Has the term “woke” replaced the culture wars as the buzz word for Republicans? Vice News went to the Conservative Political Action Conference - better known as CPAC - to ask conservative voters and lawmakers if that’s really the winning message for the 2024 presidential election.
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

David Architectural Metals, Inc. is a longtime Chicago metal fabrication company for commercial and industrial construction. The company is situated in the same area as the other sites.
Chicago’s First Environmental Justice Ordinance Faces Uncertain Future in City Council
Jan 19, 2026
CHICAGO— Chicago’s first environmental justice ordinance sits dormant in the City Council’s Zoning Committee. Awaiting further action, some activists and alders have been pushing to get it passed, while others don’t want it passed at all.
At a Nov. 3 rare special committee meeting, Ald. Bennett Lawson (44th Ward), chair of the City Council’s Zoning Committee, said he would not call for a vote on the ordinance. His decision signaled the measure may lack enough support to advance, but its sponsors think there is enough community support to push it forward.
Named after a Southeast Side environmentalist who pioneered activism in the city’s industrial neighborhoods decades ago, the Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance would counteract the industrial zoning that occurs in industrial corridors, where Black and brown communities disproportionately reside. It would place additional restrictions on companies from exposing these communities to toxic air, water and soil, establish an environmental justice project manager and advisory board, create additional relocation requirements for companies and force the city to more carefully consider how industrial entities will affect communities.
The measure would protect a number of neighborhoods in the industrial corridor along the South Branch of the Chicago River, such as Little Village, Pilsen and Stevenson, from future pollution and health risks. It would also shield the Southeast Side along the Calumet River.

Next to 31st Street, which borders the industrial zone, piles of trash have accumulated beneath the elevated road. / Ruby Grisin
“The only way more alders are going to act on it is if they hear from their constituents,” said John Cruz Barcenas, deputy chief of staff for Ald. Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez (33rd Ward), who is the ordinance sponsor.
He added that, while the last few months were “dominated by the city budget fight,” he is hopeful the conversation will gain momentum again in the new year, as the need for the measure has not diminished.
“I know people are literally working every day on this. So yeah, there’s a lot behind this. I always think the will of the people will win out,” he continued.
The City Council formally introduced the ordinance in April after HUD reached an agreement with the city of Chicago. The Hazel Johnson Cumulative Impacts Ordinance received support from sponsors, Mayor Brandon Johnson and five alderpeople, including Ald. Julia Ramirez (12th Ward), Ald. Daniel La Spata (1st Ward) and Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez (25th Ward).
Originally born to settle an investigation by the Chicago Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) into the unequal distribution of industrial sites in Chicago, the ordinance was part of an environmental justice action plan that aimed to assess and mitigate environmental racism in the city. The measure has since lost HUD accountability after the Trump administration dismissed HUD’s role in this and several cases in other cities, according to ProPublica.
“Chicago has a long history as an industrial hub, but that industry has at times come at a cost to working-class Chicagoans,” Johnson said in a press release, defending the ordinance. “Economic development cannot be a tradeoff where we sacrifice the health of Black and brown communities.”
How the ordinance began
In 2018, some Chicago environmental groups learned that General Iron—a former scrap metal shredder business situated on the North Branch of the Chicago River in affluent Lincoln Park— obtained a preliminary city permit to relocate to East 116th Street along the Calumet River. Metal shredders are known to release air pollutants, according to the EPA, and environmental groups were already concerned about preexisting toxins in neighborhoods along the industrial corridor on the Southeast Side, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to excavate, said Gina Ramirez, senior advisor at Southeast Environmental Task Force, who helped develop the HUD civil rights complaint that triggered the ordinance’s creation.
All these factors began to compound. Three organizations: the Southeast Environmental Task Force, South East Side Coalition to Ban Petcoke and People for Community Recovery, joined together in an effort to advocate for housing justice in Chicago.
“That’s when we filed the HUD complaint against the city of Chicago and against the state, because this was a clear example of environmental racism,” said Gina Ramirez. “There wasn’t community input taken into consideration. The way the permitting process was—and still is—is very dysfunctional.”
