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.
The Trump administration has introduced a new immigration policy that allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to deny visas, green cards, and even citizenship applications if an applicant is flagged for “anti-American” activity online. The move is already drawing concern from immigration attorneys and digital security experts, who warn that the vague wording opens the door to arbitrary decisions and potential violations of free speech.
Ayla Adomat, managing attorney of Adomat Immigration and specialized in green card applications, said in an interview with Latino News Network, the government has not provided a clear standard for what qualifies as “anti-American.” “So it does seem that prior social media posts can put a visa or green card application at risk. This has been confirmed by USCIS,” she explained. “What we are seeing, though is…we’re still kind of figuring out what counts as social media here.”
Adomat noted that obvious hate content, such as anti-Semitic posts or symbols tied to extremist movements, has already been flagged. But she cautioned that political commentary could also come under scrutiny. “Commentary against Trump or the Trump administration…this can really be construed a couple of different ways,” she cautioned. “Because these policies are so new, we’re still waiting to see how these are really interpreted by the government and also later the courts, because there’s absolutely going to be litigation.”
On constitutional grounds, Adomat said there is a strong legal argument that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens. “Several Supreme Court cases have alluded to this, though it hasn’t been the central holding. That’s why I think the Trump administration is fighting it”, told LNN.
Existing immigration vetting already screens applicants for ties to terrorism, criminal activity, or other security risks. The new policy represents a shift from concrete threats to ideology and opinion. Nic Adams, co-founder and CEO of the cybersecurity firm 0rcus, argued in a statement sent to LNN the vagueness of the guidance highlights the risks of giving officers wide discretion to scrutinize digital histories. Leaving “anti-American” undefined, he warned, “could allow officers to conflate legitimate political dissent with a fundamental rejection of the United States,” putting otherwise eligible applicants in the position of having to defend old posts or satire as if they were security threats.
"The lack of a specific time limit for this review and the broad nature of what can be considered 'anti-American' means that applicants must be prepared to have their entire public digital history scrutinized", Adams added. The expert said that this could put otherwise eligible applicants in a position of having to explain or defend past speech that, at the time, was a simple expression of political opinion.
Critics say the policy could create a chilling effect among immigrants and applicants for legal status, who may self-censor for fear that online comments could be misinterpreted. Adomat stressed that applicants are now being advised to review their digital history carefully because even opinions, not just past actions, could be grounds for denial.
The policy, still in its early stages, is likely to face challenges in federal court. Until then, immigration lawyers are advising clients to review their digital footprint and think twice before posting about politics online.
US Canada tariff battle
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
A tariff is a tax imposed by a government on imports or exports of goods, often used to protect domestic industries or respond to trade disputes.
As of August 2025, Canada has significantly reduced its retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. On September 1, Canada will lift most of the 25% counter-tariffs it imposed in March on $29.8 billion worth of U.S. imports.. However, tariffs remain in place for strategic sectors:
Goods covered under the USMCA (Canada’s CUSMA) are now largely tariff-free, reflecting a renewed commitment to free trade.
The U.S. maintains a mixed tariff regime:
Despite these measures, over 85% of Canada-U.S. trade is now tariff-free, and the average U.S. tariff rate on Canadian goods stands at 5.6%—the lowest among U.S. trading partners.
Starting September 1, Canada will remove tariffs on a wide range of U.S. consumer and agricultural goods, including:
These removals signal a strategic pivot toward restoring trade relations and aligning with USMCA provisions.
Canadian imports of U.S. goods have declined notably in 2025. From January to June, total imports from the U.S. fell by approximately $2.86 billion compared to the same period in 2024—a 1.5% drop. The decline is most pronounced in:
Retailers and manufacturers are responding by staging inventory in the U.S., renegotiating vendor contracts, and exploring offshore sourcing to avoid tariff exposure.
Yes, and dramatically so. Canadian travel to the U.S. has plummeted in 2025, with steep declines across all modes of transportation:
Both economic and political factors drive this downturn:
Canadians are increasingly choosing alternative destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean, reshaping North American tourism flows.
Yes. In 2025, Canada remains a top destination for U.S. agricultural exports. Dairy exports alone continue to exceed $8 billion annually, with Canada and Mexico accounting for over 40% of that volume. Access to Canadian markets remains vital for U.S. farmers to manage supply, stabilize prices, and maintain profitability.
