Latino voters continue to have a growing impact on elections. The Bully Pulpit podcast from the University of Southern California's Center for the Political Future discusses how political parties are engaging with Latino voters.
For most Americans, the 2024 election has brought exhaustion, divisiveness and, for many, fear and deep pain. It turns out that the days after the election were the easy part. President Trump’s first few weeks in office have been marked by an avalanche of chaos, cruelty and outright lawlessness, leaving many Americans wondering how, and even if, they can make a difference amidst the recklessness.
What are the options?
Transformational advocacy is when seasoned activists and rank beginners are trained, encouraged and succeed in doing things as advocates they never thought they could do. Actions like meeting with a member of Congress and bringing them on board to your issue or having a letter to the editor published on an issue you care about. When you do these things, you experience a burst of confidence in yourself and in our democracy.
If transformational advocacy can have an impact on issues we care about, why do so few of us engage?
Let’s be honest — almost everyone shies away from advocacy as a way to make a difference because we see it as too hard or too frustrating, too complicated or too partisan.
But what if that’s all wrong? What if you can become an advocate for a cause you care about and feel fulfilled, not frustrated? And what if engaging as an advocate is essential to protecting our democracy?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I spoke with Larry Blankemeyer who joined a Catholic Relief Services chapter at St. Vincent de Paul Church in Richboro, PA. His first ever meeting with a member of Congress was with Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) in 2019. He wanted Fitzpatrick’s help introducing a bill that would require the administration to integrate early childhood development techniques into all child-focused international aid programs — activities like reading and singing to children, playing with colorful objects, and providing better nutrition. The simple things we do to help our own children and grandchildren thrive would make a world of difference for children globally, especially those living in refugee camps and other difficult circumstances.
“I was really nervous before the meeting,” Blankemeyer told me. But after Fitzpatrick told the group that he was interested in being one of the lead sponsors, Blankemeyer says, “I don’t remember feeling like my feet touched the ground. We came out of that meeting floating on air.”
From being “really nervous” to “floating on air” is transformational advocacy. Blankemeyer’s challenge now is getting Fitzpatrick to take his years of support for the U.S. Agency for International Development’s [USAID] humanitarian work and focus it on undoing the damage Elon Musk has done to the agency in a matter of days. That’s a tall order, but at least Blankemeyer is starting with a relationship with the Congressman.
Jay Butera of Gladwyne, PA, might have had the most unexpected impact. In 2013, Butera started a nearly three-year effort to create a bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus. Warned that using the word “climate” in the title would be a non-starter for Republicans, Butera persisted anyway. By 2018, the end of Trump’s second year in office, the Caucus had 45 Republicans and 45 Democrats.
Butera’s Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) colleagues in Utah helped then-Rep. John Curtis decide to launch a Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021 which grew to 87 Republicans at the end of last year. Curtis, who recently took Mitt Romney’s seat in the Senate, joined 18 House Republicans last August in signing a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the most far-reaching climate legislation ever enacted. Curtis told a group of activists that writing publicly to Johnson “… tells you how committed these 18 names were on that letter … And to his credit [Speaker Johnson] said ‘when it comes to the IRA we’ll use [a scalpel].’”
That was last year, which seems like an eternity ago. Will Johnson’s scalpel have a chance against the meat cleaver Trump is aiming at climate change? We will see if the relationships that CCL volunteers have developed will make a difference in these tumultuous times.
But you don’t have to sit on the sidelines and watch. You can get in the game yourself. But first you must link with an organization that is committed to delivering transformational advocacy, an organization that is committed to:
It begins with finding an organization that offers a structure of support that feeds you power. (See email addresses below)
I founded the anti-poverty lobby RESULTS in 1980. Over the last 40 years, RESULTS volunteers have played a lead advocacy role in prompting a 66 percent decline in global child deaths, saving some 10 million young lives a year. RESULTS volunteers have also been lead advocates for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria which, along with its partners, has saved 59 million lives between 2002 and 2022.
