The Princeton Gerrymandering Project does nonpartisan analysis to understand and eliminate partisan gerrymandering at a state-by-state level. The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of our math but declined to act. Looking ahead, the strongest route to reform is at a state-by-state level—a federalist approach. Our interdisciplinary team aims to give activists and legislators the tools they need to detect offenses and craft bulletproof, bipartisan reform. Our analysis is published widely, and our work is used by legislators and reformers of all communities, without regard to partisan affiliation.
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
Read More
Donald Trump, September 09, 2026
Getty Images
Trump, Kennedy, and the Monkey’s Paw
Sep 11, 2026
The hardest deal to judge is one you helped sell.
In 2024, I served as North Carolina state director for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign and co-founded We The People of North Carolina, the independent party that put him on our state’s ballot.
When Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed Donald Trump, those of us who had worked the campaign faced a difficult choice: Who would we vote for?
My answer carried implications beyond my own choice. As the party’s vice chair, I signed the letter officially requesting Kennedy’s removal from North Carolina’s ballot, closing the door on a campaign I helped build and clearing the path for Trump. As Election Day neared, I made the case for Trump to Independents and Kennedy voters.
Our coalition was large enough to matter. In North Carolina, Kennedy was drawing an estimated 240,000 votes before leaving the race. Trump carried the state by roughly 183,000 votes. A similar pattern appeared across all the battlegrounds, where small shifts among Independent voters helped Trump sweep all seven.
After Trump won, I wrote an article stating Kennedy’s selection to lead HHS showed that our trust in Trump’s “unity administration” was “well-founded.” I said we should move forward together as a country, but also hold Trump accountable.
Trump won us over with five central promises, each meant to fix problems we laid at Biden’s feet. (Independents had been pivotal to Biden’s victory four years earlier.) Trump’s promises spoke to a broad range of Independents, from kitchen-table voters most concerned about the economy and border to medical-freedom advocates, anti-interventionists, and anti-corruption reformers drawn to Kennedy, Gabbard, and Rogan.
Each promise gets one of three verdicts: Kept, Broken, or Monkey’s Paw, meaning we got what we wished for, but not what we bargained for.
Promise 1: “Make America Affordable Again”
Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down, and we will make America affordable again.” (Trump, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Aug. 17, 2024) For Independents feeling the strain of inflation, the promise of lower prices sounded like much-needed relief.
Record: The administration’s first major economic move had the perverse effect of raising the price of practically everything. In February 2025, Trump began imposing new tariffs on imports, and by April they hit nearly every U.S. trading partner. The center-right Tax Foundation called them “the largest tax increase since 1993,” as American households absorbed roughly $1,000 in tariff-related costs.
We were told the tariffs would revive U.S. manufacturing and increase jobs. Instead, manufacturing jobs fell by 108,000 in Trump’s first year.
Homeownership remains out of reach. The median existing home now sells for about $440,000, with an average mortgage rate of 6.66 percent. Affording a home requires more than $110,000 a year, while the typical household earns about $84,000.
Trump did not create the affordability crisis, but that isn’t the point. He promised to end it. Independents gave him our votes to reduce prices that had risen under Biden, but all we’ve gotten is more partisan finger-pointing. The party in power has changed, but the strain on our wallets has not. Remember those “I did that” gas pump stickers? The honest version shows both presidents pointing together: “We did that.”
This promise had the broadest appeal and the most immediate effect on daily life. As of June 2026, consumer prices were 4.3 percent higher than when Trump took office. He promised prices would fall. They rose.
Verdict: Broken.
Promise 2: “Secure the Border”
I will end the illegal immigration crisis by closing our border and finishing the wall.” (Trump, Republican National Convention, Milwaukee, July 18, 2024) Independents overwhelmingly supported securing the country, but many of us didn’t anticipate what that enforcement would look like.
Record: Strictly speaking, Trump delivered on border security. Southwest border encounters fell to fewer than 10,000 a month, and the fiscal-year total dropped to its lowest since 1970, according to Pew. While these numbers are a positive result, the deportation methods are much harder to reconcile: chained transfers, raids at school drop-offs, agents posted outside courthouses, and unaccompanied children, some as young as six, facing deportation proceedings without lawyers.
Federal courts repeatedly confronted the administration over compliance with immigration orders. In one instance, deportation flights to El Salvador continued after a judge ordered them turned around.
ICE also detained U.S. citizens and removed citizen children from the country with their deported mothers, including a four-year-old with stage 4 cancer.
