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.
Video: Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
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
Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson presides over the House during the opening ceremony of the 89th Texas Legislative Session at the capitol in Austin, Texas, on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025. Records show Nelson raised concerns about the accuracy of a federal data tool her office used to flag potential noncitizen voters.
(Eddie Gaspar / The Texas Tribune)
Texas secretary of state raised concerns about the federal tool used to flag potential noncitizen voters
Jul 28, 2026
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office used a controversial federal data tool to flag more than 2,000 potential noncitizens on the state’s voter roll last year. But in an April letter to federal immigration officials, Secretary of State Jane Nelson raised concerns about its accuracy.
In that letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, obtained as part of a public records request by Democracy Forward — a nonprofit legal organization advocating for democracy through litigation and public policy — and shared with Votebeat, Nelson said her office wanted “to make sure that you are using the most accurate data,” and asked agency officials to notify her office if they are able to “confirm the citizenship of any individuals previously identified as non-citizens” in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system.
Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said the agency has not yet received a response from USCIS. Nelson resigned from her role last month. Her last day is July 17, and the governor has not yet appointed a replacement.
The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls. Texas was notably among the first states to start using the program to check voter eligibility.
But experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE program’s accuracy, and officials in multiple states have said it incorrectly flagged at least some citizens.
“Texas’s use of DHS’s illegally-expanded SAVE system has always raised significant risks of voter disenfranchisement, given that system’s known inaccuracies—and these records prove that state election officials are concerned about this as well,” said Dan McGrath, special counsel, oversight at Democracy Forward, in an emailed statement to Votebeat.
States’ use of the revamped SAVE tool is currently in limbo in the wake of multiple court rulings. In June, a federal judge blocked the overhaul of the SAVE program, saying it violated privacy and voting rights. That ruling prompted the Trump administration to pause certain features in the SAVE system to comply. Earlier this month, though, a different federal judge ordered Homeland Security to restore access to the revamped system for four states — Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Indiana — due to an earlier settlement agreement.
The rulings also do not prevent Texas or other states that previously used the revamped program from continuing to investigate the status of any potential noncitizens it flagged on the voter roll. In Texas, those investigations are still ongoing, but Nelson’s letter pointed to the fact that they have raised questions about SAVE’s accuracy.
“As my staff has informed you, county voter registrars have obtained citizenship documentation from some Texas voters who were identified in the SAVE system as potential Non-citizens,” Nelson’s letter says. “We are aware of instances in which state driver’s license records inaccurately reflect a person’s current citizenship status. In addition, we have learned of individuals who were mistakenly registered to vote—such as due to a clerical error by a voter registrar—even though they acknowledged on a voter registration application that they are not U.S. citizens.”
Nelson added that those examples are why her office urges county election officials to “use all available sources to confirm a person’s citizenship status.”
She praised the Trump administration’s move to make the tool free for states to use and said SAVE has “proven to be a critically important data set,” describing it as one of the many sources her office will use to ensure only qualified voters cast ballots.
Additional records obtained in the records request also show that Nelson’s staff in March met with Homeland Security officials, suggesting the meeting touched on the questions Nelson raised in her letter.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office last fall sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against the SAVE program. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the eligibility of the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.
County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though it isn’t clear exactly how many. They’ve also found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through the Texas Department of Public Safety, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office in December told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate. That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
In May, Votebeat reported that the secretary of state’s office later asked DPS to check the list of 2,724 potential noncitizens flagged by the SAVE program against its records to verify whether any of them had already provided proof of citizenship. In a meeting with election officials, Christina Adkins, the agency’s elections division director, said there were “discrepancies” between DPS data and the data provided by the SAVE.
Pierce said DPS has provided the data the agency requested, and that state officials are reviewing it and “will send to counties soon.”
Texas secretary of state raised concerns about the federal tool used to flag potential noncitizen voters was first published by VoteBeat Texas and was republished with permission.
Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The 50: Tennessee
In Franklin, Tennessee, Civic Trust Isn’t a Motto — It’s a Movement
Jul 27, 2026
FRANKLIN, Tennessee — One of the nation’s fastest‑growing cities — has once again earned national recognition for its civic spirit. On June 28, the National Civic League named Franklin one of ten 2026 All‑America Cities, honoring its work to strengthen trust, belonging, and community participation. The win marks Franklin’s second All‑America City designation in six years, and at the center of both efforts is Franklin Tomorrow, the city’s independent community‑visioning nonprofit.
I visited Franklin to film an episode of The Fulcrum's award-winning series The 50: Voices of a Nation, exploring how the city’s civic spirit and community leadership continue to shape its national story.