In October 2020, the three environmental organizations issued a civil rights complaint to HUD in hopes of preventing a city permit from being handed out so easily. Then, HUD began its assessment.
After almost three years, General Iron was denied the final city permit to relocate. The decision was upheld by a Cook County Circuit Court Judge in August 2024, which was considered a victory for Chicago environmental groups.
A year later, the city settled with HUD and the Illinois EPA, which Gina Ramirez said was historic. HUD threatened the City of Chicago with the loss of more than $350 million in federal block grants unless the city developed an agreement and measure to achieve environmental justice. The city’s plan would protect historically-polluted neighborhoods through new government positions and more rigorous zoning laws.
Now, the Trump administration moved to drop further HUD action on the civil rights ruling, according to Cruz-Barcenas.
“Unfortunately, like a lot of things, this new [federal] administration has just thrown a wrench into a lot of things that we are seeing good work being done on,” he said. “This is just [an] all the more stronger argument that if we don’t pass this on a city level, then no one’s going to do it. So this should really be a motivating factor for City Council to take this a lot more seriously, knowing that we don’t have HUD.”
HUD declined to comment to Illinois Latino News on the new ordinance, directing further questions to the EPA.
On a federal level, the Trump administration has been fighting against the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of various factors, such as gender and race, which was part of the basis for the initial HUD complaint. The Alliance for Housing Justice expressed deep concern regarding Trump’s “Disparate Impact Executive Order,” in particular, which deemphasized liability for when particular groups face increased environmental impacts despite a neutral policy.
Patterns of Pollution
About three years after Tanisha Rae, a founding member of Neighbors for Environmental Justice (N4EJ), bought her McKinley Park home in 2015, she began to notice pungent smells she suspected came from the newly established MAT Asphalt plant on 2033 W. Pershing Road. No one had informed her about this potential polluter prior to purchasing the house.
“It was so bad that I would be sleeping in the early morning hours and wake up because the odors were so strong, and they were penetrating inside my home without the windows open,” explained Rae. “There was nothing that I could do except put a pillow over my head.”
Since their opening in 2018, Rae has submitted multiple complaints to CHI 311 and has called MAT a total of five times. The plant returned her calls twice, but she has not had the chance to respond.
Living in McKinley park, Rae noted that layers of black film continued to reappear on her car and windows, despite cleaning them regularly. Since she was a child, Rae has been facing environmental racism, she said. Still, she did not notice it until later in life.
“The reservation I’m from, which is Bad River Indian Reservation in northern Wisconsin, you couldn’t drink the water there,” Rae said. “And now that I’m an adult, I own my own home, and now I can’t breathe the air.”
According to complaints obtained by N4EJ through an open records request to the Illinois EPA in 2019, several residents had been noticing a strong smell, attributing it to MAT Asphalt.
One resident observed gas plumes of 100% opacity in May 2019, though the city’s emission standard is only 20%. MAT Asphalt continues to state on its website that it is complying with all requirements and exceeds the standard of protection for its neighbors. The company did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

A large plot of land in Little Village bordering Piotrowski Park anda local high school, containing a Target warehouse, and the site of the Crawford Generating Station; a coal-fired power plant. Now partially collapsed, it is surrounded by train tracks and fences, the area is off-limits for the public. / Ruby Grisin
“We went beyond what is required to construct and operate a facility that contributes to the City of Chicago’s infrastructure and economic development needs—without affecting the quality of life or health of local residents, or posing harm to the local environment,” reads a statement on its website about their commitment to environmental safety.
Just across the river, residents of Little Village experienced a similar scenario. A shuttered coal plant implosion in 2020 destroyed a final smoke stack at the former Crawford coal-fired power plant and sent a cloud of heavy dust across the neighborhood. The plant shuttered in 2012 after the imploding stack sparked uproar from residents and a class action lawsuit.
The new developer, Hilco Redevelopment Partners, transformed it into a new Target warehouse and distribution center in 2021.
The warehouse has since become a cause for concern because residents have noticed an increase in truck traffic through the residential neighborhood, allegedly worsening air quality. President of the Little Village Community Council Baltazar Enriquez said asthma and other pulmonary issues are becoming a large problem in Little Village.