On a RESULTS national webinar in 2022, Global Fund Executive Director Peter Sands said, “I know how powerful your voices and efforts are. We see that in the way you go up on [Capitol] Hill and talk to people from both sides [of the aisle] … This is one of the most powerful ways in which America leads the world.”
That leadership is being recklessly abandoned with potentially catastrophic consequences. There has never been a more important time for Americans to step in.
Sam Daley-Harris is the author of “Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen’s Guide to Transformational Advocacy” (Rivertowns Books, 2025 paperback) and the founder of RESULTS and Civic Courage.
How to Politically Engage When You Feel Like Shutting Down was originally published in The Philadelphia Citizen, a nonprofit solutions-based media outlet whose mission is to revive democracy in the American city where it was born. You can sign up for The Citizen's newsletter here.
An illustration of someone erasing the word "democracy".
“In this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow,” Judge John Coughenour commented on Trump’s efforts to undo birthright citizenship.
When Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) offered federal employees the ability to retire early in exchange for continued pay until September, it referred to the offer as a “fork in the road.” Employees could either take the deal or face "significant" reforms, layoffs, and an expectation that they be "loyal." Putting aside the offer’s legality, the message was clear: either take the deal or face uncertainty and possible termination.
With each week, Americans are facing more “forks in the road.”
The Trump administration, backed by his Project 2025 allies, continues its assault on the rule of law—facing little opposition from Republican leadership, including here in Virginia.
The latest move? Slashing already-appropriated National Institute of Health (NIH) funding for research institutions tackling cancer, infectious diseases, and dementia—institutions like the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Virginia Commonwealth University. In the Commonwealth, this is significant; these three universities alone will bring over $400 million in research to the state this year. The funding supports 7,684 jobs and generates $1.73 billion in yearly economic activity. But in other states, including many that voted for Trump, the stakes are even higher. Places like Vanderbilt Medical Center in Tennessee, MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital in Ohio stand to lose millions as their research is placed in jeopardy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump tried this before, pushing to cut NIH overhead funding in 2017, but Congress rejected it. Now, he is bypassing Congress altogether, issuing what is likely another illegal executive directive to do so. Republican statewide leaders remain on the sidelines, either complicity silent or, in the case of Virginia Gov. Youngkin, embracing the cuts as “common sense.”
Few would argue against finding greater efficiencies in our research institutions. But does this slash-and-burn approach make sense? And is it even legal?
That answer may come soon. Arguing that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 prohibits the administration from changing overhead rates without congressional approval, twenty-two state attorneys general have sued to block the cuts. Not one Republican Attorney General, including Virginia’s own Jason Miyares, has joined them. A federal court has ordered NIH payments to temporarily resume—but only to institutions in those 22 states. Research institutions in other states, including Virginia, are now on the outside looking in. Their funding—and their ability to deliver groundbreaking research—is in jeopardy. Will Virginia or other Republican AGs join the lawsuit? Don’t count on it.
A SLOW-MOVING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Many of Trump’s early moves have stalled as the result of dozens of lawsuits in court. But to assume his agenda has been seriously compromised would be a mistake and misunderstand a larger scheme aimed at the heart of our institutions and even democracy itself. The playbook is simple: create disruption and force dilemmas. Begin with an issue with broad public appeal—like government efficiency or cuts to universities. Then, issue a directive that goes far beyond what is necessary, sidestepping Congress in the process. Trump’s far-reaching directive to freeze funding to a wide swath of nonprofits is a classic example. The opposition is left to respond by press releases or filing lawsuits. If courts uphold Trump’s edict, he wins. If the courts strike down Trump’s directive, he then attacks the judiciary and appeals, hoping for a favorable ruling from a higher court. If all else fails, quietly ignore the court order—as happened when federal funds for some programs remained frozen even after a judge ordered their release.
