Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Carter, Ford: Nonviolent campaigns are the only safeguard for democracy

Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford

President-elect Jimmy Carter and President Gerald Ford in the White House.

Historical/Getty Images

The following editorial appeared last month in the Detroit News after the July assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Given the events of this week, the piece is reprinted below, again denouncing political violence. Last week, the authors held  a national joint convening on election norms, advancing strategies for leaders, voters and the media to support the United States’ tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

Carter is the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and Ford is the son of former President Gerald Ford, a Republican. They serve as co-chairs of the Principles for Trusted Elections, a cross-partisan program of The Carter Center, the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation and Team Democracy.

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump on July 13 is a stark reminder that the specter of political violence casts a long shadow over our democratic ideals. This outrageous act underscores the sad reality that those engaged in our democratic process — whether as candidates, public officials or citizens — can find themselves in situations where their safety is compromised simply by participating.


This is not just an attack on individuals; it is an assault on the principles of democracy upon which our great nation was founded.

For us, as members of presidential families, the violence evokes memories of a tumultuous time in our nation’s history. For Mike Ford, it is particularly personal to recall the frightening times when my dad, former President Gerald Ford, faced two assassination attempts in 1975. Members of the Ford family experienced a range of emotions from shock to fear to anger and finally gratitude for the good people who protected him.

Together — on behalf of both the Carter and Ford families — we urge our nation to stand together in agreement that violence not only results in tragic losses but undermines the core values that define our American democratic system. The right to safely and peacefully engage in political discourse is fundamental to our identity as a nation.

The focus must now shift back to the citizens who form the backbone of our democracy. These are the people who attend rallies, volunteer at polling stations and participate in grassroots activism. They are not mere spectators but rather active participants in shaping our collective future. When their safety is threatened, it strikes at the heart of our democracy and weakens our ability to govern ourselves effectively.

We urge our fellow Americans and leaders at all levels to reaffirm their commitment to nonviolence and civil discourse. It’s the reason we co-chair the Principles for Trusted Elections to encourage citizens to tell their public leaders and candidates to stand up for safe, nonviolent elections. We condemn any form of threats or intimidation, regardless of political beliefs or affiliation. It is incumbent upon us to foster a political environment where diverse opinions are respected and differences are settled through discussion, not aggression.

As we move forward, let us honor the sacrifices made by those who have faced violence by ensuring that their courage and dedication to democratic values are not in vain. Let us elevate the voices of ordinary citizens who embody the spirit of civic engagement and uphold the norms of civil campaigning throughout the election cycle. Let us protect our democratic institutions and ensure that America remains a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all.

We stand behind the initial unifying remarks made by President Joe Biden, former President Trump, and their parties who denounce acts of violence. With this cross-partisan leadership, we hope that the nation can move peacefully forward in the months leading up to November. Candidates, voters, poll workers and election officials should be able to have confidence that they can each fulfill their essential roles and responsibilities for the democratic process in a peaceful electoral environment.

July 13 served as a sobering reminder of our responsibilities as participants in democracy. We can all rise to the occasion and safeguard the principles that have guided our nation through its darkest hours. Together, we can build a future where political discourse is marked by respect, understanding and a steadfast commitment to the ideals that unite us as Americans.

This writing was originally published in the The Detroit News, Aug. 14.

Read More

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account: 5 Things To Know

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement
Police car lights.
Getty Images / Oliver Helbig

The Sanctuary City Debate: Understanding Federal-Local Divide in Immigration Enforcement

Immigration is governed by a patchwork of federal laws. Within the patchwork, one notable thread of law lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) programs, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work in tandem with local agencies and law enforcement on deterrence and enforcement efforts. Like the now-discontinued Secure Communities program that encouraged information sharing between local police agencies and ICE, the law specifically authorizes ICE to work with local and federal partners to detain and deport removal-eligible immigrants from the country.

What are Sanctuary Policies?

Keep ReadingShow less
Lady Justice

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States.

the_burtons/Getty Images

Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful: How the “Nondelegation Doctrine” Limits Congress

This guest post from Eric Bolinder, a professor of law at Liberty University, is based on his recent law review article on the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs. Before Liberty University, Eric was counsel at Cause of Action Institute, where he helped litigate Loper Bright, the case that overturned Chevron deference, and at Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 2, President Trump announced "Liberation Day"—the imposition of across-the-board tariffs on imports into the United States. Without congressional action, these tariffs are highly vulnerable to legal challenges as they may violate something called the "nondelegation doctrine." Recently, two courts, the Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, enjoined the tariffs (though both decisions are stayed), finding that the President had no statutory authority to implement them. These courts echoed what I'll discuss below, that if the statute does authorize tariffs, then they may be unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

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.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.

Keep ReadingShow less