He added that there is a severe lack of pulmonary doctors in the area, making it difficult for people to receive the care they need.
Enriquez expressed distrust in the plants and warehouses themselves, in addition to the government officials overseeing those companies, due to longstanding inequities in environmental exposure.
Peoples Gas, a natural gas utility serving the city of Chicago, said that in 2020 they knocked down their separate warehouse building at 4358 W. 35th Place. Enriquez said he did not feel properly informed about what they wanted to do with this land once it became vacant. He recalled a public meeting at Piotrowski Park in Little Village where a representative did not directly answer a question about it.
Peoples Gas completed remediation at two parcels located at 4358 W. 35th Place between 2020 and 2022 under the oversight of the U.S. EPA. According to the EPA website, the site was formerly used as a production and storage facility for manufactured gas
Regarding this property, David Schwartz, a spokesperson for Peoples Gas, said, “Representatives from the local community, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) and the local alderman’s office, were kept up to date throughout the process about plans for taking down the warehouse.”
Schwartz said that the site is now being leased to a shipping and logistics company and communication with residents is a priority for Peoples Gas.
Divisions over the Hazel Johnson Ordinance
Some community members along the industrial corridor do not want the ordinance to pass as is. Enriquez said the Little Village Community Council has been fighting to “give the ordinance some teeth.” He said the measure would be ineffective unless legislators adjust it to regulate existing chemical plants, in addition to new and relocating ones. How it stands now, the ordinance would only protect entities proposing relocation, rather than preexisting polluters.
Enriquez suggested the ordinance change the physical zoning in the city, rather than implementing additional barriers within the existing process, and impose fines on big polluters in environmental justice neighborhoods. His critiques to alderpeople have “gone on deaf ears.”
Theresa McNamara, chairperson of the Southwest Environmental Alliance, said the ordinance does not do enough to represent the impact of Hazel Johnson’s legacy and protect neighborhoods of primarily Black and brown communities. She said she hopes it does not pass.
McNamara and Enriquez both said they did not feel they were given fair opportunity to raise their concerns about the ordinance. Instead, McNamara said he believes the bill sponsors prioritized the approval of city-funded organizations.
“This ordinance is just a first step. It’s not the last piece of environmental legislation,” Cruz-Barcenas said. “We’re going to push forward, we’re going to pass this and then we’re going to take it from there, and then keep on going until all of our environmental justice neighborhoods see change.”
Chicago’s First Environmental Justice Ordinance Faces Uncertain Future in City Council was first published on Illinois Latino News and was republished with permission.
Ruby Grisin is a Northwestern University journalism student.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Rising Homelessness Tests Colorado Housing Systems and Safety Nets
Jan 18, 2026
The 50 is a four-year multimedia initiative led by The Fulcrum, traveling to communities in every state to uncover what motivated Americans to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Through in-depth storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns—and highlights civic-focused organizations that inform, educate, and empower the public to take action.
Across Colorado, the growing homelessness crisis is forcing communities, service providers, and policymakers to rethink not only how they measure housing instability, but also how they respond to the forms of homelessness that rarely make headlines.
Colorado is confronting one of the steepest rises in homelessness in the nation, with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reporting a nearly 30 percent increase in the state’s unhoused population between 2023 and 2024. The point‑in‑time count jumped from 14,439 to 18,715 in a single year, a surge driven by rising rents, the expiration of pandemic‑era supports, and widening economic precarity.
- YouTube youtu.be
The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) anchors Denver’s response to rising housing instability, maintaining essential housing and healthcare programs despite months‑long delays in city reimbursements. Its model of permanent supportive housing paired with integrated mental and physical healthcare has been shown nationally to reduce chronic homelessness and improve long‑term stability.
"The Coalition for the Homeless is focused on lasting solutions to homelessness. And so from our perspective, that means long-term affordable and supportive housing," said Cathy Alderman, Chief Communications & Public Policy Officer with CCH.
Alderman said that CCH owns and operates 23 residential properties, making up about 2,000 units of housing. All of them are affordable, but some of them are supportive. "We're also a healthcare provider. And so we operate as a federally qualified health center providing fully integrated health care. We do that through our clinic sites as well as through mobile units and street medicine teams. Essentially, what we believe is that housing is healthcare and that your health care is absolutely dependent on your housing status," she said.
