judge temporarily blocked the move, calling the justification for military deployment "simply untethered to the facts." When the administration tried to circumvent the order by sending troops from other states, the judge expanded her ruling, blocking any federalized National Guard deployment to Oregon.

That declaration marks a break with the boundary Dwight Eisenhower insisted upon between national defense and domestic politics. His 1961 farewell address warned against exactly this misuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

An armed law enforcement agent sits in an armored vehicle as residents of Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood confront law enforcement at a gas station after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents allegedly detained an unidentified man riding in his car, in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 4, 2025.

(AFP via Getty Images)

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

A masked, federal agent in combat uniform leans out the passenger window of a Jeep and points a military rifle directly at the face of a U.S. citizen in Chicago, simply for recording him.

It should send a chill down every American’s spine. President Trump’s revenge on America’s liberal cities is an authoritarian abuse of power. Americans in 2025 should not have to live in police states or with the National Guard patrolling their streets or pointing weapons at them.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Are Chicago

Thousands of protesters packed Daley Plaza and marched through the streets of Chicago, April 05, 2025.

Photo by Barry Brecheisen/Getty Images for Community Change Action

We Are Chicago

Just after 1 a.m. on Chicago’s South Side, residents woke to pounding on doors, smoke in the hallways, and armed federal agents flooding their building. The raid was part of a broader immigration crackdown that has brought Border Patrol and ICE teams into the city using SWAT-style tactics. Journalists documented door breaches and dozens detained; federal officials confirmed at least 37 arrests on immigration charges. Residents described chaos, kids in shock, and damaged apartments. As of this writing, none of the 37 arrested have been charged with violent crimes or proven ties to the Tren de Aragua gang—the stated target. (Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times)

City and state leaders are pushing back. Chicago’s mayor created “ICE-free zones” on city property, limiting access without a warrant. Illinois and Chicago then sued to block the administration’s plan to add National Guard troops to “protect federal assets” and support federal operations, calling the move unlawful and escalatory. The legal fight is active; the state has asked courts to stop what it calls an “invasion.” (AP News, TIME)

Keep ReadingShow less