Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

United Nations day is today

United Nations day is today
Getty Images

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Today, October 24, is United Nations Day, a holiday that few people know exists. The day is a holiday that commemorates the anniversary of the U.N. Charter, an institution established nearly 80 years ago in 1945. At that time the charter was signed by 50 countries with the goal of maintaining international peace and security and to prevent future wars.


Former UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold said it best in describing the role of the U.N. when he said, “The U.N. was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell.”

One would think at this time when the world is experiencing both the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East that there would be universal support worldwide and from the United States for the important role that the U.N. plays to foster world peace.

Yet, that is not entirely the case.

While an August 2023 study from Pew Research found that people across 24 countries continue to view the UN favorably, the data in the United States suggests that the favorability varies based on their political leanings. The report indicates that in America only 34% of people from the right view the U.N. favorably while 77% of the people from the left agree.

Former President Trump certainly has played a role in influencing opinions of Republicans about the U.N. During his term of office he repeatedly tied his policy of “America First” to the U.N’s multilateralism approach to resolving climate issues and lessening conflict. The Trump administration threatened to pull out of the U.N. Human Rights Council on several occasions as well as withdrawing from negotiations on the Global Compact for Migration. Additionally, the Trump Administration's plan in October 2017 to withdraw from membership in the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by January 2019 and move it to permanent observer status certainly has added to the growing unfavorable view of the U.N. amongst Republicans

Few argue that the U.N. has shown an inability to address global armed conflict. That is indeed the case today as the Security Council has failed in its effort to pause or end the Israel-Gaza crisis in a recent vote. Most often cited as the cause for this inability is the Security Council’s undemocratic structure that gives one of the five permanent members of the U.N (i.e., the United States, China, France, Russia and The United Kingdom) to veto any resolution.

While there is little doubt that the U.N. has failed in many ways, and has a bureaucracy that needs to be streamlined, the institution serves other critically important functions. The U.N. saves millions of lives and boosts health and education across the world through many of its aid programs. The U.N.’s children’s organization, UNICEF, to this day provides education and a path to a better life for millions, as well as development programs that are instrumental in helping third world countries. With respect to providing aid in Gaza, planes carrying aid from Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Tunisia have landed in Sinai’s El Arish airport in recent days and a convoy of more than 100 trucks is headed to Gaza according to the Egyptian Red Crescent.

In the area of human rights, the U.N in 1945 created a comprehensive body of human rights law and the the Human Rights Council monitors and coordinates efforts to protect and promote human rights through education and awareness campaigns. Supporters of the U.N. point to the successes in leading a number of peacekeeping missions over the years while critics argue that it has failed miserably to intervene in a timely manner to prevent genocide on many occasions, using Rwanda and Bosnia as examples.

On this United Nations Day, let us reflect on the last 79 years of accomplishments and failures of the United Nations so the dream of world peace can someday become a reality. It is time we heed the words of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who stated at the opening of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly:

“The world needs statesmanship, not gamesmanship and gridlock to resolve global challenges and tensions. We cannot effectively address problems as they are if institutions don’t reflect the world as it is.”

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less