For David Heitz, who spent years cycling through homelessness, the Coalition’s blend of permanent housing and mental health support has become the foundation of a stability he once thought impossible.
"I'm more stable now than I've been in many years, to be honest," said Heitz. "When I was on the street, there was way too much stimulation for somebody that had mania and paranoia. I mean, I was constantly in a state of duress. I mean, it's hell when you don't have a roof over your head, and you're outside. I mean, it's terrible, you know? I can't even describe how bad it is."
Heitz shared that once he came indoors, he no longer had the stimulation that had been causing him to feel paranoid or threatened. He has struggled with mental illness for many years. "Part of the housing is healthcare. I mean, you automatically start to heal when you become housed," he said.
Denver’s permanent supportive housing vouchers offer long‑term rental assistance and voluntary services for people experiencing homelessness and for families with disabilities, a model that has helped stabilize residents like Heitz. But he says he is increasingly worried about the direction of federal housing policy.
"The Trump administration wants to limit housing vouchers for permanent supportive housing, which is what I am on. I do worry a little bit because I do not make enough money to get a market-rate apartment," he said.
A recent shift in HUD’s funding priorities has raised the possibility of significant cuts to supportive housing programs—changes that housing advocates warn could jeopardize the very services that allowed Heitz to rebuild his life.
Sarah Parady, a member of the Denver City Council, has become one of the most vocal and policy‑driven figures pushing the city toward a more prevention‑focused, rights‑based approach to homelessness. Her work centers on the idea that Denver cannot meaningfully reduce homelessness without addressing the upstream forces that push people into housing instability in the first place — especially eviction, wage theft, and the lack of legal protections for renters.
"They're (the Trump administration) cutting housing vouchers. And of course, we've had far fewer vouchers than we've had people who qualify for vouchers for decades. Like that's been an ongoing problem. Cutting them just means essentially pushing people into homelessness," noted Parady. "Adding two-year limitations, that gives the idea that we have some kind of functioning economy where if someone's in voucher housing for two years, suddenly then they can come out of that and make enough to pay for market-rate housing in the Denver market. That's not reality. Market-rate housing in Denver costs far more than minimum wage in Denver. So, that's just not a realistic expectation."
Parady believes Denver needs to get into the business of owning and operating housing, as the federal government has traditionally done through housing authorities. "The only way for us to sort of get around the problem of voucher cuts is for us to actually own housing ourselves and set the rents and operate it. So, that can sometimes be referred to as social housing. But that's the direction that my office is driving in, because it's really the only choice that's left to us if the federal government's going to get out of the business of housing people," she argued.
On the council, she has also championed policies that strengthen tenant protections, expand eviction defense, and increase rental assistance — all of which are central to preventing homelessness before it occurs. She has been a strong supporter of the Community Economic Defense Project (CEDP), which provides legal representation and emergency financial support to residents facing eviction.
"Eviction is an attempt to collect a debt. Is putting someone into homelessness or threatening to put someone into homelessness the best way to collect the debt?" asked CEDP Co-founder and co-CEO, Zach Neumann. He says the cost of homelessness to a community is much more expensive than possible remedies. "Oftentimes, these eviction notices are being put on doors for $500, $1,000, like money the state can afford, the city could afford, that a nonprofit like us could pay." The CEDP intervenes in two ways. "One, it's providing counsel. So, eviction legal defense, we can help you in the court process. But also financial assistance...to pay that debt so that you can keep your house and stay out of homelessness."
CEDP’s efforts inevitably collide with a deeper, largely invisible dimension of the crisis that slips past official counts.
Doubled‑up Homelessness
When housing instability moves into the living room, the crisis slips out of public view and beyond the reach of most city data. Doubled‑up homelessness occurs when people who can’t afford a place of their own take refuge with friends, relatives, or acquaintances — a fragile form of shelter that rarely appears in official counts.
In Denver, this hidden homelessness is far more widespread than the numbers suggest, particularly among youth and families. A study published in Pediatrics found that one in four Denver teens aged 14 to 17 experienced some form of homelessness in 2021, and many were not sleeping outside or in shelters but staying temporarily with others — the federal definition of “doubling up.”