The USMCA continues to offer mutual benefits:
Recent tariff removals and diplomatic overtures suggest a renewed effort to balance trade interests, though strategic sectors remain contentious.
In 2025, the U.S. continues to run a trade deficit with Canada:
Energy imports—especially crude oil and natural gas—remain the primary drivers of this imbalance.
Not necessarily. The U.S.-Canada trade relationship is deeply integrated:
While some sectors feel pressure, the overall relationship remains one of mutual benefit and strategic importance.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Every time Democrats propose having the government provide new assistance to those in need or a new regulation of business, the Republicans cry out, “This is Socialism.”
But after Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, his fellow Democrats beat them to it. They were aroused primarily, I think, because they feared what a negative reaction to Mamdani from big business would do to Democrats' chances nationally in the upcoming mid-term elections. They should be ashamed of themselves for having become so beholden to big business and for joining Republicans in criticizing by labeling a suggestion for dealing with current societal problems that is consistent with our form of economy.
Let's get something straight. The U.S. is far from a pure capitalist, free-market economy. We have in fact a mixed economy, where the means of production are privately held—and thus capitalist—but where there is much government intervention to control the economy, both on behalf of individuals and corporations—which is an aspect of socialism.
Much of the problem stems from our tendency to label people and things. Even Bernie Sanders and Mamdani call themselves "democratic socialists." But they are not socialists in any meaningful sense of the word because socialists advocate that the public own all means of production.
For example, Britain nationalized major strategic heavy industries and public utilities between 1946 and the early 1950s, only to return them to the private sector during the Thatcher years. Britain during this period was indeed primarily socialist. Additionally, Eugene V. Debs, a U.S. presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, was a socialist because he believed in the collective public ownership of industry by workers.
In the past, when Republicans cried, "socialism," a large segment of the public, Republicans, would nod their head like hypnotized subjects and agree that this was terrible. It is against what makes America great; not as bad as Communism, but close. But Democrats, at least in New York, did not have this aghast reaction because they had heard Mamdani and listened to him and thought his ideas were basically good.
Republicans have been pulling this scare tactic for decades. For example, in 1961, Ronald Reagan referred to the proposal to establish Medicare as socialized medicine and warned of its potentially disastrous impact on healthcare. To listen to Republicans, one would think that they were against any government spending or action that helps others or in any way interferes with the marketplace. That, however, is not the case.
Republicans are generally supportive of the billions of dollars that the government spends, either in the form of direct payments or favorable tax laws, which provide American corporations, especially large businesses, with government subsidies. They are also very supportive of government regulation/intervention that supports corporations, such as elements of the farm bill. NOTE: Almost all government farm subsidies go to large corporate farms. The embattled family farmer benefits hardly at all.
The only difference between the spending and regulation they support and the ones they don’t support and label socialism is that the former benefit big business while the latter either benefit the average American or protect him by restricting the unfettered ability of big business to act as it will.
This is hypocrisy. However, the immorality of their stance is even more egregious. To argue against measures that protect the average American or help those in need while supporting spending and other measures that help those who are not in need is to take an immoral stand.
“Ah,” they say, “but cutting back on such spending or measures will harm American business on which the economy depends and will result in the loss of jobs.” Any attempts to cut back on these items or impose new costs on business are labeled “job killers” by Republicans.
But that is not true. What is true is that if such subsidies are cut back or new costs imposed, corporate profits will be reduced (unless they raise prices) and thus shareholders will be impacted by lower stock market prices for their shares.
I am not opposed to corporations making a good profit and benefiting their shareholders. However, many of these companies have profits at such high levels that the benefits to the larger society of cutbacks or new regulations/costs far outweigh the reduced profits to the industry. For example, many of our largest and most profitable corporations pay almost no taxes through the loopholes they enjoy.
The cost to the American taxpayer of these corporate subsidies is unconscionable, especially when the American middle class and the poor are being asked to make sacrifices (cuts in supportive government programs) to reduce the government deficit. It is obscene that our middle class and poor are asked to shoulder the costs of providing subsidies to those who typically already have more money than they know what to do with, other than spend it on more luxury.
