An ambient walk through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds in Washington D.C.
This piece originally appeared on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
An ambient walk through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds in Washington D.C.
This piece originally appeared on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks at the 128th Air Refueling Wing Hangar on July 08, 2026, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Vance traveled to Milwaukee to deliver remarks on the Trump administration's anti-fraud initiatives.
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin– Vice President J.D. Vance visited Milwaukee on Wednesday to promote the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud at the state and federal levels in programs like Medicare and SNAP.
Speaking inside an aircraft hangar at the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 128th Air Refueling Wing, in front of a banner reading “Protect Taxpayer Dollars,” Vance cast the anti‑fraud efforts to protect both taxpayers and the programs themselves.
“We’re here to talk about fraud, we’re here to talk about protecting your taxpayer money, and most importantly, we’re here to talk about protecting the programs that exist that are funded by the generosity of the people in this room and that ought to go to the people they’re meant for, and not to make fraudsters rich,” Vance said.
During his speech, the vice president pointed to Milwaukee as an example, highlighting the case of Markita Barnes, a Milwaukee woman convicted of stealing more than $2.3 million through Medicaid fraud tied to prenatal care and sentenced earlier this year. Barnes was first indicted in 2023, during the Biden administration.
Vance also highlighted the administration’s efforts to crack down on suspicious medical equipment billing and skin‑graft reimbursements and announced new investigations into alleged fraud in the H‑1B visa program, arguing that “American jobs ought to go to American workers and not foreign fraudsters.”
Vance was joined by Dr. Mehmet Oz, who heads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, along with several Republican candidates for office, including U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden, as well as Tom Tiffany, the GOP nominee for governor.
In his speech, Tiffany said he would “root out fraud” and promised to audit the entire government if elected governor. He called on Tony Evers to release SNAP benefits enrollment lists, a cry he has repeated since last year.
“We need the other side to stop turning a blind eye to this fraud that’s going on in Wisconsin,” Tiffany said
When asked by a local reporter what would happen if Evers did not turn over the SNAP rolls, Vance said it showed where Evers’ allegiance lay.
“He cares more about protecting illegal aliens than he does the good citizens of Wisconsin. It’s a scam, and it has to stop,” Vance said.
Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback did not address the vice president’s remarks but attacked presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany for saying that there would be “zero fraud” under his administration.
“Newsflash: ‘all of state government’ is already ‘audited’ by the Legislative Audit Bureau as overseen by the Republican-controlled Legislature, which you would think someone who wants to run state government should already know,” Cudaback wrote on X.
While Republicans focus on tightening eligibility for public benefits, the numbers behind FoodShare show how many Wisconsinites rely on the program.
SNAP, or FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides benefits to US citizens and qualified immigrants with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. In March 2026, 653,721 Wisconsinites received FoodShare benefits, or about 11% of the population. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 60% of SNAP participants are families with children. Although it is a federally funded program, there is no legal requirement for state governments to share the information of SNAP enrollees.
In 2025, under Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the federal government created new restrictions on SNAP benefits for refugees, asylees and other legally present immigrants. The restrictions took effect in Wisconsin on July 1. Under the new rules, only refugees and asylees who have obtained green cards remain eligible for benefits.
According to reporting by Wisconsin Watch, these changes are putting pressure on Wisconsin refugee support organizations and food banks, which worry affected families won’t be able to make up the gap between lost benefits and the help they can provide.
In his speech, Vance cast the Trump administration’s approach as a necessary tool to ensure those most in need receive benefits, warning that “when… money that ought by rights go to feed poor children, but instead goes to fraudsters, we destroy the social fabric of the United States of America.” But in Wisconsin, eligibility for programs like SNAP is shrinking, leaving many families in need without access.
Abbey Osborn is a journalist based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Awards recognize congressional offices that demonstrate excellence in public service. While the headlines often focus on conflict, this year's winners remind us that strong leadership, thoughtful management, and a commitment to continuous improvement strengthen both Congress and the constituents it serves
Constituent service remains one of Congress's core functions, and this year's winners of the Best of Constituent Service Award demonstrate that excellence requires exceptional organizations and internal infrastructure. For example, Senator Adam Schiff's office (D-CA) streamlined processes by creating online forms for casework authorization and privacy releases. This system allows constituents to submit requests in minutes, streamlining a process that traditionally required extensive time and resources, resulting in more efficient casework intake
Meaningful communication is essential to building trust between Members of Congress and the people they represent. This year's winners of the Best of Constituent Correspondence & Engagement Award found innovative ways to strengthen those connections. Representative Mike Flood’s office (R-NE) strategically organizes mobile office hours throughout the district each quarter and ensures concerns raised there are routed to the appropriate staff within 24 hours.
