Issue One is the leading cross-partisan political reform group in Washington. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system. We believe we are uniquely positioned to seize this historic opportunity and win bold, national political reforms — to strengthen ethics laws, reduce the influence of big money on politics, modernize elections and end the pay-to-play culture in Washington. Our Reformers Caucus of more than 200 Republican and Democratic former members of Congress, Cabinet officials, and governors is the largest bipartisan coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for solutions to fix our democracy.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
US President Donald Trump reacts next to Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, after speaking at the public memorial service for right-wing activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on September 21, 2025.
(Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?
Oct 04, 2025
In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’s— apparently temporary— suspension from late-night TV, a (tragically small) number of prominent conservatives and Republicans have taken exception to the Trump administration’s comfort with “jawboning” critics into submission.
Sen. Ted Cruz condemned the administration’s “mafioso behavior.” He warned that “going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again — wins the White House … they will silence us.” Cruz added during his Friday podcast. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”
Ben Shapiro, the MAGA-adjacent media mogul, concurred. While he offered little sympathy for Kimmel, he too warned against the moral hazard problem. “I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false,” Shapiro said. “Why? Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot.”
There were others, including Sen. Rand Paul. But not many. They should be congratulated for offering any pushback against the new right’s strange mix of bullying and moral panic in the wake of the heinous murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Indeed, it’s remarkable that the dual response to Kirk’s killing has been for his admirers to simultaneously praise Kirk’s commitment to free speech while showing very little such commitment themselves.
The cognitive dissonance has been remarkable. Kirk — rightly— ridiculed the concept of “hate speech” as a legal category. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free,” Kirk posted last year.
Yet, in response to the at times ugly, gross and evil speech that followed Kirk’s murder, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi promised that “especially after what happened to Charlie,” Trump’s Justice Department “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
The president, as is so often the case, made the issue about himself, saying that if news coverage about him is too lopsidedly negative “that’s no longer free speech.” When network news casts a good story in a bad light, Trump said, “See, I think that’s really illegal.”
But there’s a problem with the primary argument offered by Cruz, Shapiro and others on the right in response to the administration’s heel turn on the 1st Amendment. And the problem is not that they’re wrong. Cruz and Shapiro are obviously correct to worry that a future Democratic administration could exploit the precedents Trump is laying down to target right-wing media. Indeed, many argue — correctly — that Trump is exploiting precedents laid down by the last Democratic administration. This is oft-repeated argument for retribution: “They did it to us first.”
Again, the problem with the “they did it to us first” and the “they could do this to us later” arguments — about censorship but also “lawfare,” congressional redistricting, etc. — is not that they’re wrong. It’s that they sidestep the wrongness of the deeds themselves.
Just for purposes of illustration, consider that Kirk’s murder was wrong, regardless of anything he said or anything you might believe he said. Murder is wrong independent of any other considerations (if there are mitigating factors for taking a life, we stop calling it murder). If a right-winger kills some prominent left-wing influencer as “payback,” that would be wrong too. As a matter of moral logic, bad acts cannot be justified by other bad acts. We are all taught this from childhood: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Unfortunately, because of the tribal logic of our time, this ancient moral precept has been supplanted by the “Chicago way” — any transgression that they visit upon us must be repaid with interest.
I don’t condemn the argument that conservatives should be wary of reaping later what they are sowing now. Warning that they might be on the receiving end of the Chicago way the next time Democrats are in power just may be the only argument that many on the right are willing to buy right now. But I do lament how tribalism causes each tribe to forgo arguments based on objective standards. Using the government to punish critical speech is wrong, regardless of who is in power and regardless of whether the criticism is right or fair.
When you argue that you have to fight fire with fire, not only does everything get burned, you let your opponents’ indefensible behavior become your new standard for defensible behavior.
Oh, just for the record, you don’t fight fire with fire. You fight it with water. And a lot of people could use a splash of cold water right about now.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Enhanced health care tax credits expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Learn who benefits, what’s at risk, and how premiums could rise without them.
Getty Images, yavdat
Just the Facts: What Happens If Enhanced Health Care Tax Credits End in 2025
Oct 03, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
There’s been a lot in the news lately about healthcare costs going up on Dec. 31 unless congress acts. What are the details?
The enhanced health care premium tax credits (ePTCs) are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.
What is the breakdown of what they are and who benefits?
Premium tax credits are subsidies created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to help people afford health insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces. They reduce the monthly premium cost based on your income and household size.
- Original ACA credits: Available to people earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.
- Enhanced credits (ePTCs): Introduced in 2021 via the American Rescue Plan and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. These:
- Made coverage free or nearly free for those under 150% of the poverty level.
- Removed the 400% income cap, allowing middle-income earners (e.g., up to $128,600 for a family of four) to qualify.
