Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Next Hundred Days: America's Latest Test of Democracy

An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
Getty Images, wildpixel

For decades, we have watched America wrestle with its demons. Sometimes, she has successfully pinned them down. Other times, the demons have slipped beyond her grasp. Yet, America has always remained in the ring. There is no difference right now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Across America, from small-town council meetings to state legislatures, there's a coordinated effort to roll back the clock on civil rights, geopolitical relations, and the global economy. It's not subtle, and it's not accidental. The targeting of immigrants and citizens of color has become so normalized that we risk becoming numb to it. For example, what happened in Springfield, Ohio, late last year? When national politicians started pushing rhetoric against Haitian immigrants, it wasn't just local politics at play. It was a test balloon, a preview of talking points soon echoed in halls of government and media outlets nationwide. Thus, this is how discrimination, intolerance, and blatant hate go mainstream or viral—it starts small, tests the waters, and spreads like a virus through our body politic and social system.


Sadly, I have studied and endured American politics long enough to recognize patterns, and this one's familiar. Every major stride toward equality in American history has faced pushback. After Reconstruction came Jim Crow. After the civil rights movement came the "law and order" era. After Obama's presidency came, we all know what came next. However, the difference at this moment is that we are not fighting these battles with the weaponry of our parents and grandparents. Once again, the tools of discrimination have gone digital but so have the tools of resistance.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The next hundred days will set the trajectory for this fight, not because they'll end it, but because they'll determine how we fight it. We're at one of those inflection points where silence becomes complicity and inaction becomes endorsement.

Consider all that has happened with voting rights, DEI, immigration, First Amendment action, and the dismantling of government infrastructure. We continue to see a tsunami of executive actions, legislation, and litigation that, while carefully worded to appear neutral, disproportionately affect minority communities. These aren't your grandfather's literacy tests—these are sophisticated administrative hurdles dressed up in the language of election and homeland security, patriotism, balanced budgets, and the Meritus playing field. The intent hasn't changed; only the packaging has.

The attacks on diversity aren't just targeting the ballot box. They're showing up in school board meetings where discussions of American history are being sanitized, in housing policies that maintain segregation through bureaucratic sleight-of-hand, and in immigration policies that seem designed to preserve a demographic status quo that's already long gone.

Still, hope abounds! We are witnessing and encouraging greater and more strategic resistance than ever before. This generation of activists isn't marching—they're running for office. Civil rights organizations aren't just filing lawsuits but building databases to track discrimination patterns. Community groups aren't just protesting—they're creating alternative institutions.

The old divide-and-conquer playbooks are still employed, but new obstacles are yet to arise. When politicians try to pit ethnic communities against immigrant communities or working-class whites against urban Black and Brown people, they find that these groups are often already connected through informal yet intricately composed networks of social media, shared economic interests, and cross-cultural organizations.

Social and civilly conscious engaged actors must remain clear about what we are against. The forces pushing discrimination have deep pockets and sophisticated strategies. They are not just working through obvious channels like legislation and court cases—they're shaping narratives through think tanks, creating echo chambers in media, and using data analytics to identify and exploit social divisions.

We acknowledge this era of activists has advantages our predecessors couldn't have imagined. When discriminatory incidents occur, they are shared instantly. When false narratives emerge, facts are immediately corrected. When communities need to mobilize, they can do so within hours instead of weeks. However, it lacks tools, capabilities, focus, and coordination. Too often, populace movements are reactive rather than proactive, responding to each new crisis instead of building longitudinal strategic power. Emergent leaders and activists need to think broader and longer-term. I dare suggest a few things to consider:

First, democratic institutions necessitate strengthening at every level of American society, for instance, paying as much attention to local and municipal electoral matters as presidential races. It means supporting local journalism that can expose and unmask the reality of the truth in our backyards. It means building civic organizations that can outlast election cycles.

Second, a reframe of the conversation about American identity must commence. The myth of America as a white nation isn't just historically inaccurate—it's dangerous. America's story has always been one of the uniquely diverse and other-ed nation people, even when that diversity wasn't acknowledged nor celebrated. Our strength comes from our ability to expand our definition of "we the people," not restrict it.

Third, it is crucial to recognize that this isn't just a moral fight—it's an economic and geopolitical one. In a global economy, diversity is a competitive advantage. Countries that welcome and embrace differences tend to be more innovative, adaptable, and influential on the world stage. When we allow discrimination to flourish, we're not just betraying our values—we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

The next hundred days won't determine the outcome of this struggle but they will show us what "we, the people," are made of. Will we rise to meet this moment with the urgency it demands? Will we build the coalitions and institutions needed for lasting change? Will we finally learn that an attack on any American's rights is an attack on the American experiment itself? Only time will tell.


Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

Read More

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States

Credit: National Museum of the American Latino

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.

Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

People running.

Getty Images, Pavel1964

Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.

Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

The transgender flag on a military uniform.

Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, purportedly rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

Keep ReadingShow less
Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

Two children reading in school.

Getty Images, Jim Craigmyle

Banned Books Damn Our Children's Future

April 2nd is International Children's Book Day. It is time to celebrate the transformative power of children's literature and mourn the spaces where stories once lived. The numbers are staggering: there were over 10,000 book bans in U.S. public schools during the 2023-2024 school year alone, affecting more than 4,000 unique titles. Each banned book represents a mirror taken away from a child who might have seen themselves in those pages or a window closed to a child who might have glimpsed a world beyond their own.

I'm a child of the 80s and 90s, back when PBS was basically raising us all. Man, LeVar Burton's voice on Reading Rainbow was like that cool uncle who always knew exactly what book you needed. Remember him saying, "But you don't have to take my word for it"? And Sesame Street—that show was living proof that a kid from the Bronx could learn alongside a kid from rural Kansas, no questions asked. These and other such programs convinced an entire generation that we could "go anywhere" and "be anything.” Also, they were declarations that every child deserves to see themselves in stories, to dream in technicolor, and to imagine futures unlimited by the accidents of birth or circumstance.

Keep ReadingShow less