Between September 2025 and February 2026, DHS officers shot at least 14 people, four fatally, including U.S. citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good. In 2025, 32 people died in ICE custody, the highest number in more than two decades. While you may argue the merits of any particular case, it is difficult to explain them all away.
Trump promised to secure the border, and he did. But Independents didn't sign up for enforcement that repeatedly ran afoul of the courts, made good law enforcement agents look like villains, spread fear through our communities, and saw dozens die, including American citizens.
Verdict: Monkey’s Paw.
Promise 3: “Drain the Swamp”
We are going to drain the swamp, and we’re going to do it once and for all.” (Trump, Mosinee, Wisconsin, Sept. 7, 2024) Few promises spoke more to Independents. We wanted an end to corporate capture, cronyism, and officials cashing in on their office.
Record: Trump promised to drain the swamp and instead let the Reflecting Pool turn into one.
For decades, presidents of both parties kept their personal finances separate from the presidency through blind trusts or divestment. Trump broke with tradition. Trump disclosed more than $1.4 billion in income from his family’s crypto ventures in 2025.
Nearly a million wallets bought the $TRUMP memecoin, which has no underlying business or revenue. Most held relatively small amounts, suggesting ordinary buyers. The value of their holdings fell by a combined $3.81 billion. The Trump family took in $636 million.
USD1, World Liberty’s stablecoin, offers Trump another path to profit. Each coin is backed by a dollar’s worth of reserves, and those reserves earn interest. By February 2026, Binance, a crypto exchange, held about $4.7 billion in USD1, potentially generating $150 million a year in interest. A Trump-family entity indirectly owns 38 percent of a World Liberty company entitled to a share of that interest.
And where did the billions earning that interest come from? In large part, Abu Dhabi.
In May 2025, Abu Dhabi’s state-backed MGX used USD1 to invest $2 billion in Binance, boosting the interest its reserves could earn. Two weeks later, Trump announced he was expanding the UAE’s access to advanced American AI technology. Five months later, he pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had served four months in prison for failing, of all things, to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering program.
No public evidence proves either decision was exchanged for the investment. The conflict is that the president's family could profit from the very actors seeking decisions only his administration could make.
The crypto deals are only one part of the swamp.
The Campaign Legal Center counts 47 former lobbyists in senior posts; more than 15 likely would have faced limits under earlier ethics restrictions. Trump imposed no such rules. His chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is a former lobbyist, and six former clients lobbied White House offices she oversees. Her former firm, Ballard Partners, became Washington’s top-grossing lobbying firm in 2025, taking in $88 million from clients hoping it had Trump’s ear.
In his 2026 State of the Union, Trump mocked Nancy Pelosi while calling for a congressional trading ban. Yet that quarter, his accounts recorded 3,642 trades, roughly 40 a day, worth between $220 million and $750 million. Trump says managers placed the trades, but that doesn’t remove the conflict or the hypocrisy.
Nothing’s been drained except our trust.
Verdict: Broken.
Promise 4: “Make America Healthy Again”
I'm going to let him go wild on health. I'm going to let him go wild on the food. I'm going to let him go wild on the medicines.” (Trump, Madison Square Garden, New York City, Oct. 27, 2024) Winning over Kennedy voters and the MAHA movement was critical to Trump’s coalition. We expected him to give Kennedy real power and the freedom to use it.
Record: On April 22, 2025, Kennedy and the FDA announced the phaseout of six petroleum-based synthetic dyes that have colored America’s food for generations. Advocates had spent four decades seeking their phaseout — Kennedy did it in ten weeks.
In January 2026, Kennedy and the USDA overhauled the Dietary Guidelines, reviving the Food Pyramid, tightening limits on added sugar, and drawing a hard line against ultra-processed foods. States led by both parties followed with similar reforms. \
That same month, Kennedy overhauled the childhood vaccine schedule, cutting recommendations from 17 diseases to 11 and bringing it closer to Denmark’s. The backlash crossed party lines. Democrats condemned the move, while Republican Senate health chairman Bill Cassidy called it “based on no scientific input.” Medical groups sued, and a federal judge blocked the changes. Trump nevertheless backed Kennedy with an executive order on August 10 to formally cut the schedule.
For many Independents, these moves showed what Kennedy could accomplish when he had freedom to act. But there were limits to that freedom.
Those limits were clearest on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and a longtime Kennedy target. Trump made boosting its production a national priority. Kennedy publicly backed the order but later admitted on Rogan he was “not particularly happy” with it. Trump’s Justice Department later backed Monsanto before the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling undercutting thousands of Roundup cancer claims.
