The Making Every Vote Count Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, dedicated to electing the president by a national popular vote. Making Every Vote Count supports research and civic education on the many reasons why Americans would benefit from the national popular vote. Making Every Vote Count recognizes the value of the many nationwide efforts to reform the American electoral system which aim to ensure that the winner of the national popular vote is guaranteed to become president.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Residents check in to participate in in-person absentee voting (early voting) at the Municipal Building on March 26, 2025, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
(Scott Olson/Getty Images/TNS)
Voter ID shouldn’t be this controversial
Feb 20, 2026
Jonah Goldberg: Voter ID shouldn’t be this controversial
Jonah Goldberg February 11, 2026
Residents check in to participate in in-person absentee voting (early voting) at the Municipal Building on March 26, 2025, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images/TNS)
President Trump says that “Republicans” should “nationalize the election” or at least take over voting in up to 15 places where he says voting is corrupt. His evidence of fraudulent voting is that he lost in such places in 2020, and since it is axiomatic that he won everywhere, the reported results are proof of the fraud.
This is all delusional, narcissistic nonsense. But at this point, if you still claim it’s an open question whether Trump actually lost the 2020 election (he did), you’re immune to the facts or just lying — either about not having made up your mind or about what actually happened. So, I don’t see much point in relitigating an issue that was literally litigated in more than 60 courtrooms.
But Republicans’ inability simply to tell the truth about Trump’s lies makes talking about elections and election integrity infuriatingly difficult. One tactic is to assert that Trump didn’t say what he plainly said. “What I assume he meant by it is that we ought to pass — Congress ought to pass the SAVE Act, which I’m co-sponsor of,” is how Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, responded to questions about Trump’s remarks.
Before later correcting himself, Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, insisted the president never said he wanted to “nationalize” the elections. “Those are your words, not his,” he told reporters.
But Democrats are wrong to suggest that all of the difficulty is generated by Trump’s lies and the Republicans’ inability to reject them.
On Sunday, ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, given “that the Republicans have undermined confidence in elections and the integrity of elections,” why not have a photo ID requirement for voting?
Schiff responded by scoffing at the idea that Democrats should cave to “the distrust (Republicans) created in order to enact a voter suppression law, which is the SAVE Act.”
Now there are reasonable objections to proof-of-citizenship requirements in the SAVE Act, but the framing of both the question and the answer is flawed.
Americans — including large majorities of Democrats — have favored voter ID for decades. Since long before anyone dreamed Donald Trump would run for president, never mind get elected, the idea has been wildly popular. In 2006, 80% of Americans favored showing proof of ID when voting. The lowest support over the last two decades, according to Pew, was in 2012 when a mere 77% of Americans, including 61% of Democrats favored voter ID. Last August, Pew found that 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats favored having to provide government-issued ID when voting.
Two things have bothered me about Democratic opposition to voter ID. First is the claim that millions upon millions of Americans lack adequate ID. While it’s true that the SAVE Act’s provisions for providing proof of citizenship creates novel challenges — lots of people don’t have their birth certificates and many forms of ID don’t specify citizenship — Democrats were making this argument years before the citizenship issue ripened. (To be clear, evidence of noncitizens voting in significant numbers is scant to nonexistent.)
Regardless, if the problem is that huge numbers of “marginalized” people don’t have sufficient ID to vote, that also means they don’t have good enough ID for all manner of things. Indeed, I can think of few things more likely to marginalize someone than not having ID. You can’t get a credit card, buy or rent a home, apply for welfare benefits, travel by plane or open a bank account without identification. That’s some serious marginalization.
Second, if you want people to trust the integrity of elections and the sanctity of “our democracy” waxing indignant over the idea of presenting ID when democratic majorities favor it is an odd choice. It arouses the suspicion that there’s a reason for opposing such measures. Mostly thanks to Democratic initiatives, America has made it wildly easier to vote over the last three decades. Why is it so preposterous that new safeguards be put in place amid all of the mail-in and early voting?
