Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Should I Stay or Should I Go? When To Cut and Run On America

Opinion

A person holding the U.S. flag, kneeling by a vigil.

VA hospital nurses and union members hold a memorial vigil for Alex Pretti , an ICU nurse at the VA hospital who was shot and killed by two Federal agents, February 1, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Getty Images, Andrew Lichtenstein

"If the U.S. government kills even one of our citizens for peacefully protesting, I will leave the country." Once this line was crossed, I would know that we could no longer claim to hear warning shots or catch whiffs of fascism. It will have arrived.

I said this to my therapist in November 2024 when discussing what would be the final straw for my relationship with America, the thing that would mean my family would leave this country behind.


And then it happened.

In January, a U.S. government official in Minneapolis shot and killed Renee Good, who was exercising her right to monitor Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s outsized and violent presence in Minneapolis.

Seventeen days later, the Department of Homeland Security struck again, when a Customs and Border Protection officer shot and killed Alex Pretti, who was recording federal law enforcement action on his phone as ICE and Customs and Border Protection responded to protests over its murder of Good.

Two more deaths at the hands of agents happened, one in Chicago and another in Rio Grande City, Texas. Reports show that 32 people died in ICE custody in 2025. Recently, the family of a 19-year-old Mexican boy memorialized the teen who died in ICE custody.

As an immigration lawyer, I have memorized the stories of the over 100 people I have represented in claims for asylum in the United States; I can’t forget their stories detailing the failure of state protection and the resultant persecution they suffered. Though my clients’ cases are each unique, those that involve harm on account of political opinion almost always follow a similar pattern.

That pattern begins with the murder of peaceful protestors. Starting over a decade ago in Venezuela, Colectivos have ridden their motorcycles through demonstrations and picked off protestors with automatic weapons.

In 2018, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas slaughtered hundreds of students protesting social security reform.

Earlier this year, Iranian security forces massacred tens of thousands of protestors.

In my dual role as a clinical law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, my students and I represent immigrants fighting against deportation. I believe so deeply in the U.S. Constitution’s mandate that all people are entitled to due process that I zealously advocate for those who cannot defend themselves and teach young lawyers to do the same.

In 2016, after the vitriol spewed by then-president-elect Donald Trump about immigrants (and so many others), I felt defeated and disenfranchised. Though fleeing to Canada was an option, I stayed and fought.

In 2024, feeling even more disillusioned, I expanded my prospective refuge to include Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, but I stayed.

I am grappling with what to do in 2026, now that the one thing that I said would convince me to leave has happened. Not once, but twice in close succession. I don’t know if I can stay to fight yet again. After 2028, I wonder if I will have any choice left in the matter.

A little over a year ago, a sound bite from an interview I did with a Chicago journalist ended up on a National Public Radio broadcast. Hearing my voice and name on a national story filled me with anxiety.

That morning, I was loading my children into the car for daycare when a black SUV pulled up in front of my house. I was frozen with fear that government agents were going to drag me away in front of my then-four-year-old and two-year-old children, leaving them alone, strapped in the Subaru. This response may seem outsized, but not when agents are detaining U.S. citizens.

As a white U.S. citizen, I have not endured generations of racism and bias, but in light of the combination of experiences of my clients and the secondary trauma I’ve endured as a result, my fear was not unfounded.

When I contemplate leaving the United States, my job, my extended family, and friends behind, I do so with myself, but more so with my children in mind. I strive to raise my children with the values my husband and I espouse: that all human life is precious, and none is more worthy of education, love, freedom, or safety than is another.

This aspiration feels unachievable in America today. Undergraduate students at the campus where I work feel empowered to post an image and accompanying text endorsing the execution of American citizens who dare to speak out in defense of their foreign-born neighbors.

These members of the registered student organization, Illini Republicans, believe—and want to indoctrinate others to believe—that I am a traitor to the U.S. and that the government would not only be justified in killing me, but that it has a mandate to do so.

I am a traitor because I teach the importance of social justice, equality, and the government’s role in safeguarding human rights for all.

If I, a white U.S. citizen professor enjoying the protections of tenure, feel terrified, I can only imagine the immense fear felt by young, undergraduate, and graduate students who must go to their classes not knowing whether the person next to them deems them to be one of the “enemies” deserving of democide. Or the fear my clients feel simply exists in their day-to-day lives.

U.S. government action is fueling the fire behind groups like the Illini Republicans. Recent reports show over 68,000 people were being held in ICE detention facilities across the country. Despite what authorities claimed about targeting the worst criminals, 73.6% of those people have no criminal convictions. And reportedly, 20 people held overnight turned out to be U.S. citizens.

According to ICE’s own reporting, 35 people died while in ICE custody from the day Trump took office on January 20, 2025, through January 6, 2026. At least six more died in the fewer than three months that followed. And these counts don’t include those injured or killed by agents in the field.

To be sure, I will never know what it is like to walk in the shoes of my clients. But I do understand the intense fear of a lawless and violent government that has demonstrated that no one is impervious to its cruelty.

I have never felt less safe than I do now. In my own home. In my own country: America.

Lauren R. Aronson is a clinical professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, where she founded and directs the Immigration Law Clinic, and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.


Read More

​Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe

Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe at the Ithaca Commons on October 13, 2026 in Ithaca, New York.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Sexual Violence Requires More Than Legal Accountability

In the wake of public attention to the Cornell fraternity alleged gang-rape, headlines resound with statements of concern and calls for greater accountability. These calls are not new. They have followed countless incidents of sexual violence, whether on a college campus, in connection with work, or within an intimate relationship. Despite decades of law and policy reform, sexual violence continues to run rampant. While law and policy reform are sorely needed, we will not see long-lasting change unless we address what accountability truly means. Our collective response should aim for a world where no one would ever think it was ok to commit, condone, or be a passive witness to sexual violence, never mind that it would be ok to send the kind of text messages that were allegedly exchanged at the Cornell fraternity where the rape allegedly took place.

As policymakers consider reform, a comprehensive approach to accountability should consider the known limitations of criminal and civil justice systems. Problems with the criminal legal system are legion, both within and beyond sexual violence cases. These include racially discriminatory application of laws criminalizing sexual violence, that, for example, have led to harsher punishment when the accused is a person of color and lesser punishment when the survivor is a person of color. Survivors continue to be doubted and subjected to biases and stereotypes, including that survivors lie about their experience, that they somehow invited the violence, or act with self-interest or ulterior motive when coming forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings Help the GOP

American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we 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 legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less