We're focused on standing up to corruption and strengthening our democracy across the country. The Stand Up America team is here to provide you with the information and resources you need to take meaningful action. Whether it's an upcoming protest or calling your lawmaker about urgent legislation, we'll keep you informed about how you can most effectively use your voice to protect our democracy and resist the dangerous and misguided policies of the current administration.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on September 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump’s Weaponization of the DOJ Threatens Democratic Governance
Nov 11, 2026
The dust from the November 2026 midterm elections has barely settled, yet a familiar, toxic chorus of political warfare is already drowning out the clear message from American voters.
With Democrats securing majorities in both the House and Senate, voters signaled a desire for checks, balances, and a focused effort on the pressing economic issues squeezing everyday families. Instead, President Donald Trump has chosen to meet the incoming legislative branch not with an open hand, but with a weaponized Department of Justice.
Following the election, Trump issued a series of directives ordering the DOJ to investigate Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of "criminal acts" and "extortion" for simply fulfilling their constitutional duty of congressional oversight. Without offering any supporting evidence, Trump alleged in his post that Democrats were distributing "threatening letters to many people, all innocent."
Meanwhile, congressional members have publicly released several letters requesting documentation on issues like tech company contributions intended for the new White House ballroom project.
Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly fell in line, saying, “What we've seen over the past several days and even over the past several weeks are outright threats,” on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Blanche used the national television appearance to validate counter-investigations against political opponents whose rhetoric he deemed "vile and dangerous."The hypocrisy here is as blinding as it is dangerous.
For years, Trump and his supporters have weaponized the term "lawfare," crying foul at every legal proceeding, impeachment, and investigation, labeling them as partisan witch hunts. Yet, the moment the American electorate votes to shift the balance of power, the administration turns around and uses the literal apparatus of federal law enforcement to intimidate the incoming majority. When incoming House Oversight Chairman Robert Garcia tells the White House to "lawyer up" regarding administration activities, federal contracts, and mass firings, he is not committing a crime—he is doing the job the Constitution mandates and voters just demanded.
The leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee promised Sunday to launch multiple investigations into Trump administration officials, saying Democratic leadership would no longer “take the high road.”
“When Republicans go low, what we’re not going to do anymore is just take that, take the high road, and turn the other cheek,” Garcia declared. “The days of us not fighting back are over.”This retaliatory escalation fundamentally rejects how a democratic government is supposed to function. Oversight is not extortion. Checks and balances are not criminal acts.
More importantly, this playground retaliation completely ignores the mandate of the midterm elections. Voters did not go to the polls demanding a never-ending cycle of mutual legal destruction. They went to the polls looking for solutions to economic anxieties, inflation, healthcare, and governance that actually functions.
Governing requires collaboration, especially in a divided Washington. It requires a willingness to sit across the table from political rivals, find common ground, and pass legislation that helps the American people. By using the DOJ as a personal shield and sword, Trump is poisoning the well before the new Congress is even sworn in.
If the Trump administration spends the next two years consumed by vengeance and retaliatory investigations, ordinary Americans will pay the price. It is time to drop the threats of prosecution, respect the constitutional role of congressional oversight, and get to work on the issues that actually matter to the people who cast their ballots last Tuesday.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
American flag
SimpleImages/Getty Images
Now It Is Time to Govern
Nov 11, 2026
The votes have been cast. The campaigns have ended. The winners have celebrated, and the losers have begun to assess what comes next.
For some Americans, the rancor or blame game will continue. But for many Americans, however, the most important question is neither who won nor who lost.
It is whether anyone can govern.
Throughout this election season, candidates crisscrossed the country, promising solutions to the nation's challenges. Voters repeatedly identified the same concerns: affordability, health care, economic opportunity, immigration and border security, public safety, and the health of our democracy itself.
Now comes the hard part.
The campaign is over. The governing must begin.
At The Fulcrum, we believe Americans deserve more than a return to continual campaigning. They deserve a serious examination of solutions that can attract support from conservatives, liberals, and independents alike.
That is why today we are launching a new series: "Now It Is Time to Govern."