My theory is that at some deep level there is a dysfunctional bipartisan consensus that lax voting rules benefit Democrats. That’s why Republicans want to tighten the rules and Democrats favor loosening them. The funny thing is, I think both sides have always been wrong. Indeed, as the demographics of parties’ coalitions have changed, the assumption has gotten sillier. Over the last decade, the GOP traded “high propensity” college-educated suburban voters for non-college low-propensity voters.
Yet both parties have intensified their delusions. Voter ID is not voter suppression, and requiring voter ID will not guarantee Republican victories. It’s just a reasonable idea, albeit in an unreasonable time.
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
Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.
Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago
Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List
Feb 19, 2026
In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.
On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.
On February 4, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) issued a list of ten demands, including prohibiting agents from wearing masks, requiring them to show IDs, and regulating the type of uniforms and equipment they carry.
These demands might have been acceptable if Renee Good and Alex Pretti hadn’t been killed; if Marimar Martinez hadn’t been shot five times by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent; if immigration enforcement agents hadn’t been detaining children, breaking into the homes of U.S. citizens, and assaulting people indiscriminately. Democrats – to the surprise of no one – are not meeting the moment.
Even if Democrats won’t push for abolishing ICE, they should be demanding far more than they are. Here’s a better list of demands:
1.Enforce existing policies and regulations
ICE officers are trained not to approach vehicles from the front – Jonathan Ross violated this. Immigration enforcement agents are trained not to use deadly force unless the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury to officers – Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez violated this. Except in limited circumstances, DHS prohibits agents from detaining U.S. citizens, yet more than 170 have been kicked, dragged, and held by ICE. Before adding new policies, Democrats need to ensure that current ones are being enforced.
2.Investigations involving immigration enforcement agents must be led by a Congressional committee
To date, six federal prosecutors and an FBI agent have resigned due to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) reluctance to investigate Ross. The killings of Good and Pretti must not be swept under the rug by politically biased officials. Congress must take charge of all investigations involving immigration enforcement agents and coordinate with state and local officials.
3.Investigate and put Jonathan Ross, Jesus Ochoa, and Raymundo Gutierrez on trial for their crimes
Following the second demand, Congress must begin by immediately investigating Ross, Ochoa, and Gutierrez. They must be put on trial and held accountable for their crimes. A failure to do so only emboldens other agents to act without impunity or regard for public safety.
4.Impeach Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem
Noem has consistently, deliberately, and recklessly lied to the American public. Under her leadership (or lack thereof), ICE agents are being poorly trained and deployed at unprecedented levels across the nation. She is responsible for the chaos they have unleashed – she must be held accountable.
5.End indiscriminate biometric surveillance
Immigration enforcement agents are using facial recognition technologies like Mobile Fortify to scan citizens and immigrants alike. U.S. citizens like Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez and Mubashir (who chose only to reveal his first name to the press) have been detained by ICE because of these technologies. They must be banned.
6.End domestic terrorist lists
ICE is reportedly scanning the faces of protestors and uploading them to “domestic terrorist” lists. Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein reports that there are over a dozen “secret and obscure” watchlists that DHS and the FBI are using to track anti-ICE and other protestors. These lists must be erased entirely. Those agencies must provide proof of their deletion to Congress.
7.Fine anyone who spreads disinformation about ICE’s violence
The Trump administration immediately smeared Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists.” Noem alleged that Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon. Home Security Advisor Stephen Miller called him an “assassin.” Several news outlets and political commentators amplified these lies. They must all be held accountable.
8.Protect journalists from DHS
On January 30, Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were arrested by federal agents. They were charged with conspiracy and interfering with the rights of worshippers while covering an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in St. Paul.
These arrests were politically motivated. DHS has insisted that people do not have the right to record ICE agents in public – a complete lie from an administration that consistently lies to the public. At a time when journalism is under attack, Democrats must protect the rights of reporters and bystanders to observe and monitor federal agents. Americans need access to complete and honest coverage of what’s happening across the nation. We cannot allow journalists to be silenced or intimidated by the administration.
9.Restitution for victims of ICE’s violence
Tatiana Martinez was dragged out of her car by federal agents and thrown onto the ground. A masked agent then pressed his knee into her neck while she was handcuffed. She passed out from the trauma. George Retes was heading to his job in Camarillo when ICE agents smashed his car window, pepper-sprayed him, forcibly pulled him out, and threw him onto the ground. Kaden Rummler was left completely blind in one eye after being hit in the face with a projectile fired by a federal agent.
