It’s often said that America is as politically divided as it has ever been. This week’s show explores the data from two different groups that study American attitudes. What they discovered challenges some common assumptions about the current state of US politics, and offers a sense of context missing from noisy ‘us versus them’ type arguments.
Venezuela flag and oil tanker
President Donald Trump convened more than a dozen major oil executives at the White House on Friday afternoon to explore potential investment opportunities in Venezuela, coming just days after the United States removed President Nicolás Maduro from power.
Trump invoked a national emergency to protect Venezuelan oil revenues controlled by the U.S. government from being seized by private creditors, casting the move as essential to safeguarding American national security and preserving stability across the region.
The dramatic U.S. raid that captured Nicolás Maduro has been framed as a decisive blow against corruption, drug trafficking, and authoritarianism. But the facts emerging in the days since tell a far more complicated story — one that raises uncomfortable questions about American motives, regional stability, and the future of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere.
If this were truly a mission driven by humanitarian concern or a desire to protect Americans from narcotics, it is striking how quickly the conversation shifted to petroleum and investment opportunities. The timing alone suggests that oil was not an afterthought — it was a central consideration.
The Trump administration has issued threats not only to Venezuela’s acting leadership but also to Colombia and Cuba. It has revived talk of acquiring Greenland. These statements, taken together, paint a picture of a government increasingly comfortable with the language of coercion and territorial ambition.
Americans themselves appear uneasy. Polling shows the public is split on the raid, with many still forming opinions. Nearly half oppose the idea of the United States taking control of Venezuela or choosing its next government. An overwhelming majority believe Venezuelans should decide their own political future. That instinct — a respect for sovereignty and self-determination — is one the United States would do well to heed.
None of this is to deny that Maduro faced serious allegations or that Venezuela has suffered deeply under his rule. But the manner of his removal, the immediate pivot to oil negotiations, and the administration’s increasingly expansionist posture raise legitimate concerns about what truly motivated this operation — and what might come next.
The Western Hemisphere has a long memory of U.S. interventions justified in the name of democracy but driven by strategic or economic interests. If the United States wants to avoid repeating that history, it must be transparent about its goals, restrained in its ambitions, and respectful of the sovereignty of its neighbors.
Venezuela is part of a broader, more aggressive vision of American power — one that extends from the oil fields of Venezuela to the mineral-rich ice of Greenland.
Trump’s fixation on acquiring Greenland is not new, but the timing and intensity of his renewed push are telling. Fresh off a military operation in South America, he told reporters that Greenland is “so strategic” and claimed the island is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships.” The White House then confirmed it was considering “a range of options” to bring the self-governing Danish territory under U.S. control — including the use of the military.
European leaders were alarmed. Denmark warned that such a move would effectively end NATO. Greenlanders themselves overwhelmingly oppose U.S. control. Yet the administration pressed forward.
Why? Because Greenland is not just a frozen island. It is a geopolitical jackpot.
The territory sits between the U.S. and Russia, straddling emerging Arctic shipping routes that could dramatically shorten global trade paths as ice melts. It lies atop vast reserves of oil, gas, and some of the world’s most valuable rare earth minerals — the same minerals China has used to pressure the United States. Analysts note that Greenland may be one of the most strategically important pieces of real estate for the next half-century.
In other words: this is not about democracy. It is about leverage.
When you place Greenland and Venezuela side by side, the pattern becomes impossible to miss — a foreign policy driven by the acquisition of land, resources, and strategic advantage, one that demands scrutiny, accountability, and a sober understanding of the costs of intervention.
Trump’s Venezuela Agenda Isn’t Justice — It’s Profit was first published on Latino News Network.
Hugo Balta is the publisher of the Latino News Network executive editor of The Fulcrum.
One of my readers, Arthur — who once served as vice chair of a political committee in Maryland — wrote to me after reading one of my columns. He quoted Jimi Hendrix: “There must be some kind of way out of here, said the joker to the thief. There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.” He went on to describe the stress, confusion, and helplessness so many Americans feel today, reminding me that part of our relief comes from strong, honest, and courageous journalists deciphering the political scene. His words struck me because they capture the moment we are living in: people are hungry for truthful information, yet too often they are fed lies.
Free speech versus falsehoods — there is no competition because, ironically, both are protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that most political lies are shielded, even when they mislead voters. That protection makes it nearly impossible to legislate against deception in campaigns or public discourse. Yet the damage of lying is devastating. Consider the “Big Lie” of 2020. Repeated endlessly, it convinced millions that the presidential election was stolen. That falsehood eroded trust in the electoral system, fueled conspiracy theories, and culminated in the violence of January 6. Democracy depends on the peaceful transfer of power, yet lies turned citizens against one another and against the institutions meant to safeguard our republic.