Over the coming months, we will explore practical, bipartisan, and evidence-based approaches to six issues that consistently rank among voters' highest priorities.
This series will not ask how Democrats can defeat Republicans or how Republicans can defeat Democrats.
Instead, it will ask a different question:
What ideas have a realistic chance of improving people's lives while earning support across political divides?
Our goal is not false equivalency. Nor is it to pretend ideological differences don't matter. In a healthy democracy, disagreement is both unavoidable and necessary.
But governing requires something more than disagreement. It demands negotiation, compromise, problem-solving, and a willingness to learn from what works.
The challenges Americans face are too large and too pressing to remain permanent campaign talking points.
When families struggle to pay for groceries, housing, and child care, affordability becomes more than a political slogan.
When medical costs force families to choose between treatment and financial security, health care becomes more than a partisan issue.
When workers worry about economic mobility, when communities face crime and addiction, when the nation wrestles with border security and immigration reform, and when citizens lose faith in democratic institutions, those problems cannot be solved through rhetoric alone.
Solving our nation's problems requires leaders who respect all people, including groups that aren't vital to those leaders' reelection chances. It also requires leaders who stay open to new information and seek it out through research and analysis to broaden their horizons and effectively address the difficult problems facing our nation. Lastly, we need leaders willing to build bridges beyond their own constituency and encourage their supporters to do the same, with the goal of building the trust and understanding needed for competent governance.
And it requires a citizenry willing to demand more from elected officials than perpetual conflict.
In each installment, The Fulcrum will examine reforms, proposals, and successful models from across the political spectrum. We will highlight ideas advanced by Republicans, Democrats, independents, academics, civic leaders, business leaders, and community organizations. Some proposals may be controversial. Others may already be quietly succeeding in states, cities, and communities across the country.
The common denominator will be that they are serious attempts to address real problems.
We believe a vast, often overlooked constituency remains in American life: citizens who care less about partisan victory than practical progress. They may disagree about policy details. They may vote differently. But they share a belief that governing should involve more than scoring political points.
Too often, our political conversation rewards the loudest voices and the sharpest attacks. Yet history suggests many of America's greatest achievements came not from ideological purity, but from difficult cooperation among people who didn't agree on everything.
Today's challenges demand the same spirit.
Whether electoral mandates are narrow or decisive, the responsibility remains unchanged. Elections are not only about determining who holds power. They also create an opportunity, and an obligation, to use that power wisely. A decisive victory may give leaders more political capital, but it does not eliminate the need for effective governance, accountability, or public trust.
This series will hold leaders accountable for that responsibility.
We will ask what progress looks like. We will examine where cross-party cooperation is possible. We will spotlight innovative ideas that deserve broader attention. And we will challenge officials of both parties to explain not simply what they oppose, but what they propose. The election may have answered who will lead. It did not answer how we will solve our biggest challenges. That work begins now.
The voters have rendered their verdict. The question before the nation is no longer who will lead, but whether those entrusted with power can deliver results.
Now it is time to govern.
Keep ReadingShow less
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
Nov 11, 2026
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.
While the media has largely focused on the money angle, the larger story is the Supreme Court’s efforts to transform American democracy, or, as critics contend, undermine it.
How the Supreme Court’s Rulings Favor Wealthy
The Court has, for many decades, considered political spending as protected speech. The prime example of this interpretation is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions. The decision effectively opened the floodgates of special interest money by creating an environment in which they could make unlimited campaign spending as long as they remained outside formal party structures.
Since then, the Court has continued to effectively abolish any attempt to rein in political spending. Just this past June, the Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down federal limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates. Justice Elena Kagan’s scathing dissent predicted that the decision would give wealthy donors greater influence over American politics by allowing them to circumvent contribution limits by funneling money through party organizations.
To be fair, proponents of weakening government constraints on political spending have a point that spending on candidates’ behalf is a form of political expression and that giving parties more freedom to aid their candidates helps to strengthen the parties and therefore representative government. But this view conveniently overlooks the fact that political parties operate in an environment where financial resources are distributed unequally.