- YouTube youtu.be
Founded to engage residents, foster collaboration, and advocate for a shared community vision, Franklin Tomorrow has become a civic engine for the region. Its programs — from Breakfast with the Mayors to FrankTalks, Get Fit Franklin, and the Youth Advisory Council — create regular, accessible spaces for people to connect across neighborhoods, backgrounds, and viewpoints. In announcing Franklin’s award, National Civic League president Doug Linkhart praised the city’s commitment to year‑round engagement, noting that “engagement doesn’t stop after the polls close,” and highlighting Franklin Tomorrow’s role in expanding youth participation through the Healthy Democracy Project.
Franklin’s delegation to Denver included Mayor Ken Moore, Franklin Tomorrow CEO Mindy Tate, board members, and Youth Advisory Council representatives. Tate described the experience as transformative, saying, “This trip really awakened in me a deepening sense of civic pride in our community… the spirit exemplified by each city and enthusiasm for their work in building and strengthening civic trust was like nothing I have ever seen.” Youth leaders echoed that sentiment, explaining how the Healthy Democracy Project aims to connect major groups across Franklin to educate, inspire, and encourage civic involvement “in a healthy way.” Another student emphasized the importance of embracing disagreement, saying, “If you think your way is the only way and you shut other people out, there’s no room to grow. Debate creates the obstacles you need to solve — that’s how you make communities stronger.”
Franklin’s award presentation centered on “Building Civic Trust,” symbolized by a physical model constructed piece by piece by the delegation. The metaphor reflects Franklin Tomorrow’s long‑term approach: small, consistent acts of connection that accumulate into a stronger civic fabric. The organization’s mission — helping to keep Franklin special for future generations — now carries national validation. With new momentum behind youth engagement, Franklin Tomorrow is preparing to expand its programming, deepen partnerships, and continue shaping a city where civic life is not just an obligation, but a shared identity.
As Franklin grows, Franklin Tomorrow’s work remains rooted in a simple but powerful idea: a thriving hometown is built through participation. Whether through a monthly mayoral forum, a neighborhood volunteer project, or a youth‑led democracy initiative, the organization continues to model what inclusive civic leadership looks like. And now, with a second All‑America City award, Franklin stands as a national example of what happens when a community chooses connection over division — and invests in the people who will carry that vision forward.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Josh Hokit on April 11, 2026 in Miami, Florida.
(Photo by Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)
As Cruelty Normalizes, America’s Authoritarian Drift Deepens
Jul 27, 2026
It happened in a moment so small that many viewers may have missed it. After a UFC fight, athlete Josh Hokit used his victory speech not to celebrate his win but to demean former First Lady Michelle Obama, repeating a long‑running racist and sexist trope by calling her a man. Standing beside him, the President of the United States did not correct him. He did not defend a woman who served this country with dignity. He did not reject the bigotry embedded in the remark. Instead, he offered a smirk — a half‑smile of approval that traveled farther than any microphone could carry.
That smirk mattered. It was a signal. And millions recognized it for exactly what it was.
This is how authoritarian drift works in modern democracies. Not always through shouted commands or sweeping decrees, but through the quiet permission of a leader who rewards cruelty and refuses to challenge it. A leader who lets others cross the line, then communicates approval through body language, silence, or a knowing grin.
And this moment did not stand alone. In November 2025, aboard Air Force One, the president told Bloomberg White House correspondent Catherine Lucey to “Quiet, piggy” when she asked about the Epstein files — a remark captured on video and widely reported. It was not the first time he had singled out a woman reporter for humiliation, nor the last. Outlets such as NPR and The Independent have documented that when challenged by women, especially on topics he wants to avoid, his attacks become more personal, targeting appearance, demeanor, or intelligence. The pattern is consistent across press briefings, Air Force One gaggles, and impromptu exchanges.
What happened at the UFC event was not random. Michelle Obama represents Black excellence, female leadership, education, competence, and dignity. She is a counter‑model to the president’s style of leadership and remains one of the most admired public figures in the country. For people who see politics as a zero‑sum identity battle, she is not just a former First Lady — she is a symbol of everything they believe he is fighting against. When authoritarian‑leaning leaders attack someone repeatedly, supporters often adopt the same target as a way to show loyalty. The fighter may well have believed he was pleasing the president. That is a common dynamic in leader–follower psychology.
And the specific insult he used has a long, ugly history. Calling Black women “men” is a racist, misogynistic trope used to strip femininity, deny humanity, undermine dignity, and signal dominance. It has been used against Serena Williams, Michelle Obama, and other prominent Black women. The fighter didn’t invent it. He pulled it from a well‑worn script. And the president’s silence — his smirk — reinforced that script. The remark was unacceptable, but Americans must have the courage to convey that message to him.