- Capped premiums at 8.5% of household income for higher earners.
Who gets these credits?
- Low-income individuals and families: Those earning between 100%–150% of the federal poverty level often pay $0 for benchmark plans.
- Middle-income earners: Previously excluded, now eligible if they earn above 400% of the poverty level.
- Self-employed and small business owners: Especially benefit if they don’t have access to employer-sponsored coverage.
What happens if they expire?
- Premiums could double for many enrollees in 2026.
- Millions may drop coverage due to affordability issues.
- Insurers are already planning rate hikes, anticipating a drop in healthy enrollees and a rise in average claims costs.
What is the impact depending on income level?
- Income $14,580–$21,870 (100%–150% FPL) – Current Premium: $0 – New Premium if Credits Expire: $387/year
- Income $21,870–$29,160 (150%–200% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$160/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $905/year
- Income $29,160–$36,450 (200%–250% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$1,033/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $2,615/year
- Income $36,450–$58,320 (250%–400% FPL) – Current Premium: Capped at ~8.5% of income – New Premium if Credits Expire: $1,400/year (varies by state)
- Income above $58,320 (>400% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$2,900/year (with credits) – New Premium if Credits Expire: Full cost of benchmark plan (often $3,000+ increase)
What are the arguments by Republicans for allowing the credits to expire?
- COVID-era spending should sunset: Many Republicans argue that the enhanced credits were part of emergency pandemic relief and should not be made permanent without broader reform. As Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) put it, “It is time to end all COVID-related incentives,” though she also acknowledged the need to protect families from sudden cost increases.
- Opposition to expanding Obamacare: The enhanced credits were created and extended through Democratic legislation (American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act), which Republicans opposed. Some view extending these subsidies as entrenching a policy they’ve long sought to repeal or reform.
- Need for structural reform: Fiscal conservatives argue that the ACA subsidies distort the insurance market and should be revisited holistically. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “I think in all likelihood, they need to be reformed. But this is an overreach to try to do this on a permanent basis.”
What are Democrats’ arguments on why it is wrong to allow the credits to expire?
- Coverage Loss and Rising Uninsured Rates: Democrats warn that millions of Americans would lose coverage or face unaffordable premiums. The expiration would disproportionately affect working families, older adults, and communities of color. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called it “a recipe for disaster for families who are already stretched thin.”
- Middle-Class Protection: The enhanced credits removed the income cap, helping middle-income earners afford coverage for the first time. Democrats argue that reversing this would punish people who earn just above the poverty threshold but still struggle with high premiums.
- Moral and Equity Imperative: Many Democrats see health care as a right, not a privilege. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “We should be expanding access to health care, not ripping it away from millions of Americans.”
- Political Accountability: Democrats argue that Republicans are playing politics with people’s lives by refusing to extend the credits. They point out that the credits were popular and effective, and letting them expire would be a deliberate choice to increase hardship.
- Cost of Inaction: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that premiums could double for some enrollees. Democrats argue that the fiscal cost of increased uninsured rates and emergency care far outweighs the cost of maintaining the credits.
What is the impact on the deficit if the credits are allowed to continue?
The CBO has estimated an increase of $350 billion to the deficit. There are possible offsetting factors that are not included in the deficit score, such as lower uncompensated care costs for hospitals, improved public health outcomes, and increased labor market participation due to coverage stability, but there is no way of determining the extent of any savings.
Have Democrats offered any suggestions to address the deficit issues?
Democrats and health policy allies are offering suggestions to offset the projected $350 billion cost of permanently extending the enhanced ACA premium tax credits, though formal negotiations remain politically stalled. Some of the proposals are:
- Targeted Eligibility Limits: Scale back eligibility from the current uncapped income threshold to a ceiling like 600% of the federal poverty level (about $200,000 for a family of four).
- Progressive Phase-Out Model: Extend full subsidies only up to 300% of poverty, then gradually phase out assistance for higher incomes.
- Smaller Alternative Subsidy Formula: Set new subsidies halfway between the original ACA formula and the enhanced version.
- Health System Reforms as Offsets: Democrats and budget experts have floated ideas like prescription drug pricing reforms, site-neutral payment policies, Medicare Advantage payment adjustments, and reducing waste and fraud in ACA enrollment systems.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Rep. Angie Craig’s No Social Media at School Act would ban TikTok, Instagram & Snapchat during K-12 school hours. See what’s in the bill.
Getty Images, Daniel de la Hoz
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act
Oct 03, 2025
Gen Z’s worst nightmare: TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat couldn’t be used during school hours.
What the bill does
Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN2) introduced the No Social Media at School Act, which would require social media companies to use “geofencing” to block access to their products on K-12 school grounds during school hours.
The bill carves out exceptions for push notification of weather alerts, Amber alerts for missing children, and emergency responders.