A few months ago, I read an opinion in which a young law student explained why he would cast his ballot for Trump. He claimed that Kamala Harris was against the Second Amendment, even though she had openly shared that she was a gun owner. He also described her as authoritarian. These were lies concocted by Trump, but the student believed them. I felt sadness for the young man. He was studying the law — preparing for a career built on truth and justice — yet he was already caught in untruths. He had not done his own research to decipher the lies. Anyone listening carefully to Harris and her running mate would have known the truth. But the noise of repeated falsehoods drowned out reality, leaving even a future lawyer misled. This example shows how lies affect uninformed voters. When citizens accept falsehoods without checking facts, democracy itself is endangered. That is why I tell people: do your research, look at roll call votes, and demand to know the truth. Only an informed electorate can hold leaders accountable and protect the republic.
Just because speech is free does not make the lie true. As a former coordinator of human relations and professional development, I was trained to read body language: folded arms, shifting eye contact, mismatches between words and gestures, changes in speech patterns, and signs of stress. These cues often reveal what words try to conceal. Trump, his press secretary, and others frequently give short, uninformative answers without detail. Their voices change tone, their body language shifts, and they deflect instead of answering yes or no questions. Another tactic is answering a question that was never asked — changing the topic entirely to avoid accountability. These behaviors are not accidental; they are part of the performance of lying, designed to distract, confuse, and overwhelm.
Meanwhile, while citizens chase distractions, leaders exploit the noise to pass harmful legislation. The so‑called Big Beautiful Bill was promoted as relief for working Americans, but in reality it cut SNAP benefits, restricted child care, reduced student aid, and limited Medicare — all while delivering permanent tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was sold as a middle‑class tax cut, but its largest benefits went to the rich. These bills passed under cover of lies, showing how disinformation isn’t just rhetoric; it clears the path for policies that betray the public.
It takes courage, conscience, and sacrifice to confront hypocrisy. Liz Cheney stood as a patriot for justice and was penalized by her own party (MSN, VICE). Contrast that with Fox Nation, which gave Trump a “Patriot of the Year” award — an honor he effectively bought. That is not patriotism; that is hypocrisy.
Freedom of the press is not optional — it is the mechanism that keeps government honest (Free Speech Center). Yet Trump undermined transparency, intimidating reporters and turning access into leverage. He weaponized the Department of Justice against enemies while shielding allies (Reuters). By politicizing prosecutions and dismantling oversight, he eroded the firewall meant to protect democracy.
Lying may not be formally classified as a homeland security issue, but its consequences are undeniable. Falsehoods have fueled political violence against leaders and citizens in red, blue, and purple states alike. When lies motivate threats, shootings, and intimidation, they cross the line from rhetoric into public danger. Disinformation destabilizes communities, erodes trust, and weakens the resilience of our democracy.
Therefore, Congress must act. Regulations restricting deliberate lies to voters, policy reforms that strengthen accountability, and protections for whistleblowers are essential. Oversight bodies must have the power to condemn lying and enforce consequences. Truth in campaigning should be a baseline, not an aspiration. At the same time, media interventions are equally critical. Networks and social media outlets that knowingly spread falsehoods — especially those that motivate violence — must be held accountable and penalized. Fact‑checking, ethical standards, and truth pledges should be required of candidates and platforms alike. Citizens deserve transparency, not manipulation.
Still, legislation and oversight alone are not enough. It will take persistence from all of us. Americans must send a clear message: we have had enough of the lies, falsehoods, and conspiracies. We are intelligent beings who see through the fog, the distractions, and the deception. Stop insulting our intelligence. Citizens must learn to steer clear of distractions and avoid chasing noise. We must research facts, look at roll call votes, demand accountability, and insist on ethics in public life. Democracy depends on our vigilance.
Ultimately, leaders will earn respect, credibility, and trust when they tell the truth and practice transparency. That is the foundation of democracy. Citizens do not expect perfection, but we do expect honesty. We want the truth, even when it is hard to hear, because only truth allows us to make informed choices and hold leaders accountable. Lies may be protected by the First Amendment, but they erode democracy, divide communities, and endanger lives. If leaders will not honor that truth, then citizens must demand it — persistently, courageously, and without compromise.
Free Speech and Freedom of the press are constitutional safeguards meant to keep leaders honest and in check. Yet the First Amendment also shields political lies, which makes it all the more urgent that citizens demand truth, transparency, and accountability. Only by challenging hypocrisy, protecting this freedom, and standing with those intimidated or threatened will democracy be released to thrive.
