Danielle Brian is executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). POGO is a nonpartisan, independent organization that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, and abuse of power. POGO champions reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable federal government that safeguards constitutional principles.
The interview is part of a collaboration between Bridge Alliance and CityBiz entitled Repairing America's Broken Democracy.
In a dramatic escalation of U.S. pressure on Venezuela, President Donald Trump has doubled the reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—from $25 million to a staggering $50 million. The move, announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, positions Maduro among the most-wanted fugitives in the world and intensifies Washington’s campaign to hold him accountable for alleged narco-terrorism.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, Maduro will not escape justice and he will be held accountable for his despicable crimes,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday. Bondi described Maduro as “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” citing his alleged ties to criminal organizations like Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa cartel, and Cartel de los Soles.
The $50 million reward is now one of the highest ever offered by the U.S. government, rivaling the bounty once placed on Osama bin Laden. U.S. authorities claim Maduro has helped flood American communities with fentanyl-laced cocaine, contributing to the opioid crisis and widespread violence.
Maduro was first indicted in 2020 on charges including conspiracy to import cocaine, narco-terrorism, and possession of destructive devices. The Justice Department has seized over $700 million in assets linked to Maduro and his associates, including private jets and drug shipments totaling nearly 30 tons.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil released a statement characterizing the reward as “pathetic” and accusing Bondi of orchestrating a “crude political propaganda operation.” “We’re not surprised, coming from whom it comes from."
The announcement comes just weeks after Maduro claimed victory in Venezuela’s disputed July 2024 presidential election—a result not recognized by the U.S. or several international observers. The Trump administration has instead backed opposition leader Edmundo González as the legitimate president of Venezuela.
The reward increase coincides with broader U.S. efforts to designate Latin American cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, opening the door to military and intelligence operations against them. Trump’s team has framed the move as part of a larger crackdown on transnational threats, linking Maduro’s regime to drug trafficking, repression, and regional instability.
Trump has directed U.S. military officials to initiate operations targeting drug cartels, marking a significant escalation in his anti-narcotics strategy. The bold directive has sparked diplomatic tensions, with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum firmly rejecting the possibility of U.S. forces entering Mexican territory.
Sources told the New York Times that Pentagon officials have begun reviewing strategies to target the criminal organizations, potentially paving the way for military operations both offshore and on foreign territory.
While such bounties rarely result in immediate arrests, they are designed to incentivize insiders to defect or provide actionable intelligence. Maduro remains entrenched in Caracas, protected by loyal military forces and backed by allies like Russia and Iran. Analysts say the reward could deepen Venezuela’s isolation and increase pressure on Maduro’s inner circle, especially amid economic collapse and growing dissent.
This latest maneuver underscores Trump’s hardline stance on foreign regimes and signals a renewed push to confront what his administration calls “narco-dictatorships.” Whether it leads to Maduro’s capture or further geopolitical friction remains to be seen.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Founded as an independent national news outlet, The Fulcrum explores and advances solutions to the challenges facing our democratic republic—by amplifying diverse, civic-minded voices. We've long championed a new political paradigm rooted in civil discourse, civic integrity, and personal accountability while warning that hyper-partisan rhetoric and entrenched party lines threaten the very foundation of reasoned governance.
But in 2025, the threat has evolved. The content arriving in our newsroom, as well as the voices from the field, reflect not just frustration with gridlock, but growing alarm over the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions. From reform leaders to civic organizations to everyday citizens, we’re hearing the same refrain: The machinery of democracy is not merely stalled, but systematically being dismantled.
The Reform Movement's Dilemma
At The Fulcrum, we’ve consistently amplified voices advocating for structural reforms: eliminating gerrymandering, fixing campaign finance, opening primaries, and advancing ranked-choice voting. The leaders of national reform organizations we regularly feature view these changes not simply as policy adjustments, but as moral imperatives essential to ensuring citizens have a meaningful voice and agency in their governance.