Kennedy moved to close the “generally recognized as safe” loophole, which lets food companies declare ingredients safe without FDA review. Industry lobbying against the proposal surged, and the White House sat on it for six months. His definition of ultra-processed food, a category linked to chronic disease, met the same resistance and still awaits White House approval. Kennedy needs the federal definition before he can require companies to label their products as ultra-processed.
The MAHA promise has come closest to being kept. Kennedy moved quickly and won meaningful reforms, but the freedom Trump promised has proved conditional. His authority is real, but it narrows when those efforts threaten industry profits.
Verdict: Monkey’s Paw.
Promise 5: “End the Forever Wars”
I will end the endless wars.” (Trump, Bitcoin Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, July 27, 2024) For Independents tired of forever wars, we believed Trump would stop feeding the military-industrial complex.
Record: U.S. strikes on Iran began Feb. 28, 2026. After notifying Congress on March 2, Trump had 60 days under the War Powers Resolution to end hostilities or seek congressional authorization. He did neither. At the deadline, he declared the hostilities “terminated,” even as the blockade of Iranian ports continued and missile strikes resumed.
Joe Kent resigned as counterterrorism director, saying Iran had posed no imminent threat. Thomas Massie, one of the few Republicans to oppose the war and a Trump critic on several other fronts, lost to Trump-endorsed Ed Gallrein after roughly $37 million flooded the race, making it the most expensive House primary in history.
Trump has repeatedly called the war almost over, but the U.S. and Iran were still exchanging strikes well into July. Eighteen American service members have been killed and 624 wounded. The Pentagon put the war’s cost at $37.5 billion and is seeking another $67 billion.
The war machine slouches toward profit under either party. In 2020, Trump requested $741 billion for national defense. Biden’s administration asked for $895 billion. Trump now proposes $1.5 trillion for national defense in 2027. Each administration outbids the last.
Never-ending war is the duopoly’s business model.
Verdict: Broken.
In the end, none of the five promises have been fully kept. Three were broken outright, and two came with a catch. Trump still has more than two years to make good on them, but I am not optimistic.
A partisan promise is either a straight lie or a Monkey’s Paw.
So long as each party can keep our votes by making the other seem worse, neither has to earn them by keeping its promises. I made the case to Independent voters and wrote that our trust was “well-founded.” The record says otherwise.
It's easy to blame Republicans now, just as it was easy to blame Democrats then. But we cannot keep blaming the parties while casting our ballots for them. Independents are the country's largest political group, but we don't yet act like one.
We must organize, stop fighting over the same voters, and build shared infrastructure like ballot-access operations, candidate pipelines, and donor networks. And we must stop bargaining away our votes.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, and we will never get leaders we trust by voting for parties we don’t.
Ryan Rabah is an attorney and founder of Independent Campaign Strategies, a political consulting firm serving Independent candidates and organizations. He served as North Carolina state director for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign, co-founded We The People of North Carolina and Our House PAC, and will speak at the Independent National Convention in Washington, D.C., this September.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump dances off stage at the end of a campaign rally at the Grappone Convention Center on Friday, Jan. 19, 2024, in Concord, New Hampshire.
(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/TNS)
‘Trumpapalooza’ is a sad, unnecessary spectacle that achieves nothing
Sep 11, 2026
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says the GOP midterm election “convention” will be a “Trumpapalooza.” It’d be better if everyone called it that.
American political conventions are one of the best examples — among way too many — of American institutional decay.
In the 19th century and much of the 20th century, the quadrennial party conventions were indispensable pieces of political technology. I mean that literally. Traditionally, conventions were where party stakeholders — elected officials, party bosses, etc. — chose the nominee. Factions representing regions, interests, even ideas (how quaint!) would debate and horse-trade with each other, sometimes over days of voting, to name someone the party could get behind.
That system started to atrophy in the 1930s, as Michael Barone, the great political analyst, has argued, because of the telephone. The kind of negotiating required for a nominee to win support was impossible to do by letter. It took too long, and besides, putting things in writing risked exposing deals and other favor-trading for which savvy politicians would never want a paper trail. You had to do it face-to-face.
“The conventions were thus communication devices,” Barone writes, “in which campaign managers assessed candidates’ strength — and responded. Votes would be held back, so as to show momentum on later ballots. Favorite-son candidacies would be launched, in the hopes that they could be withdrawn later for reward or parlayed into a dark-horse nomination. No one had an accurate idea of how many delegates candidates had.”
The telephone changed that. In 1936, President Roosevelt used the new technology of long-distance calling to organize support well in advance of the convention.