The American social contract has traditionally (since the early 20th century) required all parts of our society to support the greater good, each to its ability. That concept of fairness and the greater good has been so denigrated over the course of the last few decades by the Republican Party that Republicans in government should hang their heads in shame.
Big business/corporations play a very important role in our society and economy. The government has a role in both providing an economic environment in which businesses can prosper and securing the public good and the rights of individuals. In the initial phase of the Industrial Revolution, the advantage was overwhelmingly in favor of industry and the robber barons. During the 20th century, a balance was struck between the rights of business, the public good/the rights of individuals, as well as the duties of government. Over the past few decades, this balance has shifted, with corporations gaining more power at the expense of the public good. That balance must not just be restored, but the interests of the public good should be strengthened. (See my posts, “What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society?" and “Towards a Reformed Capitalism.”)
As for the socialism canard, so long as the means of production are in private hands, there is no socialism. Government regulation of business or the professions to secure the public good is not socialism; it is capitalism with a heart, in keeping with the role given government in the Declaration of Independence: to ensure the rights of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The Democratic Party should not join the Republican chorus against "socialism" because that undermines their historic position that government intervention is often needed to protect the public and ensure their rights.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
The 50: Connecticut
The 50 is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.
Hartford, Connecticut, stands as a living testament to American democracy, ingenuity, and resilience. As the state’s capital, it’s home to cultural landmarks like the Mark Twain House & Museum, where Twain penned The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, embodying the spirit of self-governance and creative daring that defines the region.
Connecticut, like much of New England, remains a stronghold of the Democratic Party.
In the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris carried the state by a comfortable margin of 14.5 points—though her performance trailed Joe Biden’s 2020 showing. Meanwhile, Donald Trump garnered 41.9% of the vote, marking the strongest Republican turnout in Connecticut since 2004.
With more than 350,000 small businesses anchoring the state’s economy and employing nearly half its workforce, the stakes were high. The contrast in economic and regulatory visions between the candidates resonated deeply across sectors—from manufacturing and health care to floral wholesalers.
The Constitution State is a national leader in advanced manufacturing, particularly in aerospace and defense—a sector that has seen gains during the Trump administration.
Manufacturing companies in Connecticut employ more than 157-thousand people. Made in America excites Catherine Marx, District Director of the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Connecticut District Office: We're excited about the manufacturing push. Manufacturing comes, especially in Connecticut, in so many sizes. We have a whole ecosystem of small businesses that supply those businesses (large companies).
- YouTube youtu.be
Connecticut’s small business ecosystem is rich with contributors to global commerce—including floral wholesalers who import cut flowers and help sustain the international supply chain. Among these understated players are distributors who rely on steady shipments from Colombia. This country supplied approximately $1.6 billion worth of cut flowers and buds to the United States in 2024, accounting for nearly 60% of the U.S.'s total floral imports.
At the heart of this trade is Flores El Capiro, a leading exporter based in the eastern highlands of Antioquia, Colombia. From its floral farms in La Ceja, the company cultivates and ships millions of chrysanthemums each year, maintaining a year-round supply of fresh-cut blooms to wholesalers and retailers across the U.S.—including Connecticut.
This transnational rhythm, from high-altitude planting to refrigerated maritime transport, underscores the delicate choreography behind every bouquet that reaches American storefronts.
The floral industry faced a near-crisis this year when the Trump administration announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on Colombian imports—including cut flowers—as leverage in a diplomatic standoff over deportation flights. The move threatened to disrupt a booming season for U.S. wholesalers and retailers who rely heavily on Colombian blooms.
“I don’t see any benefits whatsoever from tariffs, when it comes to flowers,” said Guillermo Herrera, a floral industry consultant to small businesses in central Connecticut. “Our industry is based on an impulse purchase. Anything that affects an increase in the price of the product will affect consumption. Small companies like us don’t have the financial reserves to pay for all these tariffs ahead of time because customers will pay us 30, 40, 60 days from the day we deliver the product.”
Tensions eased only after Colombia agreed to resume accepting deportees, prompting the administration to shelve the tariff orders—for now. The episode underscored just how vulnerable global supply chains can be to geopolitical flashpoints, even in industries rooted in beauty and celebration.
Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, forcing many small businesses in Connecticut to either absorb the losses or pass them on to consumers, thereby threatening their competitiveness and long-term viability.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is also the publisher of the Latino News Network.