These reforms rest on a foundational assumption: that we operate within a functioning representative, democratic framework where voters ultimately shape the system rather than being shaped by it. But what happens when that assumption collapses?
This is the dilemma we now face. In our February editorial, we reaffirmed our commitment to avoid reflexive partisanship while telling the truth about real threats to democratic governance. We acknowledged the complexity of our moment and the need to distinguish legitimate political debate from norm-breaking behavior that corrodes democratic values.
That balance between clarity and complexity, truth and transparency, remains our editorial compass. But as democratic backsliding accelerates, the terrain we navigate grows more precarious.
Unprecedented Presidential Endorsement of Gerrymandering
The urgency of the moment came into sharp focus last week.
On August 3, most of the Texas House Democrats boarded private planes bound for Chicago, New York, and Boston. Their dramatic exit was to deny Republicans the quorum needed to redraw congressional maps for one goal: adding up to five Republican seats to preserve GOP control in Congress.
While partisan gerrymandering is nothing new, this effort crossed a new threshold. President Trump placed a personal call to Governor Greg Abbott, after which Abbott agreed to put redistricting on his special session agenda. Trump himself said a "very simple redrawing" would pick up five seats, openly acknowledging partisan intent in a way that would have been unthinkable in previous eras. This would increase Republican control to nearly 80% of Texas seats from the current 66% held, in a state where Trump won only 56% of the vote.
This is not “business as usual,” and we should not pretend it is.
Addressing Reader Concerns
This brings us to last week’s piece by scholar Austin Sarat, which sparked concern among some readers. Sarat argued that in response to norm-breaking tactics like Texas’s redistricting plan, Democrats may need to consider tactical, short-term responses that conflict with longer-term reform ideals. Some readers saw this as The Fulcrum abandoning its commitment to nonpartisan reform.
We understand the discomfort. But Sarat’s piece was not a call to abandon principles. It was a provocative exploration of a hard question: If one side refuses to play by the rules of fair representation, does adhering to those rules amount to surrender? Or, put differently, can defending democratic norms in the short term require responses that complicate our long-term reform goals?
Our Editorial Challenge
This is the complexity we face at The Fulcrum. We remain steadfast in our commitment to structural reforms: independent redistricting commissions, transparent governance, and democratic innovations that reduce partisan manipulation.
But we also recognize that long-term solutions alone don’t suffice in moments of immediate crisis, especially when the President is publicly calling for partisan gerrymandering, lawmakers are facing arrest for protesting anti-democratic moves, and bomb threats are targeting those dissenters in Chicago area hotel rooms.
Texas redistricting illuminates why examining issues from multiple angles isn't abandoning reform principles, but recognizing that reform happens in the real world, where perfect solutions compete with imperfect but immediate responses to threats.
We will continue to publish voices that advocate principled, systemic change. And we will also publish those that wrestle with the strategic and moral dilemmas of how best to defend democracy under duress. When those tensions arise next, we will name them directly, examine them rigorously, and help our readers understand the stakes and consequences of each path.
This is how democracy is protected: not just with bold ideas for the future, but with honest conversations about the challenges of the present.
We invite you to stay in this conversation with us. Share our work. Challenge our assumptions. Hold us accountable. Because we believe deeply that the future of democracy depends not just on reform, but on our collective ability to confront uncomfortable truths, and to do so together.
Kristina Becvar is executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund and co-publisher of The Fulcrum.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
"...it is time for these podcasts to think strategically and to embed themselves in a value chain of change and action," writes Ahmed Bouzid, co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
Our airwaves and digital spaces are saturated with the voices of podcasters and influencers who claim to challenge the status quo corporate establishment—exposing corruption, rank hypocrisy, moral scandal, and systemic injustice. These commentators portray themselves as beleaguered outsiders, independent thinkers forging paths to truth and accountability, and enemies of a corporate machine that prioritizes profiles over basic principles. But in reality, what have they become if not purveyors of passivity and the commodification of outrage? Rather than mobilizing their audiences for deliberate action and committed change, they encourage a culture of consumption—a cycle of listening, nodding, tossing a few dollars once in a while to keep the show going, and otherwise doing nothing much.
