Sustained Dialogue (SD) develops leaders able to transform differences into the strong relationships essential to effective decision-making, democratic governance, and peace. SD differs from other changemaking processes through its focus on understanding the nature of community relationships, which are often the "problem behind the problem". SD reaches beyond formal institutions to include "whole bodies politic"—everyday community members as well as formal leaders. Our method for changing society is to focus on the five elements of relationship: Identity, Interests, Power, Perceptions & Patterns of Interaction.
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
What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia
Mar 05, 2026
The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.
Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.
At those meetings was Ed Martin, a Justice Department lawyer who until recently led a group investigating what the president has described as the department’s “weaponization” against him and his allies, according to a source familiar with the meetings who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
White House lawyer Kurt Olsen, who has been tasked with reinvestigating the 2020 election, also was directed to join at least one of the meetings, according to the source. Both Martin and Olsen worked on behalf of Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election results, and a federal court sanctioned Olsen for making false claims about the reliability of voting machines in Arizona.
The meetings reveal new details about the length of the preparations for, and people involved in, the January FBI raid on Fulton County, which election and legal experts told ProPublica was a significant escalation in Trump’s breaking of democratic norms.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi picked Albus and has granted him special authority to handle election-related cases nationwide, even though his earlier work as a federal prosecutor didn’t involve election law or election-related cases. The meetings with Martin, Olsen and other lawyers for the Justice Department were described by the source as being about “election integrity,” a term the Trump administration has used to describe investigations into its false claims that elections are rigged.
Martin, Olsen, Albus and others declined to answer questions about the meetings and other detailed questions from ProPublica. The White House and the Justice Department also did not respond to questions.
The meetings came at a particularly crucial time.
Martin’s efforts to obtain election materials from Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold, had hit a wall. In August, he sent a letter demanding that a Fulton County judge allow him to access tens of thousands of absentee ballots for “an investigation into election integrity here at the Department of Justice,” but he had reportedly received no reply.
Martin explained to Steve Bannon on a podcast that aired around the time of the meetings that although the White House had given Olsen the official mandate to reinvestigate the 2020 election, “inside DOJ, myself and a couple of others have been working also on the same topic” — including getting the Fulton County ballots. But Martin described progress as a “challenge.”
Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist in his first term, asked why Martin didn’t just “get some U.S. marshals to go down and seize” the ballots.
Martin suggested it was easier said than done, but agreed: “Look, we’ve got to get” the ballots.
Ed Martin posted a photo from his meeting with Thomas Albus in Washington, D.C., on social media. Via XBefore long, Albus and Olsen were interviewing witnesses for their case. Kevin Moncla, a conservative researcher, told ProPublica that he spoke to Albus and Olsen a couple of times, both together and separately, around the turn of the year. He identified himself as Witness 7 in the affidavit that persuaded a judge to sign off on the raid, and the affidavit mentions a 263-page report he authored that activists believe may have justified the raid, ProPublica has reported. Moncla has a long history of working with Olsen, dating back to an attempt by Kari Lake, a Republican candidate for governor in Arizona, to overturn her 2022 loss.
Just a few weeks after those interviews, in late January, Albus was listed as the government attorney on the search warrant that authorized the seizure of roughly 700 boxes of election material in Georgia, far outside of Albus’ usual jurisdiction.
Former U.S. attorneys from both parties said it was rare for a federal prosecutor from one region to take on cases in other states or be granted the nationwide authority Albus has been given.
Under Trump, senior roles across the White House, DOJ and FBI have increasingly been filled by a small, interconnected group of Missouri lawyers with longstanding ties to one another.
Another top federal official in the meetings was Jesus Osete, the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights. Before joining the Justice Department, Osete worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office, where he represented the state in at least five lawsuits against the Biden administration regarding vaccine mandates, immigration and other policies. Osete did not respond to requests for comment or to a detailed list of questions.
When the FBI raided Fulton County’s election center, Andrew Bailey, another lawyer from the same political circles, was in charge. Before joining the FBI as deputy director, he had used his position as Missouri’s attorney general to pursue high-profile cases against prominent Democrats and said he supported all efforts to investigate Biden, his family and his administration.
A spokesperson for the FBI declined to answer detailed questions about Bailey.
