VoteSafe is a cross-partisan coalition of election administrators and organizations that endorse the simple principle that every American has the right to vote safely amidst the pandemic. VoteSafe is committed to ensuring voters have options: expanded access to absentee ballots as well as safe, sanitary, and accessible in-person voting locations. Nonpartisan research shows that mail-in ballots are secure, and that they do not advantage one party over the other. VoteSafe does not support or oppose politicians or parties. Our goal is to ensure the safety of all voters as they exercise their constitutional right. Doing so is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. We are committed to ensuring that the right to vote safely transcends politics and partisanship.
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
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) speaks during a hearing with the House Committee on Homeland Security in the Cannon House Office Building on December 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Why Democrats Should (Ironically) Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene Right Now
Nov 14, 2026
On a recent episode of conservative commentator Tim Pool’s podcast, former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to the near 40-point swing among young white men to Democrats in the 2026 midterm.
Her message: They don’t care about party. They want people in office who will do something for them.
“That’s what Fox News doesn’t get and a lot of these good ole GOPers and establishment Republican people,” she said. “They don’t understand that no one really cares anymore. It’s literally, ‘what are you going to do for me?’”
- YouTube youtu.be
Regardless of how one feels about Greene, she has a point, and it is a lesson not just for Republicans, but Democrats as well.
The lingering question after the election is, how are Democrats going to perceive this victory?
If they perceive it as a mandate to push whatever policy they want, or a realignment of young voters or Latino voters, then they failed to understand what happened in this election.
What Americans witnessed was a massive rebuke of failed promises on bringing down prices, on making the US feel more affordable, on no wars,. and on tougher immigration enforcement that would target only serious criminals.
This wasn’t just seen among voters on the left, but people who voted for Trump and aligned-MAGA candidates because they wanted someone who would actually deliver.
Author and GOP consultant Mike Madrid called what happened with the Latino vote a dealignment, not a realignment. The same can be said for young white men too who aligned with a political movement, but rejected it when their concerns weren’t addressed.
The mistake both parties make is they feel they are entitled to certain votes.
The Democratic Party believes they are entitled to the ballots of young people, Latinos, black communities, and other groups that showed in 2024 that they can’t be taken for granted.
The Republican Party believes it is entitled to control states like Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, etc. But if voters sent one clear message on and immediately after Election Day, it is that the parties do not own anyone’s vote.
Or in Greene’s words, “No one cares anymore.”
Nearly half of the national electorate identifies as independent. Political pundits often scoff at that figure and say independent voters are a myth. In the end, they will always align with one party or the other.
This election, more than any other in recent memory, proved them wrong.
As Open Primaries Senior Vice President Jeremy Gruber noted in a commentary piece published on IVN:
“Independent voters turned out in force. Texas saw record-breaking early voting, with more than 7.7 million people casting ballots before Election Day. Early turnout analysis also showed independent voters participating at rates exceeding Democrats and Republicans. And when the votes were counted, independents broke decisively for Democratic candidates in some of the most consequential races in the country.
“They went 63% for James Talarico in Texas, 62% for Sherrod Brown in Ohio, 64% for Annie Andrews in South Carolina and 64% for Adam Hamilton in Kansas. In statewide contests, they supported Sand in Iowa by 65% and Gina Hinojosa in Texas by 59%.
“These weren’t marginal differences. These were the votes that changed the map.”
CNN host Michael Smerconish had these additional data points on his SiriusXM Radio show Wednesday:
“18-29-year-olds are 38% independent. In the midterm they voted Democratic 73%-25%. First time voters—37% independent—voted Democratic 65-35. Nonvoters from 2024 who voted in ‘26, 51% independent. They voted Democratic 70-25.”
- YouTube youtu.be
The risk is that Democrats will ignore independent voters, as the parties regularly do until they need their votes, and make the same mistake Republicans did after 2024 and assume they are now entitled to conduct party politics as usual.
Many voters didn’t vote for Democrats. They voted against the party in power that didn’t deliver.
Greene used the analogy of hiring a contractor to remodel her kitchen. “He comes in and tears up the kitchen and throws everything in my front yard and leaves an entire mess and doesn’t do the job,” she said.
“Am I going to be upset that I have to go out and find someone else? No! I am going to fire that guy, not pay him a dime, and I am going to go out and find the next competent construction company that will come in and give me a beautiful kitchen.”
The only thing missing from her analogy is that the system is designed in such a way that there are only two contractors to choose from because the industry has intentionally been shaped to squash any other companies from being competitive.