As the current election cycle shows, the Republicans possess vastly greater resources than Democrats. The Court, far from making the political system more competitive, is instead reinforcing existing inequalities. By making candidates more dependent on wealthy donors and special interests, the Court’s decisions virtually assures that the system becomes increasingly attentive to their priorities. The result is a political system in which citizens lose influence while powerful economic interests gain influence over policy decisions.
Court’s Decisions Show Narrow Interpretation
The main problem is that the Supreme Court approaches campaign finance through the narrow lens of individual liberty, giving short shrift to the dangers concentrated economic power poses to democracy. This development makes the political equality promised by democratic institutions increasingly difficult to sustain.
The polls show that despite the historical levels of campaign spending by the Republicans, they are still in danger of losing both the House and Senate. The huge infusions of cash apparently cannot overcome Trump’s cratering in the polls. This shows that seemingly unlimited financial resources cannot always offset unpopular policies, weak candidates, or widespread public dissatisfaction.
If the Democrats manage to prevail despite being massively outspent, this outcome should not obscure money’s growing importance in today’s politics. The bottom line is money determines the effectiveness of parties’ communication with voters, ability to organize campaigns, mobilize supporters, and ability to effectively respond to attacks. In close races, these advantages can tip the scale.
Lessons from the Progressive Era
Just as the Gilded Age provide insight into our current political situation, so too does the Progressive Era give valuable historical lessons. Many Americans did not simply accept the concentration of economic power as a fact of life. They organized reform movements, changed political institutions, and eventually forced Congress to regulate campaign contributions. They understood that democracy was undermined when a small handful of wealthy interests wielded disproportionate political influence.
The work of these journalists, labor unions, farmers, and reformers produced long-lasting changes. Among these was the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, banning direct corporate contributions to federal campaigns. Reformers at the state level enacted laws creating primary elections, initiatives, referendums, and recalls to weaken political bosses’ power. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, took the power to elect U.S. senators from the boss-controlled state legislatures and put it in the voters’ hands. These reforms culminated in the ratification of the women’s right to vote, expanding suffrage to half the population.
What lessons can be learned from this history? First, electing a new set of leaders is not enough. True reform requires sustained public pressure, hence the importance of grass-roots organizing. Second, changing the rules of political competition is as important as electing new office holders. Finally, reform worthy of its name, must change campaign financing laws that elevate the interests of the wealthy above everyone else. That means the current Supreme Court remains reform’s biggest obstacle. One way of addressing this road block is instituting term limits for the Court.
The biggest lesson, however, is that the political power of wealth in the Gilded Age did not end because the wealthy voluntarily gave up their influence. Change only occurred when citizens organized, demanded accountability, and transformed the American democracy. That remains the central lesson for our time.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
American soldier in headquarter control center
Getty Images
Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria
Nov 11, 2026
When American forces conducted airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation signaled a renewal of security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. Yet for Nigerians living in communities plagued by terrorism, kidnapping, and armed attacks, a critical question remained: Will these strikes make their daily lives any safer?
That question demands serious consideration in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing, and tactical training. Yet, armed violence continues to disrupt daily life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the effectiveness of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.
The December operations followed a diplomatic dispute in which President Donald Trump accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians and threatened military intervention. Nigeria subsequently welcomed U.S. assistance, leading to coordinated strikes against suspected militants in Sokoto State.
While military strikes can disrupt terrorist operations, destroy equipment, and neutralize commanders, they cannot single-handedly guarantee community safety or restore public trust in government institutions.
The United States and Nigeria have maintained security ties for over five decades. According to a 2024 State Department fact sheet, Washington held $590 million in active government-to-government military sales cases with Nigeria. Major transactions included a $497 million deal for 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and a $997 million deal for 12 AH-1Z attack helicopters.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, the United States also provided more than $8 million in counterterrorism training, equipment, and advisory support, along with approximately $5 million for international military education and training. These figures encompass various programs and stages of assistance rather than a single lump sum already expended.
