In his new book "Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America," Washington Post national columnist Philip Bump argues that many of the fissures that the country is facing today — politically, economically, culturally — have to do with the Baby Boomers getting old. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Bump about what he found.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

People watch as US President Donald Trump makes a national address on television at Brooklyn Diner Times Square on April 1, 2026 in New York City. US President Donald Trump's address to the nation is expected to lay out the framework for ending the conflict in Iran.
Adam Gray / Getty Images
When Duty Isn’t a Priority: A Megalomaniac President Abuses the Nation
Jun 29, 2026
What does it mean when the presidential oath becomes a performance instead of a promise? It means the nation is left vulnerable to a leader whose actions suggest that personal power may matter more than the Constitution he swore to defend.
He raised his right hand and swore to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” Yet millions of Americans have watched a president whose conduct repeatedly raises doubts about his commitment to that oath. His attacks on constitutional limits, his hostility toward oversight, and his tendency to treat institutional constraints as obstacles to personal objectives have led many to conclude that constitutional duty is no longer his governing priority. When the oath becomes symbolic rather than binding, the consequences are carried by the public.
Across the country, Americans feel something deeper than political disagreement. Many describe instability, exhaustion, and concern about an administration that often appears more focused on loyalty, image, and personal power than on public service.
A megalomaniac leader is defined not by a single act, but by a pattern of behavior. Political psychology associates such traits with grandiosity, inflated self‑importance, a need for admiration, intolerance of criticism, and a desire for control. Critics argue that the president’s conduct reflects these traits: demanding loyalty, attacking opponents, rewarding flattery, and framing disagreement as betrayal.
His public image appears central to his leadership style. He has promoted portrayals of himself as a heroic, powerful, symbolic figure. Supporters may view these as political theater; critics see a leader preoccupied with personal greatness. A president grounded in constitutional duty does not require constant self‑mythologizing—the office itself carries authority.
That impulse extends into efforts to attach his name, image, and personal brand to public institutions and national symbols. The significance of monuments, commemorative projects, and branding efforts lies not in any single proposal, but in what they suggest about governing priorities. Symbolic projects become revealing when they overshadow substantive policy needs.
A president’s priorities are revealed not only by what he says but by what he chooses to pursue.
Americans have repeatedly expressed concern about housing affordability, healthcare costs, wages, infrastructure, and economic stability. Yet public attention is often drawn toward symbolic projects and political spectacles centered on the president himself. Critics argue that this contrast reflects a deeper imbalance: while citizens seek solutions to urgent problems, government attention is redirected toward personal recognition.
The issue is not simply vanity. The issue is governance.
Every hour devoted to personal glorification is an hour not devoted to public problems. Taxpayer resources are not unlimited, and government attention is not symbolic—it is consequential. Public funds exist to solve problems, maintain infrastructure, protect rights, and address national needs, not to elevate individual political figures.
While families struggle with housing costs, healthcare expenses, childcare, and economic uncertainty, critics argue that governance often shifts toward symbolic displays, political grievance, and personal branding. Whether through naming efforts, public spectacles, or highly visible self‑referential projects, many Americans see a government increasingly oriented around one individual rather than the population it serves.
This is where concerns about megalomania become relevant. The issue is not a clinical label, but a governing pattern: when self‑focus becomes dominant, priorities shift. Public attention, political capital, and taxpayer resources risk being diverted toward sustaining a leader’s image rather than addressing public needs.
The pattern extends beyond symbolism. The president has frequently attacked judges who rule against him, characterized oversight as persecution, and portrayed institutional constraints as obstacles to his agenda. Supporters argue he is confronting entrenched interests, while critics see a deeper unwillingness to accept limits on presidential authority.
Independent courts, congressional oversight, inspectors general, and accountability mechanisms exist to prevent the concentration of power. When a president repeatedly challenges those safeguards, concerns about executive overreach become clear.
The same concerns arise when examining promises and performance. Presidents of all parties fall short of campaign promises, but critics argue that this presidency is marked by a recurring pattern of sweeping claims, shifting explanations, and refusal to accept responsibility. When narrative becomes more important than accountability, public trust erodes.
