Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What kind of America do you want?

A crowd of protesters in Times Square,, with one person holding a sign that reads "PROJECT 2025 is CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM" by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The sign includes the hashtags #StopProject2025 and au.org/project2025. The background features prominent advertisements, including a Meta billboard and the Nasdaq building.

Project 2025 would restrict freedom of religion, writes Quince.

Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Quince, a member of the board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, was the first African American woman to serve on the Florida Supreme Court and as chief justice.

On Nov. 5, in elections around the country, we will determine whether these United States of America will continue to aspire to be a democratic republic or whether this country will give up its freedoms and embrace authoritarianism.

As an African American female who has lived through — and is still living through — systemic racism in this country, I know that despite the flaws in our system, our best path forward is to continue to work for justice and equality for all, to work with and preserve the rule of law and embrace and strengthen the constitutional ideals that are the hallmark of our American democracy.


We need not speculate on what our lives will be like should extremism continue to take over the branches of government. We have already felt the brunt of a judiciary that is driven by ideology instead of legal rules and precedent. We have already witnessed legislatures that have instituted laws suppressing not only the right to vote but also the right to dissent and to assemble peaceably to express that dissent. We are witnessing the suppression of the free flow of knowledge through book banning. Our children are now being exposed to revisionist history, and they are being told what books they can read, not by their parents but by the state.

Beyond these horrors lurks Project 2025. Promoted as a “conservative promise” for America, it is nothing close to traditional notions of conservatism. Project 2025 is an extremist blueprint for what is effectively authoritarian domination of America. It is a comprehensive plan to eradicate the American way of life, by ignoring the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental principles of human dignity and the ideals of a free, just and equal society that form the bedrock of this democratic America. The 30 chapters of Project 2025, described by Politico as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement with the purposeful intention of moving America from a democracy to an autocracy-fascist-oriented country, are a daunting read.

This 922-page document seeks to destroy the fabric of our lives and many of our rights as embodied in the Bill of rights.

Here are but a few examples of what would happen to us if Project 2025 is implemented.

The First Amendment would be severely upended. While the First Amendment embodies five distinct rights — freedom of speech, freedom of religion (free exercise), freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petition — religious freedom would be dramatically restricted if Project 2025 becomes the blueprint for America.

The freedom of religion has for many years been interpreted to provide for the separation of church and state. That separation would be eviscerated. Not only would Christianity be the “national” religion, but it would be supported by our taxpayer dollars going to faith-based organizations through USAID funding and other governmental programs.

We have already seen draconian legislation that has significantly stifled the right to assemble peacefully by designating protesters as rioters should any type of disturbance take place. And we know that counter protesters will make sure there is disturbance. We have also seen the press vilified when negative stories or opinions about specific politicians are expressed. Now we are threatened with the use of the military and Department of Justice resources to punish political opponents.

Beyond the threats to these basic rights, we see in Project 2025 the demise of our free public education system. While there certainly needs to be major improvements in our education system, Project 2025 seeks to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Instead of proposing changes, proponents of Project 2025 want to essentially eliminate the system and turn education over to private and religious organizations that are not bound by any standards or admission policies. These provisions are prime examples of violations of the principles of separation of church and state.

When did so many Americans get to the point where they do longer believe in the Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence, in the ideals that have served us well for over 200 years? How did we get to this point where a country that was founded to get away from a king’s command over the people’s lives seems on the brink of embracing this type of authoritarian leadership?

Maybe we need look no further than eliminating civics from our school curricula. Maybe we now have a population that does not understand the Constitution. A population that does not understand the concept of three co-equal branches of government or the separation of church and state. A population that has not learned from history but is willing to make the same mistakes that lead to ruin for other countries. A population that cannot or will not think for itself but is spoon-fed, told what to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

This is not the America I know and love. Please wake up, America!


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less