Researchers noted that this instability is routinely missed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) point‑in‑time methodology, even though it is one of the most common ways young people experience homelessness. Their findings underscore that homelessness in Denver “takes many forms,” from couch‑surfing to overcrowded apartments, and much of it never shows up in the city’s annual count.
Sometimes people who are “doubling up” end up in situations that make matters worse. "A client who was living with an extended family member ever since she lost her job. She experienced a trauma that really impacted her mental health, her ability to maintain a job," recalled Jacob Wessley, Director of Outreach and Engagement with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. "She was staying with this extended family member, and unfortunately, the relationship became abusive. And really, the struggle there was she needed to keep a roof over her head. And the barrier we kept coming up against was since she wasn't literally homeless, there was some housing that she wasn't eligible for."
Denver’s experience also mirrors patterns seen in other cities, where Latino communities have developed their own culturally rooted responses to housing insecurity. Reporting from Illinois Latino News has documented how Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Central American families in Chicago rely on multigenerational living arrangements and dense networks of mutual support to survive rising rents and unstable work. These stories echo a long tradition in Puerto Rican and Dominican communities in New York City, where compadrazgo—a system of godparent relationships, extended kin, and fictive kin—has historically functioned as an informal safety net.
Compadrazgo networks have helped families navigate displacement, unemployment, and migration for decades. Oral histories from the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College describe how these kinship ties allowed families to pool resources, share housing, and avoid eviction during periods of economic upheaval. In Washington Heights and the South Bronx, tenant cooperatives often emerged from these same networks, transforming cultural practices into civic power. These examples offer a parallel to Denver’s doubled‑up households: both represent communities using their own social infrastructure to survive when formal systems fall short. Future reporting will explore how compadrazgo continues to shape responses to housing insecurity in New York City—and what lessons cities like Denver might draw from these longstanding traditions of mutual care.
Still, neither formal nor informal systems are without limitations. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless faces financial uncertainty as it waits for delayed city payments, and the planned closure of the Park Avenue Inn shelter in 2026 leaves residents unsure of where they will go next. Doubled‑up families remain uncounted in federal data, making it harder for organizations like CEDP to secure funding proportional to the need. Compadrazgo networks, while resilient, can mask overcrowding and delay access to formal assistance, and tenant cooperatives rooted in kinship ties face legal and financial barriers that limit their scalability.
Prevention must be prioritized, as eviction defense and rental assistance can stop homelessness before it begins. Housing and healthcare must remain linked, as the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless has demonstrated. And cultural resilience—whether in Denver’s doubled‑up households or New York’s compadrazgo networks—should be recognized as a resource rather than an afterthought. These kinship systems reveal how communities innovate survival strategies that policymakers often overlook.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less

fan of 100 U.S. dollar banknotes
Photo by Alexander Mils on Unsplash
Democrats' Affordability Campaign Should Focus on Frozen Wages
Jan 18, 2026
Affordability has become a political issue because the cost of basic necessities - food, health and child care, transportation, and housing - for 43% of families today outruns their wages.
Inflation is one factor. But the affordability issue exists primarily because inflation-adjusted (real) wages for 80% of working- and middle-class men and women have been essentially frozen for the past 46 years.
Most men and women are frustrated and hamstrung by wage stagnation: 59% of workers across all sectors would now welcome unionization. They hunger for an economy that works for them, not billionaires, and are eagerly challenging antiunion elites like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who habitually suppress wages.
Working men and women will base their votes on facts if they have them. So Democrats need a compelling factual message for 2026 centered on unfreezing wages – a message replete with heroes and villains.
The Heroes: FDR’s New Deal Made America the Land of Opportunity
Even some economists are unaware that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has long maintained an extensive database on America’s working- and middle-class men and women. BLS describes them as “production, nonsupervisory” employees, and they comprise the lowest-earning 80% (111 million) of all private-sector nonfarm workers. From 1948-1979, as New Deal union organizing and collective bargaining strengthened, their real average hourly compensation (wages and benefits) rose an unprecedented 2.1% annually. The formula was simple: government-supported collective bargaining and stringent financial and antitrust regulations raised employee wages at the expense of profits.
