Resetting the Table collaborates with strategic partners to build important communication across political silos in American life. Our work ranges from one-off forums to intensive year-long programs for institutional and community transformation that replace long-standing distrust or avoidance with a culture of healthy dialogue and deliberation.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
red and white x sign
Photo by Milan Csizmadia on Unsplash
Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
Mar 23, 2025
On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.
CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.
In an appearance on Fox News this week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick encouraged viewers to buy stock in Tesla, the car company owned by Elon Musk, a “special government employee” advising the president and a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) leader.
The CLC complaint states the following:
“Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) respectfully requests that the Office of Government Ethics (“OGE”) and the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) investigate whether Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick violated the federal ban on government officials using their public positions for private gain. Specifically, on March 19, 2025, Secretary Lutnick appeared on a national television news program in his official capacity and told viewers to purchase Tesla stock.1 Public officials are prohibited from promoting any “product, service, or enterprise,” and Secretary Lutnick’s actions require an investigation of this apparently flagrant violation of federal law.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The ethics laws that prohibit using public office for private gain exist to hold public officials accountable to their responsibility of serving the public good. No public good is served when a cabinet official acts as an influencer promoting a company’s stock. If senior officials in the executive branch are allowed to blatantly ignore ethics laws without consequence, it decreases public trust in our institutions. It is therefore imperative that OGE and Commerce investigate whether Secretary Lutnick improperly used his position to promote Tesla stock.”
Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:
“The president’s Cabinet members take an oath to serve the American people, and with that oath comes the ability and privilege to exercise a vast amount of power. Such power is intended to promote the public interest and is legally barred from promoting personal business interests.
Secretary Lutnick’s actions violate the ethics rules that were enacted to hold public officials accountable to the American people. His statement is part of a pattern of behavior showing that Trump’s indifference to ethics is trickling down to his most senior officials.
The American people deserve a government that prioritizes public good. Most people will conclude that promoting a stock is not tied to any public good, and ethics laws agree. The Office of Government Ethics and Commerce ethics officials should hold Lutnick accountable and reassure the public that their officials will face consequences if they use their public office to enrich themselves or their allies.”
Federal Ethics Laws clearly prohibit executive branch employees from promoting any company in their official capacity.
Section 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 states that “employees may not use their public office for their own private gain; [or] for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise.” Specifically, the law provides that “employees may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title or any authority associated with their public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise” with two narrow exceptions.
One exception to the rule is if an official offers an endorsement “in furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services, or enterprises.” The second exception is if the endorsement is the “result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency’s mission.”
Since President Trump recently removed the director of the Office of Government Ethics, David Huitema, who was appointed during the Biden administration, and replaced him with Doug Collins, a former Republican Congressman, critics argue that these changes could undermine its ability to hold officials accountable. Complaints such as the one filed by CLC’s are less likely to be adjudicated in impartially.
This is unfortunate since the OGE's mission is to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure ethical conduct, and its effectiveness depends on its leadership's commitment to impartiality.
Despite the possibility that CLC’s complaint won’t be adjudicated impartially it is critical to have complaints such as this one filed so that the public is aware of the seriousness of these potential ethics violations.
Ethical behavior ensures that public officials act with integrity, making decisions in the people's best interest rather than for personal gain. Without ethical conduct, trust erodes, and the legitimacy of democratic governance is undermined.
The very foundation of our democracy relies on citizens having confidence in their leaders and institutions.
To read the full complaint, click HERE.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Kid Rock watch a UFC event at Madison Square Garden on Nov. 16.
Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC
The Care and Feeding of a Superpower
Mar 23, 2025
The Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, led by an unelected billionaire and supported by the Donald Trump administration, continues its bulldozer approach to our federal government. As we careen forward, an essential food for thought is an awareness of the global and historical perspectives that underscore how our current leaders' strategies align with a playbook for the final chapter of previous global powers.
When we think of global dominance, we often think of military strength and the size of a superpower’s budget. What we think less of is the importance of perception or the significance of the cultural aspects of power. The USAID spreads the impression of a peaceful and protective United States, dispersing resources and building a global community with the US at the helm. President Kennedy began the USAID in 1961 with an Executive order. Research shows that USAID has continuously had bipartisan support and a tremendous impact, makes up less than 1 percent of our budget, and is a major player within the United Nations Developmental Programme.