But that is the warning for both parties.
Democrats can celebrate their massive wins in 2026, but if voters see politics as usual, some of those gains will be erased in the next cycle. They cannot get too comfortable or feel they are now entitled to control.
It is the same warning to Democrats I had immediately after the election a week ago on the Independent Voter Podcast:
- YouTube youtu.be
Or as it was simply summed up: “Don’t fumble the bag.” Both parties have to earn the votes they get. They have to earn the chance that voters —who are increasingly demonstrating their independence in greater numbers—give them.
And not mess it up if they want to keep their seats.
Why Democrats Should (Ironically) Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene Right Now is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A demonstrator holds a sign in front of the Federal Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Beyond Airstrikes: Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria
Nov 13, 2026
When American forces carried out airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation offered a glimpse of renewed security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. But for Nigerians living in communities threatened by terrorism, kidnapping and armed attacks, a more pressing question remained: Would the strikes make their lives any safer?
That question deserves attention in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing and training. Yet armed violence continues to disrupt everyday life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the success of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.
The December operation followed a diplomatic confrontation after President Donald Trump accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians and threatened military intervention. Nigeria subsequently welcomed American assistance, leading to coordinated strikes against suspected militants in Sokoto State.
Military strikes can disrupt terrorist operations, destroy equipment and eliminate commanders. But they cannot, by themselves, guarantee the safety of communities or restore confidence in government institutions.
The United States and Nigeria have maintained security cooperation for more than five decades. According to a 2024 State Department fact sheet, Washington had $590 million in active government-to-government military sales cases with Nigeria. Major transactions included a $497 million sale of 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and a $997 million sale of 12 AH-1Z attack helicopters.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, the United States also provided more than $8 million in counterterrorism training, equipment and advisory support, alongside approximately $5 million for international military education and training. These figures cover different programs and stages of assistance, rather than a single amount already spent.
The partnership extends beyond weapons. It includes military professionalization, intelligence cooperation, border security and efforts to improve accountability within Nigeria's security institutions.
These investments have strengthened areas of Nigeria's military capacity but the continued vulnerability of civilians raises a larger question: What should count as success?
In northeastern Nigeria, Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have sustained an insurgency that has devastated communities around the Lake Chad Basin. In the northwest, armed bandit networks have expanded kidnapping for ransom, cattle rustling and attacks on rural settlements. Although some groups operate in overlapping areas, their motivations and organizational structures differ.
That distinction matters treating every armed group as a terrorist organization risks overlooking the criminal economies, local grievances and failures of law enforcement that sustain different forms of violence.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED) reported more than 400 kidnapping incidents across northwest Nigeria in 2026 by the time of its analysis. In June, at least 39 civilians were abducted in Maradun, Zamfara State, after reportedly traveling to negotiate improved relations with an armed group.
A separate ACLED assessment found that armed bandits accounted for more than 80 percent of recorded mass abductions since the beginning of 2025.
These figures do not establish that American counterterrorism operations have failed. They demonstrate that Nigeria's civilian-security crisis extends well beyond the militant organizations targeted by airstrikes.
Having reported on terrorism and violent conflict in northern Nigeria, I have seen how insecurity affects communities beyond the immediate violence. Farmers struggle to access their fields, families live with uncertainty, and residents face restrictions on movement that interfere with ordinary economic and social life.
For people living under these conditions, security is measured less by the number of militants killed than by whether they can travel safely, earn a living and send their children to school.
This is where Washington should reconsider its approach.
The United States and Nigeria have already recognized the importance of broader security reforms. During the 2024 U.S.–Nigeria Binational Commission, both governments committed to deepening military and law enforcement cooperation while protecting civilians, respecting human rights and strengthening democratic institutions.
They proposed a standing security working group and closer cooperation on border and aviation security, terrorist financing, criminal investigations and explosives detection. They also discussed specialized police units to respond to kidnappings, improved police complaint mechanisms, crime mapping, police reform and stronger criminal justice institutions.
Their commitments extended to civilian harm prevention, community peacebuilding, farmer–herder conflict resolution and protection of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and religious liberty.
These agreements offer a starting point for measuring whether cooperation is improving everyday security. Washington should press for transparent assessments of civilian casualties, kidnapping trends, accountability for abuses and the ability of displaced communities to return safely.
It should also support Nigerian institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violent crimes, rather than relying predominantly on military responses.