The specification of “school hours” means social media couldn’t even be used in the cafeteria at lunch or in the hallways between classes. However, it could still be used on school campuses after hours. For example, posting photos and videos at night from football games on the gridiron, or from school talent shows in the auditorium.
The bill also carves out multiple examples of websites or apps that don’t qualify as social media and wouldn’t be subject to a ban. These include: email, Wikipedia, e-commerce like Amazon and eBay, videoconferencing like Zoom, and (perhaps controversially) gaming.
Context
In 2023, Florida became the first state to restrict cell phones in schools statewide. Just in the two years since then, a groundswell of 34 states across the political spectrum have passed policies either restricting or banning cell phones in schools.
In summer 2025 alone, similar policies were enacted by blue state Oregon, swing state North Carolina, and red state Ohio.
As education policies are generally set at the municipal and state level, no member of Congress appears to have introduced legislation banning or restricting cell phones in schools nationwide.
The closest might be the Focus on Learning Act, bipartisan legislation encouraging school districts to adopt phone-free classrooms by establishing a federal grant program to pay for lockable pouches and magnetized containers. The legislation has not yet received a vote.
But even if enacted, it wouldn’t directly change public policy, just nudge it through incentives. This bill, though, would directly change public policy. While it still wouldn’t ban cell phones themselves in schools, banning social media would certainly curb the main thing teens do on their cell phones.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that social media is distracting tens of millions of children from both education and face-to-face interactions with peers.
“We all know how negatively social media is impacting our students’ mental health, attention span, and ability to focus—especially at school,” Rep. Craig said in a press release. “Schools should be places for learning and socializing, not scrolling.”
“While Minnesota's teachers and administrators work hard to create a safe and engaging environment for our students, we have to hold Big Tech accountable for how their platforms are impacting our kids,” Rep. Craig continued. “My bill requiring tech companies to block access to social media during school hours is a start.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the answer is to use social media in schools in a curtailed and responsible way, rather than banning it entirely. They say that when done right, social media could actually help education.
For example, Matt Evans at the University of San Diego wrote an article titled “Social Media in Education: 13 Ideas for the Classroom.”
Odds of passage
The bill awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
It has not yet attracted any cosponsors, from either party—despite the increasingly bipartisan consensus on banning or restricting cell phones in classrooms at the state and municipal levels.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk
Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a July 13 National Holiday
Keep ReadingShow less
John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.
John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive
Oct 03, 2025
John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that “public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.
That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.
Adams distinguished between subjects and citizens. Subjects were ruled. Citizens participated. But citizenship required more than casting a vote. It demanded habits that sustain a free society: honesty, moderation, service, and fairness. A republic cannot rest on the hope that enough citizens will voluntarily restrain themselves. History shows that when virtue fails, only clear rules—laws that promote fairness and institutions that protect the public good—can prevent private power from overwhelming democracy itself. Without these guardrails, inequality grows unchecked, cynicism deepens, and democracy itself becomes vulnerable to collapse.
That lesson feels urgent in an age when material success is celebrated as the highest good. Wealth today buys more than comfort—it buys political influence and cultural authority. Since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, billionaire political spending has exploded. In 2024, just 100 families spent $2.6 billion on elections—more than millions of small donors combined. Pharmaceutical companies spend millions to block reforms that would make medicine affordable. Tech companies lobby against rules designed to keep markets fair. Defense contractors protect massive budgets, even for weapons the military no longer wants. The pattern is the same: when selfishness is unconstrained, private wealth bends public institutions toward private ends.
Adams foresaw this danger. In his 1776 letter to Warren, he warned that “the spirit of commerce…is incompatible with that purity of heart, and greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic.” He did not reject commerce. He saw its energy as essential. But he feared what happens when wealth becomes the only measure of worth and when no boundary—internal or external—checks its pursuit.
The problem, then, is not wealth itself. It is selfishness without limits. Private virtue can restrain it, but when virtue fails, public rules must step in. A healthy republic cannot depend on individual moderation alone. It needs laws that channel economic energy toward the common good: rules that protect fair competition, transparency that exposes corruption, and institutions that reward service over greed.
As I explored in “American Whiplash: A Republic in Cycles”, the United States has repeatedly gone through periods of excess followed by correction. The Progressive Era curbed monopolies. The New Deal built protections in the midst of a crisis. The Civil Rights Movement expanded freedom by forcing the nation to honor its promise of equality. In each case, selfishness was constrained by citizens insisting on fairness and leaders willing to act.
The question now is whether we still have the will to repeat that work. A republic cannot survive if selfishness is allowed to rule unchecked. Adams’s warning was plain: liberty itself will wither when wealth is prized over character. Some may grow very rich, but few will remain free. The true test of the republic is whether it can summon both private virtue and public courage to place the common good above private gain.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes the Stability Brief.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More