Military and financial power alone does not make a global power. To preserve a respectable image, we need soft power. We need to be viewed as morally good, akin to what public intellectual Slavoj Žižek calls global capitalism with a human face. The United States has leaned into this strategy. We are a military giant, and still, people worldwide view us as democratic and politically stable.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Sociologists have long shown the importance of this balancing act. When antagonistic forces are the foundation of a system, something must entice those with less power to cooperate or submit rather than revolt. Workers who receive benefits are less likely to strike. Those living in proximity to the toxic outputs of oil refineries are less likely to critique the company when it also invests in healthcare and education for the community.
The United States grew into its role as a world power politically and economically, and, like the British, Dutch, and Spanish empires before it, may be destined to lose this status eventually. In The Long Twentieth Century, the late scholar Giovanni Arrighi analyzed empires and how they transition. Their decline follows a pattern. One part of this order is that an empire’s ambitions exceed its tangible resources, and over-extension predates its decline. Trump’s colonial tendencies, for example, when he states he wants to take over Greenland, The Panama Canal, and Gaza, echo exactly the overextending vibe of world leaders pre-collapse.
We are the emperor who quickly drops clothing. It’s inefficient to waste food, medical trials, people, or allies. As a superpower, appearing secure, functional, and stable is valuable. The United States is seeking expansion, and at the same time, its leaders are dismantling its systems internally. And these things matter. We don’t live in a peaceful world, and global leaders vie for power. There are those who would appreciate the internally initiated demise of the United States.
To be sure, the waning of US global dominance is likely inevitable. The contradictions of Trump and Musk’s decisions to eliminate USAID inefficiently and dismantle the federal workforce while simultaneously making large power grabs, such as seeking additional territories and mineral rights, could speed up this descent.
There may be nothing that can make a superpower become self-reflective enough to be sustainable. It is unlikely that the Trump administration will reinstate robust foreign aid and federal workers nor invest in sustainability-oriented policies such as the Green New Deal. But we live in an era where we are increasingly aware of Adrienne Marie Brown’s emergent strategy. What if our leaders could turn towards more evolved skills and sustainable actions, such as prioritizing the care of people and our planet overfeeding a no-boundary endless treadmill of greed chasing? Perhaps the asymmetry inherent to empires is not meant to last, but perhaps humanity can. We need leaders who understand that global sustainability, and thus solidarity, are the best renewable resources.
The global political economy is not a high-stakes card game. It is the context and backbone of our only shared reality. And it’s time for its parameters to evolve from a dog-eat-dog mentality to a regenerative one. We need leaders who value non-alternative facts and our future, who believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and who trust our scientists. We need a government that can imagine and work towards a better world where education is broadly funded, federal employees keep their jobs, we appropriately tax our wealth hoarders, and at our core, we strategize for liberation for all rather than domination for some.
Our world's systems may not be a card game, but it would behoove our leaders to understand not only the art, but also the science and history of their dealings and the systemic risks of bad faith plays.
Megan Thiele Strong is a Sociology professor at San José State University, a Public Voices Fellow at The OpEd Project, and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
white passenger plane on airport during daytime
Photo by Avel Chuklanov on Unsplash
Trump’s cuts at the FAA could underscore the risks of shrinking government
Mar 23, 2025
WASHINGTON – After recent layoffs of employees at the Federal Aviation Administration and a string of aviation incidents, passengers and experts expressed concerns that U.S. airlines’ excellent safety record could be at risk.
About 400 probationary workers were removed from the FAA beginning on February 14, just weeks after the DCA midair collision on January 29 that left 67 dead. On February 17, at least 18 people were injured when a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis crash-landed upside down on a runway at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
The layoffs are part of an extensive effort spearheaded by the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to consolidate the federal government. Some experts cautioned that given the high profile of aviation safety, cuts at the FAA could demonstrate the perils of shrinking government.
While no air traffic controllers were laid off, aviation safety experts warned that cuts could further strain the agency, which has long suffered from staffing shortages.
So far, some 400 of about 45,000 FAA employees have been laid off, according to a post on X by Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Of them, 132 belong to the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), a union representing about 11,000 FAA employees, according to Dave Spero, the organization’s president.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Aeronautical safety specialists, maintenance mechanics, and employees in aviation safety assistance roles were among those who were terminated, according to Spero. Although no air traffic controllers were laid off, Spero emphasized that these roles are critical positions within the FAA.
The impact of recent layoffs
Experts said these layoffs will only worsen pre-existing staffing problems.