For many constituents, a visit to the Capitol is their most personal interaction with Congress, and this year’s winners of the Best of Constituent Experience in D.C. Award demonstrate how thoughtful planning can make those moments meaningful. For instance, Representative Val Hoyle's office (D-OR) turns constituent visits into memorable events through Member-led evening Capitol tours that begin with a reception-style gathering in the office, featuring home-state food and beverage products, and conclude on the House floor.
Innovation is most valuable when it helps congressional offices better serve their constituents, and this year's winners of the Best of Innovation & Modernization Award showed that modernization is most powerful when it solves practical problems. For example, Representative August Pfluger's office (R-TX) developed the "Pfluger Bot," an AI-powered tool integrated with their internal communication system that automatically categorizes incoming constituent correspondence and routes it appropriately. This technology frees staff to spend more time on constituent work.
At a time when partisan divisions undermine internal collaboration and progress, this year's winners of the Best of Bipartisan Collaboration Award demonstrate the value of sustained relationship-building across political lines. Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA) provides a clear example of such work by participating in a bipartisan prayer group as an avenue to develop meaningful working relationships with colleagues from the opposite party.
The strongest congressional offices are often distinguished by their internal dynamics, and the Excellence in Congressional Management Award recognizes offices that foster effective leadership, strong organizational practices, and a culture of accountability. Representative Ashley Hinson's office (R-IA) promotes transparency and accountability through weekly team-wide reports detailing constituent service metrics, legislative activity, communications performance, and office accomplishments.
The Chief of Staff of the Year Award honors the steady leaders behind every successful congressional office. Chiefs build teams, mentor staff, solve problems before they become crises, and create the culture that allows offices to thrive. While their work is rarely visible to the public, its impact is felt every day by Members, staff, and constituents.
This year's winners tell an encouraging story about Congress. Excellence is built through thoughtful leadership, dedicated public servants, strong organizational structures, and a shared commitment to improving the way congressional offices serve their constituents. These offices remind us that while the challenges facing Congress are enormous, extraordinary work is taking place every day to strengthen the First Branch.
The winners of the 2026 Democracy Awards include:
Best of U.S. Senate Constituent Service
Best of U.S. House Constituent Service
Best of Constituent Correspondence & Outreach
Best Constituent Experience in D.C.
Best of Innovation & Modernization
Best of Bipartisan Collaboration
Excellence in Congressional Management
Chief of Staff of the Year
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
In the last year alone, expert surveys, such as those done by Varieties of Democracy Institute and Freedom House, show the health of democracy in the United States is on a continued downward trajectory. Americans are also sensing this weakening of democracy in the US.

According to the 2025 Democracy for All Project from the Kettering Foundation and Gallup, two-thirds of Americans agree that “Democracy is the best form of government.” Americans are much more pessimistic, however, on whether democracy is currently flourishing in the United States. Just under 24% believe US democracy is doing “moderately” or “very well,” despite what they may think about current political leadership. And only 30.6% agree or strongly agree that “Our government’s laws and policies are careful to uphold freedom and justice for all.” These data points suggest that there is a stark contrast between how Americans view democracy in the abstract and how it presently exists.
Three Explanations
Hidden within these numbers, however, is variation across the population according to demographic differences. Political partisanship is one obvious explanation, but the 2025 Democracy for All Project survey allows us to explore other possible factors shaping Americans’ experiences of democracy.
Explanation #1: Generational Differences. As seen in the table below, while two-thirds of Americans believe democracy is the best form of government, there are dramatic differences across generations. Gen Z is least likely to agree with this statement (54%) while Baby Boomers (78%) and the Silent Generation (89%) are most likely to agree. Gen Z is again least likely to believe US democracy is doing “moderately” or “very well,” but the differences compared to other generations are much less stark. The same is true for the belief that our laws and policies uphold freedom and justice for all.

Explanation #2: Political Party Affiliation. Another likely explanation for dissatisfaction with democracy is political partisanship. Americans’ views of the direction of the country consistently flip depending on if the president in office shares their political affiliation. However, if partisanship alone drives support for democracy, we would expect to see the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats. Both Republicans (70%) and Democrats (75%) agree democracy is the best form of government. Independents (56%) are the least convinced. The hypothesis of Republicans being on one end of the spectrum and Democrats on the other fails in this instance.
However, when asked whether US democracy is doing “moderately” or “very well,” or if “Our government’s laws and policies are careful to uphold freedom and justice for all,” Republicans and Democrats are on opposite ends. However, more young voters identify as Democrats, so the differences that appear to be based on age could actually be due to party.