Last year, Roger Keller, a veteran federal prosecutor from Albus’ office, was brought in to help prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud in Virginia after the original career prosecutors on the case were replaced by political appointees. After a judge dismissed the case, two federal grand juries declined to indict James again, and Keller returned to Missouri.
Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, previously served as Missouri’s solicitor general under state attorneys general Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. He and Schmitt signed Missouri’s amicus brief supporting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Sauer later represented Trump in his presidential-immunity case, successfully arguing before the Supreme Court that Trump was entitled to broad immunity from prosecution.
Albus’ connection to the other Missouri lawyers goes back decades. Unlike some of the others, though, he has never held elected office or had a high public profile, nor has he waged culture-war campaigns like Bailey or Martin. Instead, he spent most of his career as a federal prosecutor and as a judge in a Missouri state circuit court.
Emails show Albus exchanging brief messages with Martin in 2007, when Albus was an assistant U.S. attorney in St. Louis and Martin was chief of staff to then-Gov. Matt Blunt. The emails were part of records from the Blunt administration that became public after being released under Missouri’s Sunshine Law.
In the email exchange, Albus put in a good word for a St. Louis lawyer who was a finalist for an appellate court judgeship, and Blunt ultimately selected that candidate.
Albus served as first assistant to Schmitt from early 2019 until Albus was appointed by Gov. Mike Parson to fill a circuit court judge vacancy in early 2020. Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, praised Albus as “one of the finest prosecutors I have ever met” when endorsing his nomination for U.S. attorney in December.
Lawyers who appeared in Albus’ court rated him as well prepared, professional and attentive, according to Missouri judicial performance reviews. They said he followed the evidence, applied the law correctly and gave clear reasons for his rulings.
Albus came under more critical scrutiny after Trump named him interim U.S. attorney last summer. Much of that attention centered on a fraud case he inherited when he took office. Prosecutors alleged that developers in St. Louis falsely claimed to be using minority- and women-owned subcontractors to qualify for city tax breaks, conduct the Justice Department has historically treated as wire fraud.
One of the defendants was represented by lawyer Brad Bondi, the brother of Pam Bondi.
The developers’ lawyers argued that even if the government’s claims were true, they were legally irrelevant because the Trump administration had taken the position that tax breaks based on race or gender were unlawful. Albus accepted those arguments and dropped the case. As part of the resolution, Albus personally hand-delivered to City Hall a check of about $1 million from one of the developers’ companies as restitution. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he intervened “to make it clear” his office wanted to drop charges and hand-delivered the check “to make sure they got it.”
In a letter to Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Congressional Democrats said the dismissal of the St. Louis case and other cases in which the Justice Department intervened on behalf of Brad Bondi’s clients raised “significant broader ethical concerns.” In the St. Louis case, and in a separate matter involving another Brad Bondi client whose charges were dropped, a Justice Department spokesperson said Pam Bondi’s relationship with her brother had “no bearing on the outcome.”
A spokesperson for the developers said their lawyers communicated only with the U.S. attorney’s office in St. Louis about the case and had no direct contact with Pam Bondi. He said the dismissal reflected “a recognition that this case should never have been brought in the first place.” Brad Bondi did not respond to a request for comment.
Weeks later, around the time of Albus’ meetings about election integrity, he posed with Martin in Martin’s office, flanked by a framed photo of Trump and a copy of “A Choice, Not an Echo,” the influential conservative manifesto by Phyllis Schlafly arguing that Republican voters were being manipulated by party elites and the media.
Martin posted the photo on X with the caption, “Good morning, America. How are ya’?”
What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia was originally published by ProPublica and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Texas Rep. Al Green held a sign reading "Black People Aren't Apes," protesting a racist video Trump had previously shared on Truth Social. Green was escorted out of the House chamber just minutes into President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.
How Race and Species are Leveraged Against Each Other
Mar 04, 2026
This was nothing new.
Before President Donald Trump released a video on his Truth Social account earlier this month that depicted Michelle and Barack Obama as apes, many were already well aware of his compulsive use of AI-generated deepfake content to disparage the former president. Many were also well aware of his tendency to employ dehumanizing rhetoric to describe people of color.
Unfortunately, this high-level bigotry has become a normalized phenomenon in the media cycle today. But it has deep roots in history throughout Western civilization.
While no apology was issued for the video, or for any of the president’s exhaustingly frequent social media posts, this particular video was removed within hours.