What troubles me most is not only the president’s behavior, but the reaction it receives. At rallies and public events, I have watched women cheer as he demeans other women. Some interpret his aggression as strength. Others separate the behavior from the politics, insisting they dislike the insults but approve of the policies. Still others internalize the attacks as deserved, believing he only targets people who “go after him.” And in large crowds, cruelty becomes contagious; people cheer because the crowd cheers. When supporters excuse, minimize, rationalize, or applaud cruelty — whether by calling it strength, dismissing it as irrelevant, blaming the targets, or simply following the emotional current — they are not just responding to the drift. They are normalizing it.
And here is the contradiction that should stop us cold: parents teach their children not to call their siblings names. Teachers intervene when students demean one another. Principals enforce consequences for verbal abuse. School districts write policies defining harassment, intimidation, and bullying. State and federal civil rights laws require schools to maintain environments free from discrimination and verbal harassment, especially when it targets protected classes. The U.S. Department of Education explicitly warns against harassment, bullying, and retaliation.
Yet on the world’s largest stage, the president models the very behavior schools are legally required to prevent.
The unstated messages we are sending to children are devastating. When the president mocks women, demeans reporters, or smirks at bigotry while adults cheer, children learn that cruelty is leadership, humiliation is entertainment, and power excuses behavior that would get any student suspended. They see a country that tells them not to bully while its highest officeholder models bullying on a global stage. They see schools enforcing anti‑harassment laws while adults excuse the same behavior in politics. And they learn the most dangerous lesson of all: that rules are for the powerless, not the powerful. That is how democratic norms erode — not only through what leaders say, but through what children come to believe is acceptable.
This cultural shift is not happening in a vacuum. As one analysis put it, “hate used to hide in private. Now it shows up first.” Social media rewards the most extreme expressions of contempt with attention and validation, making cruelty feel normal, even desirable. Stress, inequality, and “us vs. them” thinking lower empathy thresholds, making cruelty easier to commit. When marginalized groups are treated as disposable or “waste products” of society, cruelty becomes a tool of exclusion and control. Repeated exposure without moral or legal consequences desensitizes the public. And when political leaders use cruelty as a political tool, the culture adjusts to it.
Stopping this cultural slide will not be easy because the cruelty is coming from the top and performed on a public stage. But the fact that it is difficult does not mean it is impossible. Congress has a role to play by enforcing norms of conduct and refusing to reward leaders who traffic in humiliation. Civic leaders — from mayors to school board members to faith leaders — can model the dignity and restraint that national politics has abandoned. Parents can remind children that name‑calling is wrong, no matter who does it, and that power does not excuse cruelty. Schools can continue enforcing the anti‑harassment policies that federal civil rights laws require, even when national figures violate the very standards the U.S. Department of Education promotes. And citizens can stop accepting, excusing, or normalizing behavior they would never tolerate from a child, a coworker, or a neighbor.
Experts who study political communication emphasize that reducing name‑calling requires a combination of personal accountability, institutional discipline, and cultural change. They warn that insults erode trust, deepen polarization, and make leaders appear unworthy of the offices they hold. They recommend shifting political debate back to issues rather than labels, setting norms for respectful discourse, and teaching the public — especially young people — to recognize the harm that contempt‑based politics inflicts on democracy. None of these steps alone will solve the problem. But together, they form a path back toward a political culture that values truth over spectacle and dignity over derision.
Ultimately, we know what is right and what is wrong. We teach it to children every day. The question is whether we will demand the same from the adults who lead us. The work of repairing our political culture begins with refusing to normalize what we know is harmful — and insisting that our leaders meet the same standards we expect of our children.
I imagine an America where cruelty is no longer a political language, where dignity is not optional, and where children grow up seeing leaders who reflect the values we teach them. I imagine an America without authoritarian drift — and I believe we can still reclaim it.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who has served as a teacher specialist, human relations coordinator, and adjunct instructor at the university and community college levels. She writes about democracy, political culture, and civic responsibility, with a focus on how public behavior shapes what children learn about leadership.
Keep ReadingShow less
Supporters of Nicolas Maduro burn a United States flag during a gathering near Miraflores palace after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in the early hours on January 03, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela.
(Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)
The Roots We Planted: How U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped the Immigration Crisis
Jul 27, 2026
“Right now, we have more workers than at any time in the history of our country…And people want to come in, and in some cases, they want to take advantage of that, and that’s okay,” President Donald Trump said in a 2018 statement. “And we want them to come in, but they have to come in through merit.”