Forty-eight percent of Republicans believe democracy in the US is doing well compared to just 15% of Independents and only 9% of Democrats. Forty-seven percent of Republicans believe our laws uphold freedom and justice for all, while only 23% of Independents and 22% of Democrats answer similarly. Again, these results are unsurprising as views of US democracy across political party often hinge on which political party is occupying the White House.
Explanation #3: Religious Affiliation. Religion is a third consideration for the differences among Americans concerning the health of democracy in the US. As the table above shows, when asked about whether democracy is the best form of government, between 60–70% of each religious group agrees it is, including Americans who are unaffiliated, labeled “No Religion.”
However, like political party affiliation, more differences emerge when asked about the state of democracy. Over 40% of Evangelical Protestants, the highest of all religious groups, believe US democracy is doing well and that our laws and policies uphold freedom and justice for all. Catholics are the next highest on both questions, with Mainline Protestants following. Black Protestants (16%) are the least likely to believe US democracy is doing well. Americans of No Religion (17%) are least likely to agree our laws and policies uphold freedom and justice for all.
Determining the Relative Importance of Age, Politics, and Religion
Differences across generations, political parties, and religious traditions seem to shape perceptions of democracy. But are the generational differences because younger people are more likely to be Democrats? Or are Evangelical Protestants more supportive of our current political moment because more of them are Republicans? Statistical modeling helps us determine which of these explanations is still important even after we account for the influence of other possible explanations.
The first figure below shows the results of a regression model that is predicting agreement with the statement, “Democracy is the best form of government.”
The beauty of this statistical test is that the results for each possible explanation are controlling for the influence of all other explanations included in the model. So, if we find that being a Republican is linked with a greater likelihood of agreement, that relationship exists even when we account for someone’s race, gender, education level, income level, religious tradition, or age.
Here’s how to read the results: If the horizontal blue bar for a row is entirely to the right of the vertical dotted red line, it means people in this group are more likely to agree with the statement “Democracy is the best form of government.” If the horizontal blue bar for a row is entirely to the left of the vertical dotted red line, it means people in this group are less likely to agree. If any part of a horizontal blue bar intersects with the vertically dotted red line, it means this measure has no discernible effect.
An important note: the generational categories (Millennial, Gen X, Baby Boomers, Silent Generation) are all being compared to respondents who are Gen Z, while party categories of Democrat and Independent are each being compared to Republicans, and the religious tradition categories are all being compared to Evangelical Protestants. Any of the groups could be a control group or an excluded category. The results would change as the groups in the figure would then all be compared to the different excluded category. This figure is not showing whether Baby Boomers are different from Gen X, or if Democrats are different from Independents.

As we see in the figure above, even when we account for respondents’ political party and religious affiliation (including the other measures mentioned in the note), Americans in the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, and Gen X are all more likely to agree that democracy is the best form of government compared to Gen Z. Millennials, however, are no different in their views compared to Gen Z, as seen by the horizontal blue bar intersecting with the vertical red dotted line.
For political party, we see that Democrats are more likely to agree that democracy is the best form of government when compared to Republicans. Independents, however, are less likely than Republicans to agree.
And interestingly, once we account for the influence of other possible explanations, there are no statistical differences between Evangelical Protestants and all other religious traditions. All of the horizontal blue bars for each religious tradition intersect the vertical red dotted line. The differences in percentages across religious tradition are due to other underlying factors, like generational category and political party.

Running the same statistical test on whether Americans are likely to agree that US democracy is working well uncovers a similar finding. As we see in the figure above, all of the horizontal blue bars for each generational category intersect the vertical red dotted line. This means that Gen Z respondents are no different in how they are answering this question compared to older generations. This is markedly different than the first figure.
Both Democrats and Independents, however, are much less likely to agree US democracy is working well when compared to Republicans. And remember, this dramatic difference across political parties is present even when we account for many other possible explanations.
However, partisanship is not the only factor. Mainline Protestants and those with No Religion are both less likely than Evangelical Protestants to agree US democracy is doing well. The other religious traditions are no different than Evangelicals.

Focusing on the likelihood of agreement that our laws and policies uphold freedom and justice for all, there are again no meaningful differences between Gen Z respondents and older generations. Democrats and Independents are less likely to agree our laws and policies uphold freedom and justice for all when compared to Republicans. And Mainline Protestants, Black Protestants, and those with No Religion are all less likely to agree with this statement when compared to Evangelical Protestants.
Taken together, these statistical tests help us see that the different views of democracy that exist across generations, political parties, and religious traditions are sometimes genuine and at other times due to the influence of other underlying explanations.
When we imagine how or why some Americans might have a dim view of democracy, we need to be aware that there are multiple reasons why that might be, and those reasons may not be the most obvious on the surface.
It is imperative we continue to gather and analyze quality data to understand what is true about our collective reality so we can best collectively respond to the current political and social moment in defense of democracy.