Of course, the blame for this “erroneous” post was redirected to an anonymous staffer, but Trump then proceeded to post several photos of himself alongside Black celebrities. This was clearly damage control.
Across the aisle, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries decried this imagery as vile. Others suggested the message was backpedaled because he felt the tides turning.
There is precedence. Throughout history, blatant associations of race and animality have been out of bounds because they diminish the humanity of people of color. Underlying this claim is another inference that is even worse: Humanity is a quality that has long been wielded against BIPOC folks. The human, as a social concept, depends on animalization, and dehumanization is human.
The term “dehumanization” implies a process by which one’s inherent humanness is discarded, leaving behind an absent reference. Enlightenment Era thinkers from Western Europe established a narrow conceptualization of the human that was measured, above all else, by the capacity to reason.
Decolonial philosopher, essayist, poet, and scholar, Sylvia Wynter, refers to this figure as “Man,” the benchmark by which one’s full humanity could be recognized. Jamaican-born Wynter, 97, argues that Eurocentric ideas about rationality and civility were inseparable from the racial hierarchy produced by the age of exploration and colonization.
In this culture, as many have been conditioned to perceive the animal as the opposite of the human, the history of the West reveals that animality is not the opposite of humanity—but its precursor. The human is a newer (and intrinsically better) model of the animal. Dehumanization, then, aligns certain humans alongside other nonhuman animals, who are deemed to lack those humanizing qualities.
One of the reasons why so many feel deeply unsettled by racist imagery that likens people of color to nonhuman animals is because it is a cruel reminder not only of a history of violent dehumanization but also because it forces a reckoning with a continuum (from least animal to most animal) that too many still buy into.
Human superiority was entrenched in abolitionist rhetoric from the 18th and 19th centuries. Abolitionist and British surgeon Alexander Falconbridge, who recorded and published his observations from time spent in slave ships between 1782 and 1787, writes, “Nor do these unhappy beings, after they become the property of the Europeans (from whom, as a more civilized people, more humanity might naturally be expected), find their situation in the least amended.” Falconbridge appeals here to his audience’s civility, that which separates “Europeans” from the enslaved, “unhappy beings.”
During this time, Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus developed the binomial system of classification, a categorization system of living beings that codified and hierarchically distributed both race and species.
To justify these divisions, naturalists sought out differences that proved Human superiority—centered around language, art, and culture. The problem, as Amie Souza Reilly, Writer-in-Residence at Sacred Heart University and author of the 2025 book Human/ Animal: A Bestiary In Essays, writes, isn’t “just that the White European naturalists assumed only human animals can reason, or that this reason makes them superior, but that they used this line of thinking to subjugate, enslave, display, and dehumanize people were not White Europeans by aligning nonwhite, nonmale, non-Europeans with animals, therefore pushing themselves to the top of the hierarchy they invented.”
Political scientist at the University of California-Irvine Claire Jean Kim refers to race and species as two interconnected “taxonomies of power.” These taxonomies lump and split nonwhite groups according to how close to nature they are perceived.
Her examination of this satirical drawing, published during the 1867 California gubernatorial race, demonstrates how these taxonomies work not as a set system but as a context-specific methodology used to justify all kinds of oppression—chattel slavery, theft of indigenous land, exploitation of migrant labor, and even industrial slaughter.
To be clear, the point is not to invalidate the harm caused by such dehumanizing discourse present day or historically. My position is in no way aligned with those who claim that Trump’s post has been taken out of context to manufacture controversy.
Claiming ignorance and hiding behind allegory does not dismiss the harm of racialization. However, it is important to recognize that racism like this is tethered to the very core of liberal humanism.
Charles Chesnutt, a Black novelist, essayist, and activist, understood this in 1889, when he published “Dave’s Neckliss.” The short story, alongside several other “Conjure Tales,” is narrated by John, an Ohioan farmer who purchases land in and relocates to North Carolina after the Civil War.
The stories center around interactions with Uncle Julius, a Black man whose anecdotes about the slave plantation are filtered through John’s rational lens. In this story, John’s observations reveal himself to be the arbiter of what constitutes the human: “But in the simple human feeling, and still more in the undertone of sadness, which pervaded his stories, I thought I could see a spark which, fanned by favoring breezes and fed by the memories of the past, might become in his children’s children a glowing flame of sensibility, alive to every thrill of human happiness or human woe.”