All victims of ICE’s violence must be able to seek restitution. This must include monetary compensation paid directly from ICE’s funding.
10.No additional funding for ICE
With a budget of $85 billion, ICE is currently the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency. No more taxpayer money should go to an agency assaulting, detaining, and killing U.S. citizens.
11.Everything included in the Schumer-Jeffries list
The demands made by Democrats are not inherently bad. If enforced, requiring judicial warrants, building safeguards, and protecting sensitive locations such as hospitals and schools could help curb ICE’s violence. The major problem with their list is that it’s far too modest.
ICE is increasingly unpopular. Democrats must seize this moment to take bold and meaningful steps to protect the American public from the Trump administration’s most authoritarian impulses.Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.
Keep ReadingShow less
Following killings in Minneapolis, ICE operations reignite concerns over overpolicing, racial profiling, and the mental health toll on Black communities nationwide.
Getty Images, David Berding
Why ICE's Aggressive Tactics are a Public Health Crisis
Feb 19, 2026
Following the recent killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents continue to conduct operations across the country. In recent weeks, under-the-radar sweeps have been reported in communities from California to North Carolina.
ICE’s use of targeted policing, harassment, and excessive force has pushed the issue of overpolicing to the forefront again. For many in Black communities across the U.S., these patterns feel painfully familiar, especially considering the agents are charged with infiltrating communities of color to detain “illegal immigrants.” And while some cases of aggressive policing make headlines, there are countless others that never make the news. Nevertheless, the harm is real, affecting the collective mental health of communities of color and others as well.
U.S. law enforcement has a well-documented past of using excessive force, often directed at communities of color, which has resulted in the deaths of Black Americans. Some deadly incidents garnered national attention for weeks, such as the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in May 2020; the killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in July 2016; and the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, among many others. However, there are also numerous lesser-known instances of violence and harassment that happen much more frequently.
For example, in the weeks before the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s son was detained by ICE agents in Minneapolis; ICE agents pulled him over and demanded that he ‘prove his U.S. citizenship.’ And, there are innumerable untold others still that never make it to the news - like my own encounter with over-policing. Though I am currently a professor at a major university with a doctoral degree, I remain haunted by my own experience with law enforcement, wherein I was unfairly targeted and directed by officers to provide evidence of my citizenship.
While residing on Chicago's North Side, I was conversing with a close friend while sitting inside my vehicle outside of my apartment building when two plainclothes officers approached us, requesting immediate identification to verify our presence in the neighborhood. We were detained for approximately 25 minutes; the officers retained my driver’s license—which verified my residence—and checked my license plate. Such interactions are unfortunately prevalent among Black men across the United States. These experiences can have a lasting impact, and the recollection of being surveilled and detained without cause remains significant for those involved.
Now, it may be too early for studies offering conclusive findings on the mental health impact of witnessing Renee Nicole Good or Alex Pretti’s murders. But psychologists are already weighing in on the toll of the ICE raids. “Psychological science is clear,” Dr. Arthur Evans, Jr., head of the American Psychological Association, said in a recent report. “Detention, deportation, family separation, and the constant threat of such actions create chronic stress that increases anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, and long-term health risks.”
The same held true following the high-profile death of George Floyd. A study published using both Gallup Poll and U.S. Census Household Pulse Data specifically assessed the psychological effects of George Floyd’s murder—an event widely viewed via social media and mainstream news outlets—on the general U.S. population in the week after his killing by a law enforcement officer.
It found that anger and sadness rose sharply among U.S. citizens, with nearly half of Black Americans reporting being deeply affected. Black Americans reported significantly larger increases in depression and anxiety symptoms when compared to their White counterparts. Furthermore, depression and anxiety severity increased among Black Americans at significantly higher rates than those of White Americans. In other words, an estimated 900,000 Black Americans would have screened positive for depression in the wake of Floyd’s murder.
Given the widespread deployment of ICE in communities across the U.S., there is an increased likelihood of incidents involving excessive force that may result in serious injury or more deaths. Reforms are necessary.