“I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but the system is operating under a lot of dynamic stresses. As it is, with the normal staffing problems, with the normal retirement challenges and things like that that are going on, this is going to make it so much worse,” said Philip Mann, a former FAA certified technician and aviation safety expert.
Following the DCA midair collision, Americans’ confidence in air travel dipped slightly, with 64% of U.S. adults saying plane travel is very or somewhat safe, down from 71% last year, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll. Public faith in the federal government’s ability to maintain air safety also dropped slightly.
Still, experts stressed that the National Airspace System and commercial flight in the U.S. is still the safest way to travel.
However, Mann commented that many of those laid off worked to maintain air traffic controllers' systems, which could cause system outages similar to weather delays that travelers are used to. Since air traffic will only be able to manage a lighter load of aircrafts, an increase in flight delays is a very possible consequence of the layoffs.
“There won't be more crashes,” he said. “There will be fewer airplanes flying.”
A former air traffic controller echoed Mann’s outlook on the layoffs.
“To an extent, it could slow things down, but at the same time, it's not an immediate safety risk,” said the former air traffic controller, who recently resigned and asked to remain anonymous while searching for other work.
The former air traffic controller said they see a benefit in smaller government.
“I'm a fan of downsizing government,” they said. “I do think that there's a lot of bloat in certain areas, but I guess my balanced opinion is that it stinks that the people that are getting harmed by it are people that just show up to their job every day.”
Congress examines the future of FAA infrastructure
Spero appeared as a witness at a House Subcommittee on Aviation hearing aimed at addressing a need for the modernization of the U.S. air traffic control system.
Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Troy E. Nehls (R-Texas-22) opened the hearing by emphasizing the importance of upgrading technology and improving hiring at the FAA.
“This moment in time represents a unique opportunity for the members of this subcommittee and all aviation stakeholders to coalesce around a common goal: meaningful air traffic control modernization that will benefit the flying public and all users of the National Airspace System,” Nehls said.
Spero emphasized a need for adequate staffing and better management of aging equipment systems within the agency. In an interview following the congressional hearing, Spero reiterated his union members' critical role in the agency and the dangers of gambling with future safety by terminating employees.
“Without us, you can't even go into a terminal radar approach control and turn on the light. We provide all of the power and electronics to make that stuff happen,” he said.
What Americans need to know
Despite recent air accidents, experts emphasized that air travel still remained safe.
“I think everyone has heightened awareness because of the Washington, D.C., midair collision accident, but I do not see some nefarious trend or anything,” said Jeff Guzzetti, an aviation safety consultant and former Chief Accident Investigator at the FAA.
However, other experts are concerned about the recent accidents.
“I think the media tends to try to sensationalize things and make a problem, but a problem doesn't exist without foundation,” said Rich Martindell, an aviation safety consultant and a retired Air Force aircraft accident investigator.
With safety and operations under scrutiny, many aviation experts cautioned against more layoffs.
“It's too early to tell what these FAA layoffs will do to safety, but I do hope that they stop. The FAA has perennially been understaffed and at this point in time. With the public having such attention on aviation safety, it's not a good look for the administration to target the FAA for any of these workforce reductions,” Guzzetti said.
Mann underscored that people’s lives are at risk.
“I will argue that there is no such thing as a job in the Department of Transportation, which includes the FAA, that does not somehow impact either safety directly, or it impacts the people who do impact safety directly.”
Lenna Peterson covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a junior at Northwestern University pursuing a double major in journalism and history and a certificate in Holocaust studies. While in Evanston, she serves as an executive producer, reporter and anchor for Northwestern News Network. From Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Peterson interned on the Copywriting Team at Rocket Mortgage this past summer.
Keep ReadingShow less
The future of civic education
Getty Images
Just the Facts: Dismantling vs. Eliminating the Department of Education
Mar 22, 2025
Just the Facts: Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.
How did the White House describe the specifics of the March 20th Executive order related to The Department of Education?
A statement released by the White House on March 20th announced that “President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order returning power over education to families instead of bureaucracies.” The announcement went on to say, “The Executive Order directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
What is the difference between dismantling the Department of Education and abolishing it?
The difference lies in the scope and finality of the actions:
- Dismantling the Department of Education: This involves breaking down the department's structure, functions, and responsibilities, likely redistributing its powers and duties to state governments or other agencies. While this process significantly weakens the department, it doesn't legally erase its existence as a federal entity—it could still technically remain, even if stripped of most of its functions.
- Abolishing the Department of Education: This is a complete and legal elimination of the department. It would require congressional approval and involve passing legislation to formally dissolve the agency, ensuring that it no longer exists in any capacity.