Rather than a biological fact or even an essential right, the human here is a marker of one’s place in the social order, and it can be given or taken away on a whim from those marked as other.
Sen. Tim Scott (R. SC) said he could only “pray” that the racist video post was a fake, because the alternative would mean grappling not just with the president’s racism but with his unassailable power to determine—like Linnaeus, like Falconbridge, like John—the relative value of all human—and nonhuman—life.
Akash Belsare is an assistant professor of English at the University of Illinois Springfield and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
How social media “likes” distort political leadership, fuel polarization, and shape democracy—plus why platforms need new civic feedback signals.
Getty Images, Peter Dazeley
We Need Disapproval Icons in Our Digital Public Square
Mar 04, 2026
In my work on leadership and followership, I’ve noticed something simple but powerful: followers shape leaders. Leaders adjust themselves in response to the signals they receive — not just in rallies and speeches, but increasingly in the digital sphere.
Social media “likes” and “hearts” send immediate feedback that can influence political behavior. In contrast, largely for commercial reasons, there are no equivalent icons to express dislikes or concerns.
Instead, one must enter the turbulent water of comments. These produce so much blowback that many otherwise engaged citizens avoid this option. A political leader or activist is left with a false view of the popularity of their ideas from the positive icons. This has consequences. Imagine a market in which only “buy” signals were possible, and not “sell” signals.
Anyone who has attended a political rally has seen this in action. A candidate says something that draws cheers. The crowd leans in. The candidate repeats the line, sharpens it, intensifies it, and hears more applause. Over time, that feedback loop pulls a leader further in a particular direction. Sometimes that produces clarity. More problematically, it produces excess that feeds the political hyper-polarization from which we now suffer.
This dynamic is not limited to one party. When strong rhetoric on the right gets rewarded, it escalates towards the authoritarian and “othering." When uncompromising language on the left gets amplified, it veers toward the dogmatic and shaming. Human beings respond to reinforcement. That is not ideology; it is social psychology.
Today, much of that distorting reinforcement happens on platforms such as X, Facebook, and Truth Social. Public figures receive immediate feedback. Approval takes one tap — a thumbs-up, a heart, or another positive icon. Disapproval, by contrast, requires a comment, which often means entering a highly distasteful fight.
The result is predictable. Applause is visible and measurable. Concern is either silent or argumentative. There is no simple way to say, “I’m not sure,” or “Slow down,” or “This is too much.” A distorted picture results that may become a basis for consequential action.
For those who care about institutional health, this engineered imbalance matters. In the mid-20th century, the Canadian media philosopher, Marshall McLuhan, summarized the phenomenon in the pithy saying, “The medium is the message." The design of our social media is further distorting our political and civic behavior.
In this dominant media form, we need ways to register concern without escalating into argument. In addition to a thumbs-up icon, why not have a thumbs-down option? Let’s go beyond that. Why not imagine additional civic signals? A question mark could mean, “I’m not sure about that.” A caution symbol could communicate, “Proceed carefully.” An extended outward palm could mean, “This is going too far.” A dial or gauge, “Turn it down a notch”.
Platforms design and test reaction buttons regularly. They experiment with small user groups, measure behavioral effects, and refine what works. These signals could be aggregated rather than personalized, allowing leaders to see the volume of concern without exposing individual users to retaliation. Responsible citizens can flock to the first major social media platform that adopts this, giving it and its competitors a commercial interest in supporting a civic virtue.
These enhancements will need to be insulated from manipulation by bot swarms and foreign dissimulators. They can be made more useful by offering an option to briefly explain why a follower is giving a signal, keeping this protected information.
If our public conversation increasingly takes place on privately designed platforms, then design choices carry public consequences. Democracy requires more than cheering with icons or mud wrestling in comments. It requires the steady ability of citizens to say: we have questions; we have concerns; let’s not go beyond the sensible to the dogmatic and extreme.
Given the omnipresence of social media, this is not a peripheral issue. It is a core design element for sustaining a coherent society and a functional representative democracy. Which platform will take the lead in better signal design, and who among us will follow them?
Ira Chaleff is the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers."
Keep ReadingShow less
The New Sovereigns - The Rise of the Billionaire-Diplomatic Complex
Mar 04, 2026
For the better part of three decades, if you wanted to understand the mechanics of American global power, you looked to the "Washington Consensus." It was a predictable, if often criticized, set of neoliberal prescriptions exported through formal, rules-based institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. It functioned on a basic Westphalian assumption: that the state was the primary actor in international relations, and that diplomacy was a conversation between governments.