Bio: Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership, government accountability, and civic empowerment. She focuses her writing on exposing hypocrisy and restoring integrity in public service.
In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.
This second in a series in the Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” invites retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary in our democratic republic.
These voices are not partisan. They are principled. Having served on the bench with fidelity to law over politics, these jurists now step forward — to advocate for any party or agenda, but to illuminate the constitutional architecture that protects liberty and equality for all.
Their reflections are rooted in experience, not ideology. Their warnings are grounded in precedent.
At a time when threats to judicial independence are growing more frequent and more brazen, The Fulcrum offers this series as a civic resource and a moral compass. We believe that understanding how our courts function and why their integrity matters is essential to preserving the democratic experiment our founders envisioned.
Today, Honorable Philip M. Pro, a former U.S. District Judge for Nevada (1987-2015), known for his dedication to fairness and extensive experience in mediation, arbitration, and as a court-appointed neutral after his judicial career, bringing decades of distinguished federal and state judicial service, including time as Chief Judge for the District of Nevada answers some questions that are reminders that the judiciary is not a tool of power; it is a bulwark against its abuse.
Why did the framers enshrine an independent judiciary – and how does that safeguard our democracy today?
To preserve the separation of powers between the three co-equal Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government, and to ensure that the judges of the Judicial Branch would be able to render judicial decisions on the basis of the law and facts before them free from political pressure, or other undue influences, the Framers crafted Article III of the Constitution to provide protections against reductions in compensation or removal from office for rendering politically unpopular decisions which were compelled under the applicable law.
As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy testified at a hearing on Judicial Security and Independence before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 14, 2007, “Judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please. Judicial independence is conferred so judges can do as they must.”
While the proper measure of judicial independence engrained in the plain language of Article III was debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays prior to ratification of the Constitution, its fundamental scope was firmly cemented in the Supreme Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison.
The independence of the judiciary has been tested many times throughout our nation’s history, and is under attack today, but it has stood the test of time for 236 years. Combined with the separation of powers engrained in the Constitution, the independence of the federal judiciary has provided the essential framework for maintaining the Rule of Law which provides the very foundation for our Constitutional Republic.
Why are federal judges speaking out now – what compels you to break tradition and raise your voice?
In his Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary on December 31, 2024, Chief Justice John Roberts cited the growing dangers to the independence of the Judicial Branch posed by the alarming increase in hostile communications, intimidating threats, and acts of violence directed at federal judges in recent years. Emphasizing that “violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges undermines our Republic,” he encouraged the three branches to work cooperatively and respectfully to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
Based upon the constant barrage of inflammatory and unfounded attacks on the federal judiciary over the last 12 months by the highest officials in the Executive branch and some in the Legislative branch, it is clear the Chief Justice’s message has been ignored.
In the face of such outrageous and corrosive rhetoric shouted from the bully pulpit of high political office, and amplified by an unprecedented misuse of social media against judges who cannot respond on their own behalf, I consider it my duty as a retired Article III judge to defend my active colleagues, the independence of the judiciary and the Rule of Law.
Whether by design, ignorance, or both, the incendiary rhetoric from high-level Executive level officials, denigrating the rulings of federal judges, and often accompanied by disparaging personal attacks against the character of the individual judges who issued them, threatens to erode the public’s confidence in the Judicial branch and poses a real threat to the rule of law.
Why is using impeachment to challenge judicial decisions a threat to constitutional balance?
Attempting to use impeachment to challenge judicial decisions is an attempt to usurp the Article III powers of the Supreme Court to determine the validity of judicial decisions, and represents a clear threat to the constitutional balance provided by the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the Rule of Law.
When the Framers drafted the Constitution in 1787, they wisely divided the powers granted to the federal government by “We the People” between three co-equal, yet co-dependent Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. To ensure that no single Branch could exercise total control of the federal government, they included a variety of “checks and balances” requiring the Branches to work cooperatively thereby ensuring a necessary equilibrium in conducting the affairs of government.
The power of impeachment conferred on Congress allows for the removal from office of “the President, Vice-President or civil officers for conviction of Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The power of impeachment is thus limited. While it extends to judges for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as most recently noted by Chief Justice Roberts in his 2025 Year End Report of the Federal Judiciary published on December 31, 2025, it has been recognized since the acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase at his impeachment trial before U.S. Senate in 1805, “disapproval of a judge’s decisions,” is “an invalid basis for removal from office.”
