Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Glimmer of Hope in a Season of Cruelty

Opinion

USAID flag outside a building
A USAID flag outside a building.
J. David Ake/Getty Images

In a recent interview, New York Times and Atlantic contributor Peter Wehner did not mince words about President Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and slashing of funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). “This to me was an act of wanton cruelty,” Wehner said. “You really had to go out of your way to think, ‘How can I kill millions of people quickly, efficiently?’ And they found one way to do it, which is to shatter USAID.”

Wehner is not alone in his outrage. At the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival, fellow conservative columnist David Brooks echoed the sentiment: “That one decision [gutting USAID] fills me with a kind of rage that I don’t usually experience.”


These are not the words of ideological firebrands. They are the anguished cries of center-right thinkers appalled by what they see as a betrayal of American ideals. Their voices mirror the grief and fury of millions of Americans—Republican and Democrat alike—who still believe the United States has a responsibility to lead with decency and compassion in the world.

And yet, amid the wreckage, a glimmer of hope emerged on July 23. Against the backdrop of President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 (FY26) budget—one that gutted critical global health funding—the House Appropriations Committee pushed back. Quietly, and perhaps improbably, it stood up for life-saving U.S. foreign assistance.

Here are two examples that highlight the significance of this stand.

First, the Committee rejected Trump’s proposal to slash funding for Maternal and Child Health by more than 92 percent—from $915 million down to just $85 million. Instead, the Committee maintained full funding. This isn’t just a budget line; it’s a lifeline. Over the last four decades, programs like USAID’s Maternal and Child Health Account have contributed to a 66 percent drop in global child deaths, from 40,000 a day in the early 1980s to just over 13,000 a day in 2023.

Second, Trump’s budget called for cutting the U.S. contribution to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by over half, from $1.65 billion to $800 million. The Committee refused. It provided $1.5 billion. Since 2002, The Global Fund—working alongside PEPFAR and other partners—has saved over 65 million lives.

These victories didn’t materialize out of thin air. They were the result of years—and in many cases, decades—of relentless advocacy. Advocates and global health leaders didn’t just march or post on social media; they went inside and met with lawmakers, educated them, built bipartisan coalitions, and asked for bold, specific action. Here are two examples.

On April 28, 2025, Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Ami Bera (D-CA), and Mike Kelly (D-NY) led 160 members of the House in a letter urging appropriators to maintain robust FY26 funding for The Global Fund and PEPFAR.

On May 16, the same two House Republicans, joined by Representatives Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Jim McGovern (D-MA), led a second letter—this one signed by 128 members—calling for the full funding of Maternal and Child Health programs, Gavi (The Vaccine Alliance), and nutrition initiatives.

This is what democracy looks like: not just resistance but relationship building, not just protest but persistence, all key aspects of transformational advocacy.

Of course, the fight is far from over. The Senate must now finalize its appropriations, and both chambers must agree on a final bill the that president will sign. Even then, the real work continues—ensuring that these funds are implemented effectively and that they reach the mothers, children, and communities who need them most.

But this first step matters. In an era of rising cruelty and retreat from global responsibility, the House Appropriations Committee’s action on global health is not just a policy decision. It is a statement of values—and a signal that, even now, compassion can still find a foothold in our politics.

It is, quite simply, a glimmer of hope.

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

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less