Today, that consensus has not just been challenged; it has been superseded by a far more idiosyncratic and volatile architecture of power. We are witnessing the emergence of what is being labeled as the "Billionaire-Diplomatic Complex." In this new era, the traditional conduits of the U.S. State Department are increasingly bypassed by a handful of private actors who wield more leverage over global infrastructure and digital sovereignty than most middle-power nations. As the United States integrates proprietary technologies directly into the very marrow of the federal apparatus, the "official interface" of American statecraft is no longer a diplomat’s cable or a formal treaty. It is an algorithm developed by a private individual.
The events of early 2026 have brought this shift into sharp, almost jarring relief. In Washington, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is being framed by its proponents as a simple cost-cutting exercise. But look closer. This is not merely about trimming the fat; it is the wholesale integration of private-sector logic into the sovereign functions of the state. On February 11, it was revealed that government portals - specifically the nutrition-focused realfood.gov - were funneling users toward proprietary artificial intelligence models for essential civic advice.
This represents a profound structural pivot. We have moved beyond "public-private partnerships" into a world where a private individual’s technology becomes the official gateway to the American state. When a citizen interacts with their government, they are no longer just a constituent; they are a user on a platform owned by a sovereign-wealth billionaire.
Simultaneously, the traditional pillars of American soft power are undergoing a strategic reset dictated by personal business interests. We have seen a “bloodbath” of layoffs across storied media institutions, including the closure of vital foreign bureaus in Seoul and across the Middle East. This marks a strategic retreat from the civic mission these platforms once championed as the "eyes and ears" of the liberal order. In this "Post-Institutional" era, billionaires prioritize the protection of their primary empires - be it logistics, AI, or space contracts - over the survival of independent journalism that might complicate their global dealings or offend a foreign host government where they seek a factory permit.
This is not merely an American quirk. It is a transformation of the global unit of power. Across the world, we see billionaires conducting what can only be described as shadow foreign policy. Whether it is providing the satellite backbone for regional conflicts or tech moguls negotiating trade terms directly with rivals, the center of gravity has shifted. As the 2026 National Defense Strategy explicitly hints, the Pentagon is moving beyond procurement to a "skin-in-the-game" model, taking direct equity stakes in private tech firms to maintain national security. The combatants in the 21st century are no longer just flags and anthems; they are CEOs and proprietary code.
The danger here is not simply the concentration of wealth - though that is significant - but the erosion of democratic legitimacy. In a traditional republic, power is checked by elections, transparency, and the Senate’s power of advice and consent. The Billionaire-Diplomatic Complex operates outside these bounds. When a private citizen can unilaterally cut off a nation's communications or use a storied media outlet as a bargaining chip for federal contracts, the very concept of a "national interest" begins to dissolve.
This is being observed in the ongoing legal battles following the planned termination of 83% of USAID programs, where the courts are struggling to define where the public's right to oversight ends and a "private advisor’s" mandate begins. We also see this in the recent legal battles over the planned termination of USAID programs, where private advisers have been accused of directing foreign policy without oversight from the people’s representatives.
Perhaps the most telling sign of this crisis is that regulatory frameworks are failing to keep pace. While states like Texas and Florida are passing "FARA-lite" laws to curb foreign influence, they remain silent on the influence of domestic oligarchs who operate across borders. We are entering a post-Westphalian era where the state is no longer the sole actor. Instead, we see a hybrid system where billionaires act as sovereign entities, negotiating with governments as equals. This is the "Post-American World" in a way we did not anticipate: the nation-state is not being replaced by a new superpower, but outpaced by private power.
This "corporate statecraft" treats citizens as users and allies as vendors. It replaces the messy, slow process of diplomacy with the perceived efficiency of a "platform update," ignoring the fact that global stability requires the very nuance and long-term commitment that the market disdains.
Ultimately, this represents a profound challenge to democratic sovereignty. For allies accustomed to navigating a predictable, state-led American foreign policy, this privatization introduces a new layer of strategic risk. If the "American Century" is being restructured into a series of proprietary platforms, we must ask: can a rules-based order survive if the rules are written into the terms of service of a few private entities? The Westphalian state is not just being outpaced; it is being unbundled.
Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