Over time, this produces consequences that extend beyond politics. Trust in institutions weakens, polarization intensifies, public servants operate under increased pressure, and citizens become less confident that government is acting in their interest. These are not abstract outcomes—they shape how people experience government in daily life, from economic stability to institutional reliability.
The consequences accumulate into something more serious: erosion of shared confidence in democratic systems themselves.
This is where the risk becomes structural. Political psychologists and constitutional scholars warn that when leadership centers on personal ambition, erodes accountability, and treats safeguards as illegitimate, it creates the conditions for democratic backsliding. Tyranny does not appear in a single moment; it grows when limits on power are steadily weakened or dismissed.
A presidency that concentrates attention on loyalty, undermines oversight, and elevates personal image above institutional restraint does not immediately become authoritarian. But it creates an opening for authoritarian drift: reduced accountability, weakened institutional independence, and normalization of personal power over constitutional limits.
When duty is abandoned, the nation absorbs the abuse—through weakened institutions, distorted priorities, and a presidency centered on personal power rather than public service.
The Framers anticipated this danger. They designed a system of separated powers precisely because they understood that no leader could be trusted with unchecked authority. The Constitution was not written for ideal leaders but for flawed ones—and for moments when ambition overwhelms restraint.
The events surrounding January 6 intensified concerns about how fragile democratic norms can become under strain. Millions watched violence unfold at the Capitol as Congress carried out its constitutional duty. What alarmed many Americans was not only the attack itself but what they viewed as an inadequate response from a president whose foremost responsibility was to defend constitutional order. Critics argue that the episode revealed how quickly institutional stability can be tested when loyalty to a leader competes with loyalty to the Constitution.
Concerns about presidential priorities also extend to foreign policy. Critics argue that several major decisions have contributed to instability, uncertainty, and economic disruption. When projecting strength becomes the goal rather than a strategy, the result is volatility rather than security.
Restoring duty requires every branch of government to fulfill its constitutional role. Congress must exercise oversight, use its power of appropriations, pass legislation, and, when necessary, pursue impeachment. Courts must uphold the law, protect due process, and enforce constitutional limits. Public institutions must remain accountable to the Constitution rather than to any individual officeholder.
Citizens have responsibilities. They must remain informed, reject normalization of abuses of power, participate in civic life, demand accountability, and vote. The Constitution provides remedies, but those remedies depend on a public willing to use them.
A republic survives only when its citizens insist that leaders serve the country—not themselves.
An abusive president who seeks to place his name, image, and personal brand at the center of public life is not simply building a legacy. Critics argue he is attempting to make himself inseparable from the nation itself. The taxpayers who fund government deserve more than spectacle, branding campaigns, political retaliation, and displays of personal grandeur. They deserve constitutional leadership focused on their needs.
The Framers understood the danger of leaders who confuse themselves with the country they govern. They wrote the Constitution not to flatter presidents, but to restrain them—especially those who place personal ambition above public duty. The Republic survives only when the Constitution, not the president, defines the limits of power.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about democracy, constitutional duty, and the role of citizens in strengthening public life.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

A Georgetown student reflects on democracy, political polarization, civic engagement, and why empathy, dialogue, and informed citizens are essential to America's future.
Eugene Mymrin / Getty Images
Democracy is a Responsibility, Not a Guarantee
Jun 29, 2026
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Alexis Tamm, a student at Georgetown University and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
I grew up surrounded by symbols of democracy, as if it was something that would simply always exist in the United States.
“This is the best country in the world,” my grandfather used to tell me. As an immigrant from Latvia fleeing WWII and the Soviet regime, his family embraced the American Dream narrative and built a life for themselves here from next to nothing. And I never had reason to question his assertion. I stood among my classmates with my right hand over my heart as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at the instruction of the cackling loudspeaker of my public elementary school classrooms. My family used to count how many American flags we could spot flying from the houses we passed on our way to the local Fourth of July parade. Our democracy is so well-woven into the fabric of our country’s history and the symbolism of American life that I thought I would never need to doubt its health and stability.