These narratives paint a vivid picture of America’s struggle with immigration: a "city on a hill" slowly becoming overrun by foreign nationals, purportedly due to open-border policies. The rhetoric suggests the United States suffers from its own success, attracting immigrants who arrive in search of "government handouts" or to evade criminal charges.
According to the Commonwealth Institute, 3 million people in the United States had refugee or political asylum status as of 2016. Many more arrive fleeing natural disasters and violence that do not qualify for "political asylum." Some immigration opponents argue that those fleeing difficult situations should remain in their home countries to effect change. While this is a hopeful perspective, it fails to account for the historical factors that drive migration to the U.S.
The argument assumes that populations in disadvantaged countries possess the infrastructure and capacity to catalyze significant change at a low personal cost. However, in many nations, gang violence, government corruption, and perilous living conditions preclude the possibility of citizens "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps."
Acknowledging the humanitarian drivers of migration is only the first step. Research consistently demonstrates a clear link between U.S. foreign policy trends and immigration rates.
Migration increases from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras as recently as the 2000s are deeply connected to U.S.-backed peace agreements in the 1990s. These exoduses stem from the pursuit of neoliberal privatization and "market-friendly" economic policies that undermined progress toward sustainable social peace. Furthermore, foreign investment in extractive sectors displaced rural and Indigenous populations.
The policies of major international institutions—the U.S. government, in particular—exacerbated these trends, leaving people without livelihoods and in danger. Criminal gangs and drug-related violence are manifestations of these underlying processes, which drive waves of "survival migration."
El Salvador serves as a helpful case study when examining U.S. intervention during the Cold War. Scholars have analyzed how U.S. support for the Salvadoran government during its civil war, followed by enforcement-centric immigration policies, created an environment that compelled Salvadorans to flee—a trend that continues today.
El Salvador also serves as a critical example, illustrative of broader U.S. policies toward North Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) and Latin America as a whole.
As Amanda Dixon writes in her research on the intersecting causes of immigration: “The failure of both the Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton administrations to consider the interconnectedness of their foreign and domestic agendas exacerbated the issue of irregular immigration from Central America.”
Research has also illustrated a clear causal relationship between the U.S.-backed Contra War in Nicaragua and an influx of Nicaraguan immigrants into the U.S.
Further, U.S. influence contributed to the Latin American debt crisis, which caused several economies to plunge. Domestic causes of the crisis can be traced to fiscal deficits incurred between 1978 and 1982 and the expansionary monetary policies used to finance them. U.S. commercial banks pushed loans on Latin American countries, creating heavy debt obligations. Subsequently, wealthy countries, including the U.S., raised interest rates to fight inflation, which skyrocketed borrowing costs for Latin America and exacerbated economic conditions that led many to seek a brighter future in the U.S. today.
These historical examples are often viewed as niche or contrarian interests. While significant, they have virtually no impact on how we evaluate current immigration policy beyond a reactive hope that "that doesn’t happen again."
Yet, the U.S. government shows no indication of altering its foreign intervention strategies to mitigate harm or reduce migration, particularly in Latin America.
Operation Absolute Resolve ousted Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, leading to the release of political prisoners and sparking a brief era of optimism. However, Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, assumed power, and no significant regime change appears imminent. Venezuelan funds were subsequently routed through Qatar, which gifted a new Air Force One plane to President Trump, and the New York Times has revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has effectively been managing the country.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also made clear his intention to pursue regime change in Cuba, which has been under U.S. embargo since the 1960s.
Similarly, President Trump has directed significant capital into Argentina to support political allies. The Trump administration intervened financially in the October 2025 Argentine midterm elections by tying a massive economic bailout to the electoral success of Argentine President Javier Milei, emphasizing that Milei’s far-right party must remain in power for U.S. aid to continue amid the country’s persistent inflation and economic instability.
Where does this leave the immigration conversation? Is there value in adding nuance to an already polarized issue? There are no perfect answers, and arguing for either absolute open borders or indiscriminate deportation is unfeasible.
However, few immigrants choose to circumvent the law lightly. The "illegal" route to the United States is difficult, expensive, and dangerous—but it is often the fastest way to escape immediate harm, a role the United States has played a significant role in facilitating.
We cannot remove immigrants from U.S. history, nor can we remove the United States from the history of immigrants. If we continue to pursue foreign policies that ignore the past, we are bound to recreate the problems of the present. Moving forward requires discarding a rose-tinted view of U.S. policy in favor of developing sustainable, evidence-based solutions.
Isabel Papp is a summer fellow with The Fulcrum and a student at Northwestern University, double‑majoring in Journalism and Political Science. A bilingual journalist, she is a proactive, equity‑centered storyteller committed to elevating underrepresented voices.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More