Under Article III of the Constitution, Federal judges bear the responsibility to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We are called upon daily to decide cases large and small involving a vast array of disputes which sometimes involve complex constitutional issues. In rendering a decision judges attempt to ensure every interested party has an equal opportunity to present all evidence and arguments in support of their position. We then provide an explanation of how the governing law applies to the facts of the case and provide a decision which the parties and the public can understand. Those decisions can be appealed to a reviewing court or in some cases become the subject of statutory change or even Constitutional Amendment. Those calling for impeachment of judges in retaliation for judicial decisions is an inappropriate attempt to remove judges for doing their job.
What do you wish more Americans understood about the role of judges in preserving liberty and equality?
I wish more Americans had a better understanding of the respective roles of our three Branches of government and of their civic responsibilities as citizens.
The United States Constitution is not a perpetual motion machine that will automatically perpetuate itself. Ensuring the preservation of the benefits of the individual and economic liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, requires the energy of an informed and engaged citizenry to fuel the mechanisms of our government.
During nearly 35 years on the federal bench, I have had the opportunity to participate in many “rule of law” programs conducted in more than twenty-five countries. Several were emerging democracies lacking experience with self-government guided by the rule of law or a tradition of an independent judiciary. These were eye-opening experiences and I wish every American could experience life in countries where citizens do not enjoy the blessings of the individual and economic rights we take for granted in the United States.
Greater emphasis needs to be placed on civic education in our schools and in our communities. Every American can do something to boost their civic engagement through voting, jury service, or involvement in the civic life of their communities and those of us who can, should encourage them to do so.
What moment from your time on the bench best captures the weight – or wonder – of serving justice?
It is impossible to single out one moment that captures the weight and wonder of serving justice. The honor of serving nearly three and a half decades of my professional life as a federal judge was at once enormously gratifying and humbling. Disputes legal and factual, simple and complex, human and passionate, surge up against the walls of our courtrooms every day. The judge has the best seat in the house but also carries the responsibility for ensuring due process and guiding each case to a full and fair resolution according to applicable law. For a lawyer dedicated to public service, what could be better than that?!
At a time when public debate in the United States is consumed by questions of secrecy, accountability and the selective release of government records, Puerto Rico has quietly taken a dangerous step in the opposite direction.
In December 2025, Gov. Jenniffer González signed Senate Bill 63 into law, introducing sweeping amendments to Puerto Rico’s transparency statute, known as the Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Access to Public Information Act. Framed as administrative reform, the new law (Act 156 of 2025) instead restricts access to public information and weakens one of the archipelago’s most important accountability and democratic tools.
This is not merely an administrative reform. It is an attempt to limit the exercise of a right with deep constitutional, political and historical roots.
Unlike many U.S. jurisdictions, the right to access public information in Puerto Rico is not an administrative privilege created by statute. It is a constitutional right, derived from freedom of expression and developed through decades of jurisprudence, legal mobilization, and political struggle. Long before the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Puerto Rican courts recognized that democracy requires public access to government records, especially in a political system shaped by colonial rule, surveillance, and repression.
As I have shown in a recently published article, history matters because the right to access public information in Puerto Rico did not emerge from bureaucratic reform. It emerged from oppositional politics.
As a U.S. colonial territory, Puerto Rico has long been governed through a regime that relied heavily on secrecy, political surveillance and repression, particularly against pro-independence and leftist movements. The practice of Carpeteo, or the systematic collection of political dossiers by police and intelligence agencies, produced a culture of surveillance, state violence and persecution, which was all legitimized by opacity and a lack of accountability. Families of victims, activists, and lawyers were routinely denied information about arrests, surveillance and political assassinations. It was in response to this machinery of colonial repression that the constitutional right to access information began to take shape.
A pivotal moment came in 1982, when the Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled in favor of citizens seeking access to documents related to the political assassination by Puerto Rico police of anticolonial activists Carlos Soto Arriví and Arnaldo Darío Rosado at Cerro Maravilla on July 25, 1978. The court affirmed that access to public information carries constitutional rank and established a strict standard, requiring that any limitation on this right favor the public’s right to know. This ruling did more than release documents; it transformed access to information into a legal weapon against impunity.
Subsequent cases reinforced the transparency principle. Together, these decisions did not simply clarify procedure; they helped to dismantle official narratives, enabled the construction of counter-memory, and challenged the state’s monopoly over truth. Access to information became a means of confronting colonial state violence and rewriting Puerto Rico’s historical record from below.
This history explains why access to information has played such a central role in Puerto Rico’s contemporary political life. Over the last two decades, especially during the economic crisis that began in 2006, the imposition of austerity, and the aftermath of Hurricane María, journalists, researchers and civil society organizations have relied on this right to expose corruption, mismanagement and abuse of power. Investigative reporting and legal mobilization made visible the social costs of colonial austerity, failures in disaster response, secrecy surrounding public debt, and the beneficiaries of tax incentive regimes.