This article was originally published as part of From Many, We, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.
Andrew L. Whitehead is professor of sociology at Indiana University Indianapolis, codirector of the Association of Religion Data Archives, and a Charles F. Kettering Foundation Research Fellow. Follow him on Bluesky and Substack.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.
Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.
The Bureaucratic Inversion: under standard civic frameworks, the government is responsible for maintaining accurate rolls while facilitating voter registration. The SAVE Act requires individual citizens to affirmatively prove their fitness to participate to state authorities, using specific, hard-to-obtain documentation.
Eradicating Accessible Channels: by effectively eliminating modern, accessible pathways—such as online registration or mail-in applications, the bill mandates cumbersome, in-person registration requirements. This runs directly counter to the democratic evolution of a republic meant to expand, rather than restrict, the public square.
The Re-imposition of Wealth and Status Barriers: The Framers explicitly designed the U.S. Constitution to avoid creating a rigid, aristocratic caste system based on wealth or administrative privilege. Critics argue that the SAVE Act reinstates these exact systemic exclusions by introducing steep socioeconomic hurdles.
Modern-Day Economic Barriers: According to analyses by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Center for American Progress, more than 21 million eligible American citizens lack immediate access to the necessary documentation of citizenship, such as a valid passport or birth certificate.
Disproportionate Impact: procuring these documents introduces significant financial costs and transit burdens, acting as a functional poll tax that disproportionately disenfranchises low-income families, rural communities, students, and marginalized groups. This contradicts the constitutional evolution toward universal suffrage.
The Principle of Federalism and State Sovereignty: the Framers explicitly left the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" to state legislatures under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, reserving federal intervention as a backstop.
The Framers' Vision: influenced by a deep distrust of centralized national power, the Framers designed a decentralized system in which states retain primary authority over voter qualifications and registration processes.
The SAVE Act Approach: The SAVE Act overrides state discretion by imposing nationwide federal requirements for voter registration. It mandates that states collect specific Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC)—such as passports or birth certificates—and forces states to submit their voter registration lists to the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Critics argue that this top-down command shifts election authority away from local administrators toward federal agencies.
Separation of Powers and Executive Branch Control: In Federalist No. 47, James Madison cautioned that the accumulation of all powers in the same hands is the definition of tyranny. The Framers meticulously separated powers to prevent any single branch from controlling the machinery of democracy.
The Framers' Vision: election administration was intentionally kept independent of the federal executive branch's centralized security apparatus.
The SAVE Act Approach: under the active versions of the legislation, the federal government routes election roll verification through DHS databases. Opponents voice concerns that this places local election control under a politicized, cabinet-level agency rather than an independent regulatory body. Furthermore, current political pressure to tie the bill's passage to unrelated executive and intelligence priorities—such as delaying the confirmation of the Director of National Intelligence or leveraging the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—represents a transactional use of legislative power that tests traditional institutional boundaries.
Infringing on Local Autonomy and Civic Stewardship: The architecture of federalism was meticulously crafted by the Framers to prevent a centralized federal authority from dictating the internal civic mechanics of individual states. The SAVE Act upends this structure through aggressive federal mandates.
Federal Overreach: The SAVE America Act requires states to surrender their complete voter registration lists to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This strips local authorities of their traditional oversight and subjects state election systems to centralized federal scrubbing and error-prone databases.
Criminalizing Civic Duty: The legislation introduces harsh criminal penalties and imprisonment for local election workers who commit administrative errors. This punitive approach intimidates the everyday volunteers and civil servants necessary to keep elections running, undermining the baseline of civic trust essential to a healthy republic.
The Verdict: the American Experiment was designed to prove that a free people could govern themselves without top-down subjugation. The SAVE Act, by codifying deep-seated suspicion into federal law, treats the citizen not as the ultimate source of constitutional authority, but as a potential imposter who must seek state clearance to exercise their birthright.
An effective, trust-building alternative to the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act must reconcile two foundational principles of the American Experiment: popular sovereignty (ensuring every eligible citizen can seamlessly vote) and the rule of law (ensuring only eligible citizens do so).
While the SAVE Act seeks to mandate strict, in-person documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) at registration, this framework risks disenfranchising tens of million eligible Americans who lack immediate access to passports or physical birth certificates. A trust-building alternative shifts the logistical burden away from the individual and places it onto technological modernization, state-federal cooperation, and localized transparency.
A Modernization Alternative, Aligned with the American Experiment
Federalism & Decentralization: empower states to manage their own elections while providing federal tools and data access to optimize security.
Consent of the Governed: place the burden of verification on the state to maximize lawful participation.
Protection of Civil Servants: support election workers with clear guidelines, better training, and automated verification tools.
Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.