Dismantling can be seen as a step toward abolition, but full abolition is a definitive legal action that only Congress can undertake.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What percentage of votes in Congress is needed to abolish the Department of Education?
To abolish the Department of Education, Congress would need to pass legislation to repeal the law that established it. This process typically requires:
- House of Representatives: A simple majority vote (more than 50% of the members present and voting).
- Senate: A simple majority vote as well, but if there’s a filibuster, it would require a supermajority of 60 votes to overcome it.
- Presidential Approval: The president would need to sign the bill into law, or Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto.
So, while a simple majority is often sufficient, the process can become more complex depending on political dynamics.
If Congress voted to eliminate the Department of Education, what legal challenges might arise?
There could be legal challenges on many fronts:
- Constitutional Concerns: Opponents might argue that dismantling the department violates constitutional principles, particularly if it disrupts federally mandated programs like civil rights protections, special education, or Title I funding for disadvantaged schools.
- Impact on Federal Laws: The Department of Education administers numerous federal laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title IX. Legal challenges could claim that eliminating the department would hinder the enforcement of these laws, potentially harming vulnerable populations.
- State and Local Implications: Shifting responsibilities to states or other federal agencies could lead to lawsuits from states or advocacy groups, arguing that the transition disrupts education systems or creates inequities.
- Stakeholder Opposition: Teachers' unions, education advocacy groups, and civil rights organizations could file lawsuits, claiming that the move undermines students' rights or access to quality education.
- Administrative Challenges: Redistributing the department's functions to other agencies or states could face legal scrutiny, especially if it leads to gaps in services or funding.
What services will be cut back or eliminated from the Department of Education based on the March 20th Executive order, and what are some concerns?:
The March 20th Executive Order signed by President Trump directs the Department of Education to begin dismantling itself, transferring its responsibilities to states and other agencies. Here are some key points regarding the services affected and concerns raised:
- Federal Education Programs: While popular programs like funding for students with disabilities and disadvantaged groups are promised to be preserved, their administration may face challenges as responsibilities shift to other entities.
- Office for Civil Rights: Staff cuts in this office have raised concerns about weakened enforcement of federal civil rights protections for students.
- Student Financial Aid: Staff reductions have already impacted students' access to financial aid services.
- Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs: The order explicitly states that the remaining funds will not support DEI or gender ideology initiatives.
Concerns Raised:
- Discrimination Protections: Advocates worry that dismantling the Office for Civil Rights could leave students vulnerable to discrimination.
- Program Continuity: Critics argue that transferring responsibilities to states and other agencies could disrupt the delivery of essential services.
- Impact on Disadvantaged Students: There are fears that the changes could lead to larger class sizes, reduced resources, and fewer remedial services for students in need.
- Legal Challenges: Since the department cannot be entirely abolished without Congressional approval, the legality of some actions may be contested3.
The administration argues that these changes will empower states and local communities, but the transition raises significant questions about the future of federal education programs and protections.
What specifically are the programs promoting diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender ideology that will be defunded?
The executive orders and directives have targeted several programs under diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender ideology for defunding or termination. Here are some specifics:
1. DEI Programs:
- Federal grants and contracts that promote DEI initiatives, including those aimed at increasing representation and equity in workplaces and educational institutions.
- Offices and positions such as "Chief Diversity Officer" roles and "Equity Action Plans" within federal agencies.
- Training programs and performance requirements for federal employees and contractors incorporating DEI principles.
2. Gender Ideology Programs:
- Programs funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that involve gender ideology, including those supporting gender-affirming care and education.
- Initiatives in schools and universities that address gender diversity and inclusion.
- Military policies and healthcare provisions related to transgender individuals.
These measures reflect a broader effort to eliminate what the administration refers to as "woke" policies and redirect resources toward other priorities.
Have there been challenges in court yet to Trump’s first executive order to cut Department of Education staff and programs?
Legal challenges have already been raised against Trump's executive order to cut Department of Education staff and programs. For instance, the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers' unions, has publicly stated, "See you in court," signaling their intent to challenge the order. Critics argue that the order is legally dubious, as the president cannot unilaterally abolish or significantly dismantle a federal agency without congressional approval2.
These challenges are likely to focus on the potential harm to students, educators, and federal programs, as well as the executive order's legality. Let me know if you'd like to dive deeper into any specific aspect!
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.Keep ReadingShow less
Load More