Religious freedom must remain part of this policy. But Nigeria's security crisis cannot be understood exclusively through attacks against Christians. Muslims have also suffered extensively from terrorism and banditry. A policy focused on protecting all civilians would better address the country's complex security realities.
The stakes extend beyond Nigeria. As Africa's most populous country and an influential regional democracy, Nigeria plays an important role in West African stability and international cooperation. Persistent insecurity weakens public confidence in elected leaders, disrupts civic participation and creates opportunities for armed groups to exercise influence where state institutions are absent.
For the United States, supporting Nigeria therefore involves more than defeating terrorist organizations. It means helping a democratic partner build institutions that citizens can trust.
A stronger bilateral relationship should connect security assistance with civilian protection, public accountability and sustained diplomatic engagement. Such cooperation would demonstrate that American foreign policy can support democratic governance while confronting violent extremism.
Ultimately, the success of U.S.-Nigeria counterterrorism cooperation should be judged by whether Nigerians can live without fear, participate freely in civic life and trust the government institutions responsible for their safety. Until those outcomes become central measures of progress, even successful airstrikes will remain an incomplete answer to Nigeria's security crisis.
Idris Mohammed is a Ph.D. student at the University of Alabama concentrating in Journalism & Creative Media and a fall Fulcrum Fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Residents vote at polling station in St. Timothy's Episcopal Church on November 03, 2026 in West Des Moines, Iowa.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Fork in the Road: What the 2026 Midterms Mean for MAGA, Democrats, and the GOP
Nov 13, 2026
The political earthquake of the 2026 midterm elections has left Washington, DC, in a state of whiplash, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration and fracturing the expansive coalition that carried him to the White House just two years ago. For Donald Trump, his inner circle, and his most ardent followers, the message from the American electorate is unmistakable: the governing chaos, policy overreaches, and exhausting political theater of the last two years will not fly for the next two
Instead of showing humility following a historic defeat, the president’s immediate elevation of immigration hardliner Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff signals a defiant doubling down rather than a constructive course correction. For millions of voters—including the critical Latino demographics alienated by the administration's aggressive deportation campaigns—Miller’s promotion feels like a structural mistake that will only deepen the administration's isolation. If MAGA is to survive past Trump’s tenure, the movement must undergo a radical transformation, moving away from unilateral aggression and toward sustainable governance. As former conservative acolyte Rod Dreher soberly observed following the wreckage of the midterms, “MAGA couldn't deliver on good government. And if you can't deliver on good government, it doesn't matter how charismatic the leader is. It's not going to work.”
At the same time, Democrats must resist the tempting delusion that these midterm victories signal the definitive end of populism. It would be a catastrophic mistake to misread a rejection of administrative chaos as a sweeping endorsement of progressive ideology. Let us be clear: half of the country voted for Trump in 2024 largely because of the crippling economic pressures and inflation felt at the end of the Biden administration. Just as in 2016, millions of everyday Americans chose Trump not out of malice, but because they genuinely believe parts of the progressive agenda have drifted too far into radicalism, leaving traditional values and economic anxieties behind. Warning his party against taking the wrong lessons from their victory, Senator Cory Booker cautioned, “If we make Donald Trump the center of our focus, we will lose this moment in history. We need to deal with the American people's problems.”
Traditional Republicans, meanwhile, face an existential crisis after completely losing their institutional identity to a single leader. Unconditional capitulation to Trumpism has left the party hollowed out, punished at the ballot box by voters craving stability and principled leadership. For the GOP, the time for blind deference is over if they wish to remain a viable national force. As a post-election analysis from RealClearPolicy bluntly summarized, “It's time to look past Donald Trump... the GOP must begin rebuilding a governing coalition around the principles of liberty, constitutional government, economic opportunity, family, and national purpose – or, Republicans will become a feeble, permanent opposition.”
We have arrived at a critical fork in the road for all three political factions. MAGA must choose between evolution or extinction. Democrats must choose between pragmatic moderation or alienating the very swing voters who just handed them a lifeline. And traditional Republicans must decide whether they will reclaim their principles or continue to exist as a hollowed-out vessel.
The path to the White House in 2028 will not be won by the faction that executes the most ruthless political strategy, but by the leaders who listen to the true will of The People.