An example of these legal mobilizations for access to information reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In May 2023, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, a case addressing whether the federally imposed Fiscal Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) was shielded from transparency lawsuits in Puerto Rican courts. In 2017, the CPI sued the FOMB in federal court, arguing that its refusal to disclose financial records violated Puerto Rico’s constitution. The federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with CPI, arguing that FOMB was not exempt from core principles of democratic governance. However, SCOTUS sided with the FOMB, holding that the constitutional right to access information does not apply to the FOMB. The case underscored the fragility of transparency rights under colonial governance.
It is against this backdrop that Act 156 of 2025 must be understood. Rather than strengthening enforcement or correcting the government’s long-standing failure to comply with transparency obligations, the law normalizes delay, discretion, and deterrence. Response deadlines have been doubled. Requests that once required answers within ten business days now allow agencies twenty, with an additional twenty-day extension. If records exceed 300 pages or are more than three years old, a routine reality in investigative work, agencies have thirty business days, plus another twenty, turning a constitutional right into a months-long waiting game.
The law also raises the threshold for what counts as a valid request. Requesters must now notify agency leadership and public information officers, yet the government provides no public directory of those officials’ contact information.Agencies are granted broader authority to declare information confidential, permanently shielding it from disclosure. Agencies are no longer required to provide records in usable formats and may deem a request fulfilled simply by allowing in-person inspection, without guaranteeing meaningful access. Requests can also be denied if information is spread across multiple documents. Even enforcement has been weakened. Fines apply only after a court order, are capped at $18,000,and lawsuits may be filed only in San Juan. Transparency remains formally recognized, but practically hollowed out.
International press, civil rights organizations groups and the ACLU of Puerto Rico warned that the law would provide the government with new mechanisms to deny access to public information and would mark a clear democratic regression. According to the CPI, more than 50 Puerto Rican organizations urged the governor to veto the bill. She signed it anyway.
The process was as troubling as the substance. As journalist Carla Minet documented, the bill was rushed through the legislature without meaningful hearings, amended behind closed doors, and approved without giving civil society organizations a genuine opportunity to participate.
This new bill does not eliminate the right to access information outright. Its constitutional protection remains. But by multiplying delays, formalities, and justifications for denial, the law transforms that right into a bureaucratic ordeal. In practice, it will reduce access to information essential for understanding corruption, public administration failures, and Puerto Rico’s ongoing transformation into an offshore financial center and tax haven.
Puerto Rico has seen this before. In a colonial context marked by overlapping economic, environmental, and political crises, opacity functions as a tool of governance. Weakening access to information shields decision-makers from accountability while maintaining the appearance of legality.
The right to access public information was forged precisely to confront this kind of power. In Puerto Rico, transparency has never been a technocratic ideal but a practice of democratic resistance, historically mobilized against colonial governance, fiscal secrecy, and impunity. The current moment demands a renewed articulation of forces that moves beyond denunciation toward coordinated action. This includes sustained legal mobilization and strategic litigation, but also grassroots organizing, investigative journalism, and public education campaigns that contest the normalization of opacity and corruption.
While the constitutional right to access information remains one of the few legal tools available to hold a colonial government accountable, it is also part of a broader political repertoire aimed at advancing genuinely democratic and transparent institutions. that is, decolonization. As noted above, access to information claims have long been central to the anticolonial toolbox, used to expose the anti-democratic and coercive practices deployed by the colonial state. Transparency, in this sense, is not an end in itself but a means within a larger struggle for self-determination and independence.
This struggle is especially urgent given that Gov. González’s administration lacks a clear democratic mandate. In the 2024 election, a majority of voters did not support her party, instead backing alternative political projects, including the pro-independence party. This deficit of popular legitimacy matters. It creates both the political justification and the urgency for civil society to challenge recent actions that weaken public oversight. A meaningful response must therefore do two things at once: confront the immediate rollback of transparency through litigation, public pressure, and international scrutiny, while simultaneously building an alternative political project rooted in decolonization and independence. Only through this dual strategy can the practices that justify secrecy, austerity, and executive overreach be effectively called into question.
A government confident in its legitimacy does not fear transparency; it does not dilute rights born of struggle but instead strengthens them. This legislation, and the colonial institutions that made it possible, do the opposite, normalizing secrecy and the absence of transparency as a mode of governance.
Jose Atiles is an associate professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Illinois, a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project, and the author of “Crisis by Design: Emergency Powers and Colonial Legality in Puerto Rico,” which analyzes the role of law, emergency powers, and colonial structures in producing and exacerbating political and economic emergencies.