This partnership extends beyond defense hardware to include military professionalization, intelligence sharing, border security, and initiatives to enhance accountability within Nigeria's security sector.
Although these investments have strengthened aspects of Nigeria's military capabilities, civilians' persistent vulnerability raises a broader question: How should success ultimately be defined?
In northeastern Nigeria, Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have sustained an insurgency that has devastated communities across the Lake Chad Basin. Meanwhile, in the northwest, armed bandit networks have expanded kidnapping for ransom, cattle rustling, and raids on rural settlements. Although some groups operate in overlapping areas, their motivations and organizational structures differ significantly.
That distinction matters: treating every armed group strictly as a terrorist organization risks overlooking the criminal economies, local grievances, and law enforcement failures that sustain different forms of violence.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) recorded more than 400 kidnapping incidents across northwest Nigeria in 2026 by the time of its analysis. In June, at least 39 civilians were abducted in Maradun, Zamfara State, after traveling to negotiate peace terms with an armed group.
A separate ACLED assessment found that armed bandits accounted for more than 80 percent of recorded mass abductions since the beginning of 2025.
These figures do not mean U.S. counterterrorism operations have failed; rather, they demonstrate that Nigeria's civilian security crisis extends far beyond the militant organizations targeted by airstrikes.
Having reported on terrorism and violent conflict in northern Nigeria, I have witnessed how insecurity paralyzes communities long after the immediate violence subsides. Farmers struggle to cultivate their fields, families live in constant fear, and residents face travel restrictions that disrupt ordinary economic and social life.
For those living under these conditions, security is measured less by the body count of neutralized militants than by whether they can travel safely, earn a living, and send their children to school.
This is where Washington should reconsider its approach.
The United States and Nigeria have already recognized the necessity of broader security reforms. During the 2024 U.S.–Nigeria Binational Commission, both governments committed to expanding military and law enforcement cooperation while prioritizing civilian protection, human rights, and democratic principles.
They proposed establishing a standing security working group and enhancing joint efforts in border and aviation security, anti-terrorist financing, criminal investigations, and explosives detection. Discussions also focused on creating specialized police anti-kidnapping units, improving oversight mechanisms, mapping crime, advancing police reform, and strengthening judicial institutions.
Furthermore, their commitments encompassed civilian harm mitigation, community peacebuilding, farmer–herder conflict resolution, and the safeguarding of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and religious liberty.
These mutual agreements offer a framework for evaluating whether security cooperation is making a tangible difference on the ground. Washington should actively advocate for transparent assessments of civilian casualties, kidnapping metrics, accountability for human rights abuses, and the safe return of displaced communities.
It should also invest in supporting Nigerian civil and judicial institutions capable of investigating and prosecuting violent crimes, rather than relying primarily on military solutions.
While protecting religious freedom must remain a priority, Nigeria's security crisis cannot be viewed solely through the lens of attacks on Christian communities. Muslims have also suffered extensively from terrorism and banditry. A comprehensive policy aimed at protecting all civilians will far better address the nation's complex security realities.
The stakes extend well beyond Nigeria's borders. As Africa's most populous nation and a key regional democracy, Nigeria is central to West African stability and global cooperation. Persistent insecurity erodes public confidence in elected leaders, suppresses civic participation, and creates power vacuums that armed groups exploit.
For the United States, supporting Nigeria involves far more than neutralizing terrorist organizations—it means helping a strategic democratic partner build trusted governance and judicial institutions.
A robust bilateral relationship should align security assistance with civilian protection, public accountability, and sustained diplomatic engagement. Such an approach would demonstrate that U.S. foreign policy can effectively advance democratic governance while confronting violent extremism.
Ultimately, the success of U.S.–Nigeria counterterrorism efforts must be judged by whether ordinary Nigerians can live free from fear, participate in civic life, and trust the institutions charged with their protection. Until these outcomes serve as the primary metrics of progress, even successful military strikes will remain an incomplete response to Nigeria's complex security challenges.
Idris Mohammed is a Ph.D. student at the University of Alabama concentrating in Journalism & Creative Media and a fall Fulcrum Fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More