Democracy as a form of government literally means power vested in its people. But it’s much more than just elections or government institutions—it’s a relationship among its citizens. And in a country of more than 342 million people of all backgrounds governed by fifty semi-independent states, there will never be a singular consensus about anything. Today, our democracy has grown fragile because it depends on its citizens’ willingness to engage with each other, and growing polarization has been eroding that foundation.
A recent Pew Research Center study found that the health of our democracy notably declined in 2025 following a pattern of weakening over the past decade, according to multiple evaluations that have long tracked the performance of democracies around the world. And this decline is perceived among the public: in a March 2026 survey, 69% of American adults reported dissatisfaction with the way our democracy is working. But the irony of this dissatisfaction is that our democracy and its future don’t lie solely in the hands of those in office. While elected officials may bear the heaviest weight of democracy, it is built on its people—a foundation that has been strengthened by centuries of collaboration, discourse, and debate.
During my time in college, I noticed many people seemed to feel that it was their responsibility to impose their beliefs on others, or actively (and often vocally) isolate themselves from those with different viewpoints. I watched as people unfriended classmates on social media when they discovered such a difference, whether it be a political party they supported or a campus organization to which they belonged. I even had a friend urge me to rethink my relationship with my grandparents—who I have always been very close to—because they held the “wrong” political views. But when did disagreement validate exclusion—and how are we supposed to uphold the same democracy if we refuse to even acknowledge each other?
This is the crux of the issue: we are too focused on exerting our own beliefs and surrounding ourselves with people and media who support our way of thinking. In a world where information has never been so accessible, it is easy to put ourselves in an echo chamber, whether we do so consciously or not. By consuming only information that enforces our own beliefs, we risk isolating ourselves from perspectives and experiences outside our own. The problem is not that many people hold strong convictions—this, in fact, is the very thing that keeps our democracy in check—but rather that they refuse to acknowledge or are quick to dismiss others with different perspectives. By doing so, we remove any possibility of bridging differences to find a common solution that benefits us all or, at the very least, understanding what makes our belief systems so distinct, even if we will never actually agree. A strong democracy requires a balance between conviction and coexistence.
Democracy isn’t self-sustaining; it is practiced daily by every citizen in the smallest of ways. Yes, we must continue to uphold our critical role in maintaining democracy as voters and voices to advocate for ourselves and our beliefs. But more importantly, we must consciously think about the role we play in strengthening our democracy. It can start with a few simple actions: diversify your information sources. Have a conversation with someone you disagree with—and listen to understand, not to respond. Don’t jump to judge others before you take the time to learn what drives their beliefs.
Disagreement is inevitable—in fact, it’s necessary in a nation so large and diverse. But unless we can agree to disagree in ways that allow us to develop empathy and understanding for people different from ourselves, we will never be able to save our democracy’s fragile foundations.
Alexis Tamm is a Fulcrum Fellow and a student at Georgetown University. An avid writer and aspiring journalist, she is passionate about solutions-focused reporting and driving change through storytelling.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Pink Triangle: From Persecution to Pride
Jun 29, 2026
Nearly 90 years later, a symbol once used for oppression has been reclaimed for liberation. The pink triangle, originally stitched onto the uniforms of LGBTQ prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, has evolved into an empowering emblem of resistance and visibility.
Jake Newsome, an award-winning historian and the founder of the Pink Triangle Legacies Project, was driven by a desire to bridge the gap between Holocaust studies and LGBTQ history. “I had studied this history, but never really learned much about what happened to people like me during the Holocaust,” Newsome explained.
Though he was familiar with the pink triangle, Newsome was initially unaware of its origins as a concentration camp badge. This realization sparked his research into the symbol’s transformation over the subsequent decades.
Newsome’s research revealed that the Nazis’ persecution of different groups was not a monolith; their motivations varied by target. While groups like Jewish people, people with disabilities, and the Roma and Sinti populations were viewed as “fundamentally flawed” and targeted for genocide, the approach toward the LGBTQ community was distinct.