In Congress, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are demanding that ICE agents be prohibited from wearing masks and required to wear body cameras during public interactions. But what about other authorities?
In recent years, law enforcement agencies nationwide have introduced some reforms to address public outcry over aggressive policing tactics, including mandatory training in de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care and crisis intervention; the use of body cameras; strict regulations around the use of force; and enhanced reporting requirements for officer misconduct.
As the ongoing ICE raids can attest, however, these guidelines and standards are falling short, including in addressing racial bias. And the stark reality is that making such changes, even on a local level, requires time. As such, an important question remains: how much longer must Black communities, communities of color, and the wider public endure targeted policing, harassment, and excessive use of force? Because as these actions become even more severe, so too does the impact on our collective mental health.
Lance Keene, PhD, MSW is an Assistant Professor at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work. He is also a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
People standing, holding letters that spell out "courage."
Photo provided
Solidarity Without Borders: Civil Society Must Coordinate Internationally to Protect Democracy and Rights
Feb 19, 2026
Across every continent, marginalized communities face systematic, escalating threats wherever democracy comes under attack. In the United States, Black Americans confront voter suppression and attacks on our history. Across the Americas, immigrants and racialized communities face racial profiling and assault by immigration enforcement. In Brazil and across South America, Indigenous peoples endure environmental destruction and rising violence. In Europe, Roma communities, immigrants, and refugees experience discrimination and hostile policies. Across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, members of marginalized ethnic and religious communities face state violence, forced labor, and the denial of basic human rights. In every region of the world, members of the LGBTQ+ community face discrimination and threats.
These are not random or isolated acts of oppression. When considered together, they reveal something more sinister: authoritarianism is becoming increasingly more connected and coordinated around the world. This coordination specifically targets the most vulnerable because authoritarians understand that it is easier to manipulate a divided and fearful society. Attacking those who are most marginalized weakens the entire democratic fabric.
As dire as these circumstances may be, there are steps that civil society organizations (CSOs) can take to counter these challenges. The tactics, which I’ll explain later in this piece, provide a framework for forging solidarity—the solidarity without borders that this moment demands.
The Authoritarian Playbook Is Global
Authoritarian coordination has evolved from opportunistic, one-off deals into sophisticated, institutionalized networks that increasingly shape global politics. Now, autocrats increasingly operate through an infrastructure designed for sustained collaboration that helps insulate them from international accountability, coordinate militarily, share repression technologies, and systematically suppress opposition movements across borders. At international summits and through cross-border advisory teams, autocratic leaders exchange and refine strategies on digital surveillance, effective propaganda, lawfare, and disinformation. At the same time, transnational repression—including state-sponsored intimidation, extradition requests, and attacks against exiles—is facilitated through mechanisms including Interpol abuse, coordinated financial pressure, and intelligence sharing. Mass surveillance, weaponized disinformation, and unscrupulous emergency laws now represent a playbook copied and shared globally. Civil society leaders, journalists, and members of marginalized communities are being silenced, jailed, or driven into exile at rates not seen in decades.
Today’s far-right authoritarians have created a network that supports illiberal populists globally and enables rapid diffusion of deceitful election narratives, anti-NGO regulations, and assaults on the rights of members of marginalized communities. This has all been achieved by openly citing one another’s “successes,” protecting each other diplomatically, and synchronizing messaging through proxied think tanks, media platforms, and conferences.
The two largest democracies in the Western Hemisphere, Brazil and the United States, illustrate these global dynamics. Both countries grapple with the enduring legacies of slavery and Native/Indigenous dispossession. Both struggle with police violence against Black communities and environmental destruction of Indigenous lands. Both recently experienced violent coup attempts (January 6, 2021, in the US and January 8, 2023, in Brazil).
Last year, the Trump administration intervened in Brazil’s domestic judicial processes in attempts to shield Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution, demonstrating how coordinated and brazenly authoritarian mutual aid now operates. Civil society leaders in both countries are responding with their own coordination. Brazilian civil society organizations (CSOs) have traveled to the United States to defend democracy and US groups have challenged our government’s interference in Brazil’s courts. What they’re building together could offer a template to movements everywhere.