Exhibit A: the ongoing genocide they’ve failed to stop, nearly two years in—a slaughter that now reliably feeds their segments and sustains the outrage economy they depend on.
Consider the structure of this modern chattering class. Progressive-leaning podcasts like Glenn Greenwald's “System Update” and “Due Dissidence” may (and do) provide sharp and not seldom brilliant critiques with biting humor and merciless sarcasm. But what do they really achieve beyond entertainment? Their commentary, while often insightful, rarely inspires meaningful action. Instead, it pacifies listeners with the illusion of participation. Tuning in becomes an act of resistance in toto; subscribing becomes a substitute for solidarity.
These platforms pride themselves on their independence from corporate media. Fair enough. Yet, they have found a way to commodify dissent, turning resistance into a product sold through Patreon subscriptions, ad revenue, and branded merchandise. Dollars that could support grassroots movements, mutual aid networks, or direct-action campaigns are funneled into this perpetual content-churning machine. While the hosts critique inequality, environmental destruction, and political dysfunction, they do so from comfortable perches, sipping mugs of warm coffee or tea or bubbly soda, funded by their audiences’ donations.
The effect is pernicious. Potential activists—people with the skills, passion, and energy to drive change—are immobilized by the ceaseless consumption of commentary. These listeners, who might otherwise be organizing protests, attending town halls, or volunteering with local advocacy groups, are lulled into a sense of "enoughness." The catharsis of hearing their frustrations validated leaves them feeling as though they’ve done their part.
Take, for example, Greenwald’s “System Update.” Known for its scathing critiques of neoliberalism, the podcast attracts a loyal audience of listeners hungry for systemic change. But where does the energy of that audience go? It goes into likes, retweets, and subscriptions. Meanwhile, the transformative potential of these individuals remains untapped. Similarly, the “Due Dissidence” podcast excels at breaking down political complexities but stops short of pushing listeners toward grassroots engagement. Very rarely do they single out on-the-ground organizations that are focused on seeking political power or pushing for some structural change beyond protest and condemnation. These shows entertain and inform, but they demonstrably fail to point their audience to action.
This dynamic represents a misallocation of resources that movements for change can ill afford. Dollars spent on supporting podcasters often bypass grassroots organizations fighting for affordable housing, racial justice, or environmental sustainability. Imagine if even a fraction of the revenue generated by these platforms went directly and regularly to community bail funds, workers’ unions, or climate justice initiatives. The impact could be transformative.
Moreover, the chattering class—its sincere intentions to deliver the opposite notwithstanding—perpetuates a culture of cynicism and division. By fostering echo chambers, these platforms reinforce the belief that the system is too broken to fix, leaving listeners disheartened and disengaged from the action on the ground. The endless cycle of critique without solutions erodes hope and stifles collaboration, making it harder to imagine alternatives or take proactive steps toward change.
It really doesn’t have to be this way. The chattering class has the power to redirect its influence, to move from critique to construction. Podcasters and influencers can start by consistently pointing their audiences toward tangible actions. They can highlight organizations to join, mutual aid networks to support, or protests to attend. Regular segments could showcase success stories of activism, practical guides to organizing, or interviews with movement leaders who inspire action.
In other words, it is time for these podcasts to think strategically and to embed themselves in a value chain of change and action.
Redistributing resources is another critical step. Platforms should commit to channeling a portion of their income into grassroots efforts. For instance, a podcast like “The Majority Report” or “The MeidasTouch Podcast” could allocate a percentage of its Patreon earnings to local advocacy groups or disaster relief efforts. By forming partnerships with on-the-ground organizations, these platforms could amplify their impact and set an example for their audiences. And it’s important to remember: They are not engaged in a zero-sum game. Their partnerships with activist organizations will most probably grow their audiences with those who are engaged, creating a virtuous cycle where everyone wins in the service of the greater good.