“When it came to folks that we would today recognize as members of the LGBTQ community, the Nazis, and really most people at the time, didn’t believe that people were born queer or trans. They believed that it was a lifestyle choice,” Newsome said. “The Nazi’s focus was on essentially curing or reeducating these people.”
The regime believed that if individuals could be forced into heterosexuality, they could be reintegrated into the so-called “master race.” According to Newsome, “On paper the goal was not the murder of all queer people,” according to Newsome. “It was essentially very violent conversion therapy.”
This “reeducation” often began with imprisonment. For those whom the Nazis deemed beyond the deterrent of prison, the destination was the concentration camps. Approximately 100,000 LGBTQ individuals were arrested under the regime, with an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 eventually sent to camps.
The Nazis perceived gay men as particularly dangerous because of their potential to occupy positions of power in the military, politics, and the economy. Newsome notes that the regime feared gay men could “infiltrate” society in a way lesbians—who were largely excluded from power structures—could not.
While Paragraph 175 was used primarily to criminalize gay men, lesbians were still heavily marginalized and subjected to intense social scrutiny. The Nazi state focused its resources on hunting and identifying gay men, illustrating what Newsome describes as an intersection of homophobia and misogyny that expanded as the regime conquered other nations.
Despite the danger, queer life existed as an “open secret” until the Nazi rise to power made concealment a matter of survival. Many individuals attempted to hide their identities, often entering into “lavender marriages” to protect themselves from state violence.
“The history is really scary,” Newsome said. “One of the things that I have found in my research is that out of all of the LGBTQ folks who were arrested during the Nazi regime, about a third of them were turned in by their fellow citizens.”
Neighbors, co-workers, and even family members became informants. “They couldn’t necessarily find out who was queer or trans without ordinary people doing the spying and turning them in,” Newsome said. “The complicity of ordinary people was absolutely fundamental in the Nazis being able to identify who was gay or trans and then being able to go after them.”
Then, in the early 1970s during Stonewall in the United States and queer liberation movements emerging in West Germany, activists asserted that they shouldn’t have to hide their sexuality and gender identity in a democracy. At the time, they were arguing over what the gay logo should be because it was a matter of the utmost importance. “They’ll see this logo, they’ll see that we’re gay and we’ll force people to confront that there are, queer and trans people everywhere,” Newsome said.
West German activists adopted the pink triangle, popularized by the 1972 publication of The Men with the Pink Triangle, an account of a gay concentration camp survivor. The symbol served as a stark reminder that homophobia did not end with the fall of the Third Reich.
The symbol eventually traveled to the United States. In August 1974, the Gay Activist Alliance in New York became the first documented group to use the pink triangle in the U.S., cementing its role as a permanent fixture in the LGBTQ movement.
As LGBTQ activism expanded in the United States, Latino queer and trans leaders played a pivotal role in shaping the movement. Figures like Sylvia Rivera — a Puerto Rican and Venezuelan trans activist — helped lead early liberation groups such as the Gay Liberation Front and Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries. By the 1980s and 1990s, emerging organizations like Gay and Lesbian Latinos Unidos in Los Angeles and Latino Gay Men of New York were producing bilingual flyers, organizing Pride events, and building spaces where Latino identity and queer identity could coexist without contradiction. Their work ensured that the broader LGBTQ movement reflected the diversity of the communities it served.
Today, the Pink Triangle Legacies Project works to ensure this history serves as a tool for progress. “We are committed to uncovering and telling the stories of our queer and trans ancestors, we know that the best way to pay tribute to that is to continue fighting against queer phobia and phobia today,” the organization stated. They achieve this through teacher training and educational resources designed to integrate these narratives into school curricula.
On June 28, the project will launch its first traveling exhibit at the Holocaust Center for Humanity in Seattle. The exhibit aims to equip the public with the historical context needed to understand the current surge of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and legislation in the United States.
“We want to be able to show we have had a lot of folks reach out to us over the past year and a half and say ‘Oh my gosh, it seems like there’s a lot of stuff in history that’s repeating,’” Newsome said. He wants people to be educated and to recognize the patterns, “because there are very clear and dangerous patterns in the way that politicians today are talking about and attacking queer and trans people that mirror the way that the Nazis targeted LGBTQ folks 100 years ago.”