Similar to the support of Bolsonaro, there are other examples of global complicity. US President Donald Trump announced, days before Honduras’s presidential election, that he would grant (and has since granted) a full pardon to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in US courts of facilitating massive cocaine trafficking. This effectively provided political cover and propaganda support to Hernández and his allies at home. And in January 2026, US forces carried out an illegal military incursion into Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. This move has been widely denounced by international law experts and regional bodies as a violation of sovereignty and a blatant bid to control Venezuela’s natural resources.
The United States also recently granted Hungary, alone among EU nations, exemption from sanctions for purchasing Russian oil and publicly praised President Viktor Orbán’s dismantling of the country’s democratic institutions. One government publicly intervening to protect another nation’s authoritarian figure from legal and political consequences represents a dangerous precedent and demonstrates how authoritarian mutual aid operates at the highest levels. Every time powerful states disregard international law or use force to decide another country’s political fate, they create a precedent that authoritarians everywhere will exploit. These reasons and more make coordinated civil society resistance not just morally imperative but also necessary for our collective survival.
What’s at Stake
The coordination of authoritarian power isn’t just threatening democracy in the abstract. It’s hampering humanity’s ability to address the collective existential crises facing all countries on the planet.
- The climate catastrophe looms as the defining challenge of our era, yet autocrats and oligarchs represent the primary obstacle to climate action. They profit from extraction, hoard resources, silence and disappear Indigenous land defenders, and weaponize energy dependence to maintain geopolitical control. They do this all while ensuring marginalized communities and developing nations bear disproportionate costs.
- Economic inequality threatens social unity and democratic stability as wealth concentration ensures billions remain in poverty while oligarchs amass fortunes that dwarf entire nations’ GDP. This concentration of wealth only serves to foster the destitution and desperation that authoritarians exploit while funding the movements that protect their own interests.
- The risk of catastrophic war escalates as authoritarian coordination emboldens leaders to invade, occupy, and commit atrocities with diminishing fear of consequences. Each unpunished atrocity makes the next more likely.
- Democratic space continues shrinking globally as dozens of countries have adopted laws restricting civil society, often using nearly identical “foreign agent” language to stigmatize and constrain NGOs.
Authoritarians are currently building a future that includes exile for truth-tellers, normalized violence against marginalized communities, an uninhabitable planet, obscene economic inequality, and perpetual war. We cannot accept this. Coordinated movements have defeated the forces of global authoritarianism before—from ending apartheid in South Africa to the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We can do it again. But to do so, we must build coordination now.
The Urgent Work
To begin to counter authoritarian efforts, democratic defenders must first match the sophisticated coordination and resources being wielded by those in the authoritarian movement. Using the promising coordination between US and Brazilian civil society as an example, the following five tactics provide a practical framework for building the cross-border solidarity this moment demands.
- Information Politics: Coordinated data collection, documentation, and strategic information sharing form the foundation of effective cross-border solidarity. US and Brazilian CSOs are already demonstrating this: Brazilian groups document police violence in favelas while US organizations document police killings in the United States. Groups in each country cite the other’s evidence to demonstrate how anti-Black state violence is a global phenomenon that requires coordinated solutions. To expand these efforts, when Brazilian civil society develops innovative strategies for combating disinformation, those lessons must immediately reach the relevant CSOs in India, the Philippines, and Kenya. Further, when legal strategies successfully defend Indigenous land rights in one country, they must be shared broadly so that they can be adapted elsewhere.
- Symbolic Politics: Synchronized protest days and coordinated remembrance campaigns create powerful visual evidence that these issues are global struggles and not isolated incidents. When Brazilian and US movements simultaneously commemorate victims of police violence, honoring those killed by police in Rio de Janeiro and Salvador alongside those killed in Ferguson and Minneapolis, the global infrastructure of anti-Black state violence becomes visible. And that visibility can build transnational solidarity for dismantling it. When movements simultaneously protest with unified messaging, dismissing those actions as merely local grievances becomes more difficult.