Throughout the debate, Trump’s allies continue to assert the power of the Presidency, attack our institutions, and suggest that our democratic process and Constitution do not work as intended. What results is an increase in anger among large segments of the electorate that question democracy’s ability to deliver on its promises, or who believe that Trump is merely trying to root out the malingerers in a bloated federal bureaucracy. Whether this amounts to a “coup” can be argued, but the pattern is clear: Trump is actively undermining the institutions that uphold democracy. The real question is what happens years from now when legitimacy has been further eroded and the damage is irreversible.
GOP IN LOCKSTEP
As Trump tests the rule of law, Republican elected leaders remain silent or endorse his actions.
Nine of the 10 states most dependent on federal funds as a share of their total revenue both voted for Trump last fall and have Republican-dominated legislatures. While California is the biggest loser, Texas, Ohio, and Florida are in the top 10. Few GOP leaders have shown any concern about his actions.
When Trump issued an executive order targeting the federal workforce—145,000 of whom live in Virginia—Republican Gov. Youngkin dismissed concerns, calling the federal government "bloated" and saying he expects "job reductions." When the administration proposed that federal employees take early retirement or face "significant" reforms, layoffs, and an expectation that they be "loyal," no Republicans raised questions about whether funding would be available to pay for the buyout. Funding for most federal agencies expires on March 14 and Congress would need to include a special appropriation to make this happen, if it can even pass a supplemental budget to keep the government open by that date. Trump has now ended the early retirement option. Fewer took the offer than expected and we will see if Trump honors his promise.
When Trump attempted to unilaterally overturn birthright citizenship—a direct violation of the 14th Amendment—Youngkin and Miyares said nothing. They were similarly silent when the administration froze federal funds to charitable organizations like Lutheran Services and Commonwealth Catholic Charities, both of which provide services ranging from adoption assistance to food kitchens. Even after 23 Democratic attorneys general sued and convinced two federal judges to halt the freeze, reports surfaced that the administration continued withholding funds, raising the question of whether Trump’s team deliberately violated a court order. And when 11 of Virginia’s 31 federally qualified health centers—many in the state’s poorest areas—reported funding disruptions, neither Youngkin publicly intervened to address the problem.
When Trump proclaimed his disdain for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), stating that it “SHOULD BE TERMINATED!” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis immediately jumped to his aid, supporting a funding freeze for an agency that has delivered $8.5 billion in relief for twenty-one disasters in his state since 20ll, and suggesting that block funds made to states is a better option than the present arrangement. DeSantis conveniently said nothing about what happens if his state’s block grant is not enough to address the next disaster.
Some red states are even establishing their own government efficiency agencies. Governors in Iowa, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire have done this by executive order, while others are being created by state legislatures like Texas and Missouri. What we have not seen, however, are executive branch freezes of funds previously appropriated by state legislatures.
PROFILES IN COURAGE
Termination of federal employees is now widespread. Reuters reported that 1,000 have been laid off at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and CNN detailed that 2,200 had been fired at the Interior Department. Nonetheless, the Trump train initiatives have significant detractors, some of whom exhibit significant courage in the face of intimidation. When a senior official at FEMA directed subordinates to continue a freeze on funding, even after a federal judge ordered the administration—for the second time—to stop such pauses, four FEMA administrators said no and continued to spend monies authorized by Congress. They were fired.
The most significant resistance, however, is occurring at the Justice Department. When Trump appointees requested that charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams be dropped, seven prosecutors in New York and Washington—including career lawyers overseeing public corruption cases—resigned rather than cooperate, and criticized the DOJ’s action as a “quid pro quo” in exchange for Adams providing assistance for Trump’s deportation actions. These are not liberal attorneys. Instead, many of them are Federalist Society members who clerked for Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Kavanaugh. And their courage provides an example to be emulated.
LITTLE RESPECT FOR COURTS—OR AMERICAN TRADITIONS
Trump has never hidden his contempt for the courts or his disdain for the checks and balances that define American democracy. Now, Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have taken up the mantle, with Vance claiming that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” and Musk calling the court rulings against the funding freeze “shady” and “absolutely insane.”