Polling, and then television, further sapped away the function of conventions. Who needs party bosses to tell you the mood of the rank and file, when polling can deliver a much richer picture? Why put floor fights and other fodder for opponents on TV? Better to offer a picture of solidarity and excitement.
But the real death knell came in 1972 with the “reforms” promulgated by Democrat George McGovern, which were quickly adopted by the GOP. These reforms — which I think were deformations of our democratic system — took the power to nominate a candidate away from the stakeholders and gave it to rank-and-file voters. We thus became the first and one of the only advanced democracies where parties can no longer choose their own candidates.
I think that was a disaster, but that’s a column for another time. One of the consequences of that disaster was that party conventions essentially became infomercials ratifying a fait accompli. The brokered convention — even the prospect for one — is gone now, replaced by a coronation.
But at least the coronation still serves a purpose. It’s still a necessary function of our electoral system. A boring, intelligence-insulting, performative function, but a function all the same.
This midterm “convention” isn’t even that. No one will be formally nominated. It’s just an opportunity for President Trump to put on a show — about himself.
Defenders might say there’s precedent for this, but their argument proves my point about decay. Democrats in 1974, 1978 and 1982 had midterm conventions. But those conventions involved various committee meetings in which party rules and resolutions were proposed and debated.
In 1978, President Carter defended the midterm convention.
“I believe it is very important for me, as a president, and also as head of the Democratic Party, to have my success and failures assessed objectively and openly by Democrats representing the grassroots of our party around the nation,” Carter said. “I think that was done in a very forthcoming way.”
The Washington Post reported that John C. White, the Democratic Party chairman, was worried that delegate disputes could “turn the convention into a public relations failure.”
“Of course we have a broad range of opinions on some issues within our party,” White said. “But if we get foolish, if we go beyond proper political division and look quarrelsome, these are things that could hurt the Democratic Party and the Democratic president.”
If you think the Dallas Trumpalooza is going to include an open and objective discussion of Trump’s failures, or feature even the slightest political division, I want to congratulate you for having just emerged from a decade-long coma.
This is a commercial with a live studio audience and nothing more. Indeed, the rot of our political institutions on display is not confined to the GOP. One of the featured keynote speakers is Attorney General Todd Blanche. Whether the already ethically compromised AG’s appearance at an expressly partisan event is a violation of the Hatch Act is something for the lawyers to debate. But the spirit of it is grotesque, and a sign that our parties aren’t the only institutions that have lost their way.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.
Gary Hershorn/Getty Images
How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship
Sep 11, 2026
Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.
To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.
The meaning of 9/11 has evolved alongside America itself. The grief, unity, questions, and enduring tensions all reflect the ongoing effort to build a healthier democracy. These reflections remind us that citizenship is not a static role; it is a daily practice shaped by the moments that challenge us most. My hope is that this collection encourages us to examine honestly where we are today and to recommit to the mission of strengthening the bonds that unite us.
David L. Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Beyond the initial shock of the attacks and the inevitable changes to our collective psyche, I have several sharp memories of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. First was a deeply personal call with my sister. She was witnessing the posters of missing people as she walked the streets of Lower Manhattan, while I sat in a pizza parlor in California. The dissonance was palpable. A few days earlier, her phone call alerted me to the attack, as she checked in to say she was OK. I remember hearing stories in the days that followed from friends whose friends had miraculously missed being in the Twin Towers. Another friend missed the Boston flight. As a result, the attack felt deeply personal. Many friends also grieved those who had been lost. Upon reflection, it may have been my disappointment with Congress that our political unity was so short-lived, which contributed to my entry into good governance organizations in 2003. I'm still dedicated to that cause, 25 years later.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including serving as a catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and as the host of the podcast Terrified Nation. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation.
On September 11, 2001, I was a young father and seminarian, still figuring out what it meant to lead and serve. The day started like any other—dropping off my child, heading into work—until everything changed. News spread faster than understanding. Words failed. In those first hours, I searched for something to hold onto—some meaning, some comfort.
But in the days that followed, what stood out wasn’t only fear or sorrow. I remember neighbors praying, strangers helping, communities leaning on one another. In the midst of tragedy, ordinary people showed remarkable care.
Twenty-five years later, remembering alone isn’t enough. This anniversary asks what we’ve done with our grief, what we’ve learned, and who we’ve become. We are summoned to a way of being I call weaving: drawing together memory, pain, difference, and hope to create a more compassionate common life. Our healing—and our democracy—depend on remembering honestly, empathizing deeply, and working together. That is the living memorial we owe the future.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, my daughter’s neighborhood playgroup gathered at our home. Four four-year-olds were picking apples on a perfect late-summer day.
