Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

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