Both seem to ignore Article III of the Constitution and the concept of judicial review—a principle central to American law since the early 1800s that allows federal courts to check executive power. There is a legal way to cut spending—it’s called the congressional appropriations process. As the American Bar Association (ABA) put it, Trump’s approach “may appeal to a few” but is “chaotic,” “wrong,” and “contrary to the rule of law.”
In the coming weeks, expect Trump to flood the zone with more “democracy dilemmas”—manufactured crises designed to expand executive power at the expense of Congress and the courts. And Americans will discover if our leaders will fight for us and protect our system of checks and balances so critical to democratic governance. Our “forks in the road” are likely to be many and will require as much courage as we can summon.
Portions of this post appeared in the Virginia Mercury.
David J. Toscano is an attorney and the former Democratic Leader in the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, published in 2021 by the University of Virginia Press and Bellwether: Virginia’s Political Transformation, 2006-2020, published in 2022 by Hamilton Books.
Two people holding hands, comforting each other.
It is time to teach the children well.
As February is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month, it is urgent to know dating violence is very common in this country, especially among teens and young adults. Research shows about one in 12 teens experienced physical dating violence and about one in 10 experienced sexual dating violence.
Unfortunately, according to 2015 numbers, researchers have estimated that between 3.3 million and 10 million children are exposed to adult domestic violence each year. They can become a victim, perpetrator, or both. Children are like sponges and absorb everything around them; if they are not able to find healthy ways to cope, they may be part of the cycle of violence.
In the prevention effort, it is important to educate younger people before they start dating and to speak about generational trauma. Children exposed to domestic violence can develop post traumatic stress disorder. They can mimic learned behaviors.
A victim of domestic violence can also become a thriving survivor with the potential to serve their community if they are equipped with the proper tools. I know because I am one.
Even though domestic violence agencies struggle to continuously secure funding, whether it relates to stipulations recently for the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) or the threat of federal funding freezes from the new Department of Government Efficiency, they have done tremendous work to serve victims.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The recognition of generational trauma and the assumption that younger male victims may become abusers themselves led to a common practice in domestic violence shelters; teenage boys were not welcome there. As domestic violence agencies aim to adjust their practices and become more inclusive, it is important to look at the tools in place to holistically heal the families.
At some point, in the journey of a young male adult, society stopped thinking about them as victims and categorized them as abusers with no concrete tools to get them out of this cycle.
During my time at Haven Hills as an Outreach Prevention Specialist, providing Healthy Relationship Curriculum to several high schools and foster youth programs was eye-opening. These young adults were eager to learn more about interpersonal relationships and came to understand the trauma they have experienced.
The most rewarding part was when young people admitted having unhealthy behaviors and promised to change. They also asked to have these conversations earlier, noting that these classes were given to all genders of teenagers no younger than 16 years old.
It is difficult to fund programs for persons who cause harm across the country, such as the Batterer Intervention Program (BIP). In California, it is a 52-week program overseen by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. A recent audit criticized the effectiveness of it and BIP providers are working to overhaul their programs and finding ways to be funded efficiently.
These programs exist throughout the country and many have been in place since the 1970s.
Many of these programs require the perpetrator to pay for their classes, as a demonstration of efforts to redeem themselves. This is not ideal. Recognizing generational trauma, it is necessary to provide tools to prevent future violence without cost to the individual. The current process often leads to recidivism and for victims to continuously feel unsafe.
The restorative justice approach is a better route. Restorative Justice is a response to wrongdoing that prioritizes repairing harm and recognizes that maintaining positive relationships with others is a core human need. It seeks to address the root causes of crime, even to the point of transforming unjust systems and structures.
This is not new; it has been a practice well-known by Native Americans. Yurok Chief Judge Abby Abinanti in 2022 described the process in a documentary: “The Yurok Tribal Court is rooted in the traditional philosophy of restorative justice, which originates from the Tribe’s longstanding village values. This traditional approach to dispute resolution aims to create space for the offender to take responsibility for their transgression while working with the victim and the court to identify the best course of action to correct the wrong.”