“Remembering has to have consequences, and so we also create resources that help people not only again identify those lessons,” Newsome urged. “Being educated isn’t enough.”
The Pink Triangle: From Persecution to Pride was first published on Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Alessa Alluin is a San Diego native currently in her third year at NYU. She is a writer and copy editor for her school newspaper, Washington Square News, where she covers arts, culture, and news. Alessa is also the editorial director of Bite Club, an online food publication at NYU, and a tutor helping kids with reading, math, and Spanish translation for immigrant children. When she’s not busy with school, work, or any of her other obligations, she enjoys watching movies as she did with her mother growing up, or spending time with friends exploring the city.
Alessa was a fellow with Fuente Latina, an organization that sponsors journalists and students to visit Poland and learn about the Holocaust and Jewish history in the region.
Keep ReadingShow less

Graham Platner, the Democratic Senate nominee, is running a populist campaign with a focus on corruption and influence.
CJ Gunther/Getty Images
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’
Jun 29, 2026
After Graham Platner secured the Democratic nomination for Senate in Maine, his first ad of the general election didn’t mention his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins, or the Republican Party. It focused on the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and who he called the “Epstein class” of elites in both parties.
“Some of the most powerful Democrats and Republicans in the country were on Epstein island,” Platner said in the ad, referring to Epstein’s former residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Platner, whose economic-populist campaign combined with controversial online statements and a since-removed tattoo of a Nazi symbol have drawn national attention, framed himself in opposition to this elite class.
“It seems the only thing the party establishments can agree on is a love of Jeffrey Epstein, and a hatred of me,” he said. “I’m Graham Platner, and I approve this message because together, we will take back our government from the Epstein class.”
It’s not just Platner: In midterm races from Texas to Maine, Democrats and at least one Republican are running against Epstein and “the Epstein class,” a term Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California first used last year to describe the men among the economic and cultural elite who traveled in Epstein’s social circles and helped rehabilitate his reputation after the multimillionaire ex-financier became a convicted sex offender in 2008 for soliciting prostitution of a minor.
“I’ll give the survivors credit, but I did coin the phrase ‘Epstein class’ because they’re a group of rich and powerful people who are not playing by the rules, and it offends the sense that we have one tier of justice,” Khanna told The 19th.
The number of candidates highlighting Epstein in their campaign messaging, Khanna argued, “shows what a powerful issue this is to win the midterms and win back the trust of the American public.”
In two of the most competitive races to determine control of the U.S. Senate, Platner and Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who is running for reelection, have castigated the “Epstein class” and what they say is elite corruption in their ads and messaging. In Texas, Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico has criticized his opponent, Trump-endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for approving what critics have called an overly lenient, “Epstein-style” plea deal for a defendant charged with sexually abusing a child. And in Ohio’s Senate race, both Republican Sen. Jon Husted and his Democratic opponent, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, have run television ads attacking each other by singling out campaign donations from those in Epstein’s orbit.
Last year, Epstein’s survivors fueled a bipartisan push in Congress led by Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to compel the Justice Department to release over 3.5 million files from its investigation into Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The release of the files, following months of resistance from President Donald Trump and the White House, provided a rare look into how the wealthy and powerful operate behind closed doors.
Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide, but it’s continued to drive scrutiny, skepticism and conspiracy theories in the years since. During the 2024 election, top Trump allies, some of whom ended up in his administration, pledged to release the Epstein files. The Trump administration’s reluctance to do so frustrated and splintered the MAGA base, resulting in a rare rebuke of the administration by Congress. Republicans who bucked Trump by pushing for the release of the files have also faced political consequences: In May, a Trump-backed primary challenger ousted Massie from his seat in Congress.
Americans across the political spectrum have continued to ask about the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s connections among the political elite. (Angela Weiss/AFP)
“I think the single most bipartisan issue in the country is the Epstein files investigation,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee who has spearheaded Congress’ investigation into the Epstein case, told reporters this month. “And so I think we’re going to talk about it a lot.”