Americans are fatigued by a useless, unending political tug-of-war designed solely to retain institutional power. The next chapter of American politics belongs to those who stop fighting for total ideological dominance and instead roll up their sleeves to solve our collective societal ills.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Bill Oxford
Just the Facts: What Does the Constitution Say About the Attorney General's Duty
Nov 13, 2026
A recent CNN interview with Attorney General Todd Blanche ignited debate about the role of the Department of Justice after he said, "If you work in this administration, you have a lawyer. It's me, and we will defend you." He also argued that every attorney general represents members of an administration and suggested that the Constitution protects executive branch officials.
Here are the facts, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the key areas of nuance.
Fact #1: The Constitution Does Not Create the Office of Attorney General
The U.S. Constitution does not mention the attorney general, define the office's duties, or demand the attorney general to defend administration officials. Congress created the position in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and it later became the head of the Department of Justice.
Bottom line: The attorney general's responsibilities come primarily from federal statutes enacted by Congress, not from explicit constitutional text.
Fact #2: The Constitution Does Assign Law-Execution Responsibilities to the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the president "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is known as the Take Care Clause.
In practice, the Department of Justice and the attorney general help presidents carry out this constitutional responsibility.
Bottom line: The Constitution assigns law-execution duties to the president and executive branch, but it does not specifically state that the attorney general's constitutional duty is to defend administration officials.
Fact #3: The Department of Justice Often Defends Executive Branch Officials
Historically, the Department of Justice has frequently represented federal agencies and executive branch officials sued or called upon to defend official actions. Blanche's statement that attorneys general traditionally represent administration officials reflects a longstanding governmental practice.
However, that practice rests largely on statutes, regulations, and legal precedent rather than a constitutional provision specifically directing the attorney general to do so.
Bottom line: DOJ lawyers generally defend executive branch officials acting in their official capacities, but the Constitution does not expressly mandate that practice.
Fact #4: Congress Has Constitutional Oversight Powers
During the CNN interview, Dana Bash noted that congressional oversight constitutes a constitutional function. Courts and legal scholars have long recognized Congress's authority to conduct investigations and oversight as part of its legislative responsibilities.
Blanche responded that he welcomes legitimate oversight yet argued that threats of impeachment or investigations without factual basis go beyond proper oversight.
Blanche also declined to rule out potential investigations of members of Congress under certain circumstances. When asked whether Democratic lawmakers could face investigation based on statements they had made, he responded, "It depends on what's said. So yes ... there could be." Blanche added that while Americans enjoy free speech protections, "when the threats become so vile and so dangerous ... you have to draw the line." When Bash later referenced suggestions that some lawmakers could be imprisoned, Blanche again declined to categorically reject the possibility, saying, "Well, it depends on what the crime is and what they've done."
Bottom line: Congress has well-established oversight authority, but disagreements often arise over where oversight ends, and partisan investigation begins. Blanche's comments also highlighted a separate constitutional debate over when, if ever, elected officials' political rhetoric could become the subject of criminal investigation.
Fact #5: The Constitution Protects the Executive Branch, But Not from All Oversight
Blanche stated that "the Constitution absolutely protects members of the executive.
That statement is partially correct, but it requires context.
The Constitution establishes a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Courts have recognized various protections for the executive branch, including certain executive privileges and immunities under specific circumstances. At the same time, Congress can oversee executive branch officials, and courts can review their actions, and, in some cases, Congress can initiate impeachment proceedings.
Bottom line: The Constitution protects the executive branch's institutional interests, but those protections exist alongside Congress's oversight powers and the judiciary's authority to interpret the law.
Fact #6: The Attorney General's Client Is the United States
A common misconception is that the attorney general serves as a president's or administration official's personal lawyer.
The attorney general's ultimate responsibility is to represent the United States' interests and enforce federal law. While that commonly involves defending administration actions, the Department of Justice has declined to defend a policy, law, or official action when it concluded the position was unlawful or unconstitutional. [usconstitution.net]
Bottom line: The attorney general represents the government, not the personal interests of government officials.
The Verdict
The most accurate interpretation of Blanche's remarks is that the Constitution does not explicitly make it his job to defend administration officials. Rather, the Constitution places law-execution responsibilities within the executive branch, while federal statutes and longstanding practice assign the attorney general a central role in representing the executive branch and defending official government actions. [usconstitution.net], [law.cornell.edu], [whitehouse.gov]
In short, the Constitution does not say, "The attorney general shall defend members of the administration." Instead, it establishes an executive branch charged with faithfully executing the laws, a Congress empowered to conduct oversight, and a system of checks and balances that ensures continuing tension between those two responsibilities. [law.cornell.edu], [law.cornell.edu], [yahoo.com]
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More