- Leverage Politics: Collective action multiplies impact. Brazilian civil society can share effective strategies with US civil society on organizing under authoritarian regimes, strengthening both movements’ ability to pressure their governments. Meanwhile, US CSOs can leverage their domestic credibility to defend Brazil’s democratic institutions. For example, when the New York City Bar Association condemned US government interference in Brazil’s courts last year, it imposed political pressure that international criticism alone could not. This is leverage politics—when movements use their unique positioning to create pressure that isolated movements cannot generate. CSOs should coordinate advocacy within multilateral institutions like the UN, Organization of American States, African Union, G7, EU, and Caribbean Community; build alliances with sympathetic lawmakers in countries with geopolitical leverage; engage funders who can condition support on rights protection; and pressure corporations whose reputations depend on ethical practices.
- Accountability Politics: Scorecards grading governments on commitments to human rights, climate action, and democratic governance can help leverage tools like shame and embarrassment. CSOs can mutually amplify each other’s exposure of government corruption, overreach, and failure. When Brazil’s civil society documents environmental destruction in the Amazon or when Brazilian NGOs expose violent police operations, such as the recent and deadliest in Rio de Janeiro’s history, with more than 100 people killed, US groups should amplify those findings to US audiences and policymakers. When CSOs in the US document voter suppression or police violence, organizations in Brazil should cite that evidence when challenging similar tactics and show that these are coordinated patterns. Governments that face coordinated international accountability cannot easily isolate defenders or dismiss criticism as partisan attacks.
- Solidarity Networks: Leadership exchanges encourage participants to spend time embedded in movements in other countries and build relationships that sustain coordination for decades. Programs that bring Indigenous, Black, and other marginalized youth from Brazil and the United States together for shared leadership development can build lasting solidarity. Participants return home with relationships, shared analysis, and commitment to mutual support that sustains borderless movements through crises. CSOs could establish digital networks that maintain day-to-day contact and enable rapid response when crises emerge. They could also build crisis response teams that provide emergency funding, legal support, media amplification, diplomatic pressure, and a safe haven when defenders face arrest, violence, or persecution.
A Universal Call to Action
CSOs everywhere can coordinate in service of equity, justice, and liberation. They should identify organizations in other countries working on similar issues to foster sustained relationships, join existing cross-border solidarity networks, and build international coordination into an organized infrastructure using these five tactics as a framework. Groups must also keep in mind that the key to effectively implementing these tactics is to be in community with and follow the lead of affected communities. Members of these communities are best placed to analyze and contextualize challenges and to generate tailored solutions and opportunities to achieve real equality.
Funders must support cross-border coordination through multiyear, flexible grants. They must also support translation and communication, movement convenings, and protection for threatened defenders. And they must trust movement leadership and fund organizations led by those most affected.
This work will not be easy. It will not be quick. But it can be done if it is done together—across borders, languages, religions, ethnicities, and class. Together means Black rights movements coordinating across the Americas, Africa, and Europe. Together means Indigenous peoples from the Amazon to the Arctic defending their lands as one coordinated resistance. Together means LGBTQ+ movements around the globe refusing to accept that any of us can be truly free while others remain oppressed. Together means people with and without disabilities working to ensure accessibility for everyone. Together means labor movements joining forces. Together means forging borderless, cross-sector coalitions to address all global struggles.
Imagine a world built through sustained coordination: a world where Indigenous land rights are protected, ensuring climate stability for all; where Black liberation movements have dismantled anti-Black racism’s global infrastructure; where LGBTQ+ people are safe because attacks in one place trigger worldwide coordinated defense; and where oligarchs cannot hoard wealth while billions struggle to have basic needs met.
That world is possible. That future is within reach. But only if we build it together, starting now, with the urgency this moment demands.
This article was originally published as part of Resilience & Resistance, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe.
Darius Edgerton has nearly 15 years of experience in American diplomacy and national security, including senior roles at the White House and the US Department of State. He has helped shape US foreign policy at the highest levels. Edgerton served as Senior Advisor to the State Department’s first Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice, Director for Diplomatic Affairs to the President and supported the UN Permanent Forum for People of African Descent. As a freelance consultant, he now advises movements, philanthropies, and civil society organizations across the globe on how to engage Washington, influence policy, and build cross‑border coalitions that advance human rights and democratic resilience.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More