No one other than co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving out a prison sentence for sex trafficking, has been prosecuted in connection to Epstein’s crimes in the United States. But Epstein courted influence and rubbed shoulders with prominent individuals associated with both parties in his efforts to rehabilitate his reputation.
Republicans have seized on Epstein’s ties to figures including former President Bill Clinton, who sat for a congressional deposition along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman, who has expressed regret for associating with Epstein, to accuse Democrats of hypocrisy. It’s also provided some Democratic candidates with a way to hit on what they cast as corruption in both parties.
The revelations from the files further fueled the widespread, bipartisan exasperation among voters with the wealthiest elites. The Epstein issue, two Democratic pollsters told The 19th, is rare for its high salience and far reach even among less politically engaged voters — and for the high levels of bipartisan agreement on the need for more action.
Surveys released this year from Democratic-aligned firm Navigator Research and progressive pollster Data for Progress back that argument up. In both polls, majorities of voters, including a majority of Republicans, believe there hasn’t been enough accountability connected to Epstein’s crimes and want to see more arrests and prosecutions. In a Navigator poll released in March, the share of Americans who said they believed Trump administration officials should resign over the Epstein matter increased when they were informed about officials in other countries being arrested, fired or forced to resign over Epstein ties.
“What has happened with the Epstein files is such a clear distillation of the frustration that Americans across different partisan ideologies, even Republicans, even MAGA Republicans, and certainly independents, feel that there’s a different set of rules — or that really no rules at all — for the elite who just seem to get ahead,” said Melissa Toufanian, managing director at Navigator.
In the Navigator survey, half of Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats and 58 percent of independents, said they believed the government was “definitely” covering up additional wrongdoing by Epstein. Seventy-two percent of Americans, including 70 percent of independents, 67 percent of non-MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of respondents identified as MAGA Republicans, said there should be more arrests and prosecutions related to Epstein. Sixty-four percent of respondents, including two-thirds of independents and half of Republicans, said they believed Epstein’s crimes were “unsurprising and the result of a broader problem.”
“It really cuts across every political divide in a way that we almost never see on other issues,” Toufanian said.
The number of red state candidates running on Epstein and the “Epstein class” demonstrates this. In addition to Talarico and Brown, Noah Taylor, an Army veteran running as a Democrat for the Senate in Kansas, and Dan Osborn, an independent Senate candidate in Nebraska, have also framed their campaigns as opposing the “Epstein class.”
Osborn, who is challenging Sen. Pete Ricketts, issued a news release pointing to a campaign rally in which Ricketts and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas appeared together, calling them “birds of a feather who are content to carry out the agenda of the billionaire Epstein class.”
Research from Data for Progress found that voters were not only highly aware of the Epstein files issue but named specific figures, including Trump, who they believed to be part of the Epstein class. In a Data for Progress poll released in March, a plurality of likely voters said they didn’t expect to see additional arrests connected to Epstein, and majorities of voters said they held both the Trump and Biden administrations accountable for a lack of action.
“What we found there is that people are immediately able to attach this to wealthy elites and corruption and people that are rigging the system in their own interests, and then finally, that voters find those messages to be pretty convincing,” said Ryan O’Donnell, Data for Progress’ executive director.
Inflation and the high cost of living consistently rank among voters’ top concerns ahead of the midterms, an advantage for Democrats aiming to win back control of Congress. Still, O’Donnell said, surveys show that Democrats have little trust advantage on which party voters trust more to tackle corruption. Candidates’ focus on “the Epstein class,” he said, aligns with that broader anti-corruption and anti-elite messaging push many Democratic candidates are centering in 2026.
“I think it directly fits in with voters’ top concern of cost of living right now,” O’Donnell said. “Broadly, Democrats, if they want to fight their way out of this, have to show that they’re actually willing to take on corruption in that way, and I do think that the Epstein class language is one way to do that.”
Why Democrats Are Running Against the ‘Epstein Class’ was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