I watched the little girls playing as the television blared the same images over and over again: planes exploding into New York City’s Twin Towers, the aftermath of the crash into the Pentagon.
These contrasting scenes: innocent children playing in an orchard under a clear blue sky, and the terrible evil unfurling as the towers collapsed and the smoking skies darkened…an unfathomable juxtaposition.
How could both exist in the same country at the same time?
Now, twenty-five years later, those little girls grown, I still wonder. How can so many believe in our nation, and so many disparage it?
That very long day unraveled into that very long week. The plight of Flight 93 unfolded, the story of its brave passengers instigating a takedown, their intentional sacrifice.
Leading the charge to seize control of the plane, Todd Beamer’s words still thrill and inspire me: “Let’s roll!”
Yes. Let’s do.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
In New York on 9/11, I was working as a journalist when the first tower was hit, and the city I knew so well became unrecognizable in an instant. I didn’t go home for days. I stayed in the newsroom, trying to make sense of what we were witnessing as we documented the grief unfolding around us.
When I finally returned home, I remember stopping in place. House after house on my block had raised an American flag — a quiet, collective gesture that felt like the neighborhood was exhaling together after holding its breath for days. The first thing I did was put up my own flag.
In that moment, the flag became more than a symbol of the nation; it became a reminder of the responsibilities we share as citizens. It wasn’t an act of patriotism as much as a gesture of mourning and connection — a way to say we are still here, we belong to one another, and that even in the face of unimaginable loss, we can choose to rebuild the civic fabric that holds us together.
The memory of 9/11 continues to shape how many Americans understand citizenship today: not just as a legal status, but as a commitment to community, service, and showing up for one another in moments of crisis.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.
Jeremy Poland/Getty Images
Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right
Sep 11, 2026
I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.
When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.
America’s election debate has become trapped in a false choice. One side hears “security” and fears exclusion. The other hears “access” and fears weak controls. A durable democracy needs both. Eligible voters should be able to vote without needless burdens. At the same time, ballots should be handled through rules that are transparent, verifiable, and understandable before Election Day.
That is why the current debate over mail ballots and the U.S. Postal Service matters. USPS has proposed standards for federal-election mail ballots that would require official-election-mail markings, compatible envelope designs, and unique Intelligent Mail barcodes. The proposal would also create a process through which states supply information about voters who are to receive mail ballots. A unique barcode can help election offices and voters follow a ballot through the mail stream. It cannot decide who is eligible to vote, and it should not be presented as a substitute for state election administration. But tracking is a useful form of accountability.
The proposal is not settled law. It has faced court challenges, and courts have temporarily blocked or allowed parts of the government’s effort to proceed while litigation continues. That legal uncertainty is itself a reason for care. Election rules should not be imposed hurriedly, or changed so close to an election that administrators and voters cannot understand them.
The sound principle is simpler than the partisan argument. Build verification at the front end, and build access into the same system. If a state requires identification, it should provide a free, practical way to obtain the required document. It should offer reasonable alternatives for voters who do not drive, have disabilities, live far from an issuing office, or lack a stable address. It should give the public clear instructions well before voting begins. And it should allow voters to correct a problem with a mail ballot when state law permits.
This is not merely a matter of optics. Trust is an economic asset. Families saving for retirement, small-business owners making investments, and workers planning their futures all depend on institutions that can resolve disputes lawfully and peacefully. A close election will always produce disagreement. But disagreement is less damaging when the public can see the rules, understand the chain of custody, and know that every eligible voter had a real opportunity to participate.
Americans do not need to agree on every rule of election administration. States have different histories and different systems. We do need to agree that the goals are legitimate: one eligible voter, one ballot; no eligible voter turned away by an avoidable barrier; and election procedures that are stable enough to earn public confidence.
The USPS proposal can add value if it is kept in that proper role. Better ballot tracking and clearer mail standards can help make the delivery process more visible. But Congress, states, election officials, postal workers, and courts should insist on safeguards for privacy, costs, timing, and voter access. Security without access fails democracy. Access without credible procedures weakens trust. The country needs both.
As the United States marks its 250th year, this should be an area for practical cooperation. Election security is not a partisan trophy. It is maintenance on a democratic system that every American relies on.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D. is Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he focuses on the analysis of human behavior, public health, and global affairs, drawing on an interdisciplinary background. He published in multiple RealClear platforms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., The Humanist, AFRO American, South Asia Monitor (on editorial board, and host of a show), and others.
mpreddy54@yahoo.com, mpreddyinsights.com, https://lnkd.in/gn2zQJbs
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
For Trump, even 9/11 is an opportunity