My critique of the chattering class is not an exercise in cynicism. I watch these shows regularly, and I have deep respect for their energy and their intelligence. No, mine is a call to action and accountability. The progressive media landscape has the potential to be a powerful force for change, but only if it abandons its current entrenched performative resistance and embraces a commitment to strategic action. The challenge before us is to transform a culture of consumption into one of engagement, to channel the energy of frustration into the work of building a better world. Only then can the chattering class truly claim to be on the side of progress.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
A congressional resolution urges the House to designate July 13, the day that President Trump was shot in an assassination attempt, as an annual federal holiday.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.
No longer would July 13 only be known as National Beans ‘n’ Franks Day or National Barbershop Music Appreciation Day.
Context
On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump was shot at a Butler, Pennsylvania, campaign rally in an assassination attempt.
Though a bullet hit Trump’s ear, his life was saved by his coincidental split-second turn of the head a moment prior. Bloodied, he got up off the ground a minute later, pumping his fist and yelling “fight, fight, fight!” in an instantly iconic moment.
A photo by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press, depicting a bloodied Trump raising his fist in front of an American flag, became one of the most famous images of all time. Another photo by Doug Mills of the New York Times, which captured the bullet whizzing by Trump’s head, won the Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography.
In the immediate aftermath, Trump’s betting market odds of winning November’s presidential election surged to their highest levels during his entire campaign. (He still remained the favorite by Election Day itself, but with less than half his mid-July betting odds.)
The attempted assassin, a 20-year-old with no known motive who fired from a nearby rooftop, was instantly killed by a Secret Service countersniper.
What the bill does
A congressional resolution urges the House to designate July 13 as an annual federal holiday called “Faith and Defiance Day”. (No congressional bill to actually designate such a holiday appears to have been introduced yet.)
Among federal holidays, it would fall nine days after Independence Day on July 4 and approximately 50 days before Labor Day in early September.
The resolution was introduced on July 10 by Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH6).
This continues a recent pattern of Republican congressional legislation honoring Trump in unprecedented ways, several of which The Fulcrum has covered—including bills letting him run for a third term, engraving his face on Mount Rushmore, and adding his face to a new $250 bill.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that such a momentous day deserves perpetual official acknowledgment.
“You see one or two events in your life that inspire you to be more than you are, that strike you to your core. This was one of them,” Rep. Rulli said in a press release. “God saved the president that day, and that’s something worth recognizing for the rest of time.”
“To know a man’s character is to see how he acts in the face of death,” Rep. Rulli wrote in an opinion column for Ohio’s Canton Repository newspaper. “A moment like July 13 hits you on a deeper, more spiritual level. I think that’s what is worth remembering: the main character of our time, staring death in the face and standing tall.”
What opponents say
Besides the obvious Democratic opponents, another counter could come from a more nonpartisan perspective, or even from the Republican side: that it’s wrong to celebrate the day of an attempted assassination.
The U.S. already has two federal holidays honoring assassinated Americans, but both of them mark the person’s birthday instead: Martin Luther King Day in January, plus Abraham Lincoln on Presidents Day in February.
Indeed, in April, The Fulcrum covered a Republican congressional bill to make Trump’s June 14 birthday a national holiday, alongside Flag Day, which has long been more “unofficially” celebrated that same day.
What Trump says
Another (possible) opponent: Trump himself?
While Trump does not appear to have publicly commented on this legislation specifically, he recently mused against the rising tide of holidays in general on Juneteenth (June 19), the most recent federal holiday added in 2021.
“Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The workers don’t want it either! Soon we’ll end up having a holiday for every [one] working day of the year.”
Odds of passage
The legislation has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Republicans.
It awaits a potential vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Requiring Public Schools Start the Day With the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: National Garden of American Heroes, As Trump Proposed