Accountability and support from the community are essential to build a strong foundation for future generations. It is essential to change the process of addressing domestic violence and learn from past mistakes.
Policymakers, advocates, funders, agency leaders, and non-profit organizers can shift to a holistic approach for all genders. Every generation deserves that chance.
Stephanie Whack is a survivor of domestic violence, an advocate at the intersection of victimizations and homelessness, and a member of The OpEd Project Public Voices Fellowship on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.
solar panels
Tucked away behind a Catholic organization building in northeast Washington, D.C., lies a vast solar farm soaking up the sun’s rays as energy for Catholic buildings.
Dan Last, the co-executive officer of Mission Energy, which is partnered with the Catholic Energies Program, helped build this solar farm for Catholic Charities along with 18 other solar farms for Catholic organizations in the Washington metropolitan area. But most recently, Last said he has been taking screenshots of the United States Department of Energy websites because of the “uncertainty” President Donald Trump’s administration has introduced into the industry.
“Rather than going out and trying to give nonprofit organizations equal access to solar and help develop new projects so that I can employ my people, I am a highly paid CEO who is taking screenshots,” Last said.
Since taking office, The New York Times reported the Trump administration has taken down more than 8,000 web pages from across more than a dozen U.S. government websites. This includes more than 3,000 pages from the Center for Disease Control and more than 1,000 pages from the Office of Justice Programs.
Several pages mentioning environmental policy initiatives have also been taken down from the Department of the Interior website.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What Last is screenshotting in response are Energy Community Maps. Last said these are areas “disproportionately” impacted by power production, meaning they are communities surrounded by infrastructure like power plants or mining sites.
One of Last’s screenshots of Energy Community Maps, blurred for security purposes. (Courtesy of Dan Last)These screenshots Last took shows individuals in areas eligible to receive an extra 10% of direct pay for renewable energy projects affiliated with the Inflation Reduction Act.
Former President Joe Biden passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022 which partly helped individuals and businesses receive tax credit if they install renewable energy on their property. For Last and his clients at Catholic nonprofits at Mission Energy, the Inflation Reduction Act subsidizes 30% to 50% of the costs for their projects through direct pay.
“It really was a game changer for nonprofit organizations,” Last said.
On Trump’s first day in office on Jan. 20, one of 26 executive orders he signed titled, “Unleashing American Energy,” stopped individuals and organizations from receiving funding for projects like the ones from Mission Energy. This order still remains in effect.
“All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,” the executive order stated.
Last said he is not sure what will happen if IRA funding completely goes away. But if it stops, the funding of renewable energy projects will shift back towards Power Purchase Agreements, a method organizations used before the IRA. These agreements have third party developers pay for renewable energy projects and are paid back from the organizations to investors over a set amount of years.
“[Third party developers] like working with our groups because churches, Catholic healthcare systems, religious communities are not going anywhere and in some cases have been around for hundreds of years,” Last said in a previous Planet Forward article.
Third party developers for renewable energy projects are only allowed in at least 29 states and Washington, D.C.
Out of Mission Energy’s 40 completed projects, 26 of them have used a Power Purchase Agreement. Since the passage of the IRA, only two out of the 14 projects under construction are having a Power Purchase agreement. All 14 projects are using some IRA benefits with 12 of them using direct pay.
Besides working with Catholic institutions, Mission Energy also works with other nonprofits. Last said before the IRA, most groups chose to go the Power Purchase Agreement route. Last year Last said only one Power Purchase Agreement was settled for a project.
“I’ll proudly say this as a CEO of a solar company, I think it would be ludicrous to repeal the direct pay,” Last said.
IRA funding for Catholic organizations’ green energy uncertain under Trump administration was first published on Planet Forward and was republished with permission.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