That is why the share of national income accruing to the wealthiest 1% during this period fell by half from 21.6% in 1941 to 10.4% in 1980.
This was a stunning, unprecedented event. Throughout global history, wages had stagnated, with an average of half or fewer children out-earning their parents. Rising wages during the New Deal changed that: a huge majority (>90%) of U.S. children born in 1940 earned higher real household incomes at age 30 than their parents had at that age. The transformational New Deal formula created the gigantic American middle class, the fortunate generation of working-class men and women who realized the American Dream.
The Villains: Reaganomics Turned the American Dream into a Pipedream
America’s wealthiest conservatives and the deeply cynical Ronald Reagan put a stop to that, freezing wages over the 46 years since.
Billionaires Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife financed the 1981 Reagan economic blueprint called Reaganomics – directing Reagan and the Republicans to reverse the decline in their share of income. Reagan complied, empowering employers to break labor unions while enacting trade laws that incentivized job offshoring (Reagan’s maquiladora factories and later Trump’s 2017 tax law). The real Federal minimum wage was frozen below $10/hour, and Republican-led states adopted laws kneecapping collective bargaining.
Moreover, in the decades that followed, Wall Street Democrats Clinton and Obama offered only tepid support for unions or wages, and enacted their own trade laws (Clinton’s NAFTA, Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership) that further encouraged job offshoring and suppressed wages.
Since 1981, billionaires have continued to demand wage suppression. For example, six wealthy, conservative billionaire family fortunes funded Project 2025 giving directions to the Trump administration - the $100 billion Koch family (oil and gas), the huge Scaife Family Foundations (Mellon banking, aluminum, oil), and the Bradley (industrial parts), Uihlein (electronics, office supplies), Coors (brewing), and Seid (electronics) families.
Reaganomic policies have essentially frozen real average hourly compensation for the two generations from 1979 to 2025 for the vast “production, nonsupervisory” workforce - inching up a minuscule 0.6% annually.
That has enabled the national income share of the top 1% to double to 20.7%.
Consequently, U.S. children born in 1980 – with the misfortune of living their entire lives under Reaganomics – had earned on average at age 30 no more than their parents had at that age. As Isabel Sawhill of Brookings summarized, for “those born after about 1970 … absolute mobility has declined.”
This wage freeze, documented by BLS experts, was inevitable once Reagan embraced billionaires. For non-economists, the underlying explanatory economic theory – documented by a recent Nobel Prize – is that oligarchs routinely manipulate politics to maximize their own incomes. They create pantomime democracies like the U.S., called functional oligarchies. In contrast, that means democracy is a precondition for widespread prosperity - vibrant democracies like Denmark or Sweden see working- and middle-class men and women setting economic policy. The stark evidence: unlike northern Europe, U.S. income inequality is even greater than Russia's.
You have just read why Trump and the Republicans are hostile to democracy. They reject the economic principles of Founders like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, which hold that a vibrant democracy must corral oligarchs to realize inclusive, broadly based prosperity.
America is a Functional Oligarchy
Their real compensation frozen by elites since Reagan, 69% of Americans now view the American Dream as a pipedream – dismissing as myth the notion that grit and schooling alone will enable them to prosper. And a stunning 72% believe that America is no longer a democracy – with 87% of independents (and even 68% of Republicans) believing “the rich have too much political power.” They are angry with America’s functional oligarchy, a predatory system where families are daily fleeced - “bled dry by landlords, hospital administrators, university bursars and child-care centers” - an economic system that feels “downright terrible,” reports the Atlantic.
That reality is why many voters have difficulty distinguishing between the two political parties: neither Democrats nor Republicans are viewed as prioritizing the economic concerns of ordinary people.
Democratic Party Retooling: Populism and Anger at Republican Billionaires
Democratic centrists want the Party to retool in 2026 – move toward populist themes and away from cultural issues. “The Democratic Party must now run on the most populist economic platform since the Great Depression,” urges James Carville.
That starts with dramatizing the stunning BLS evidence that working- and middle-class wages have been frozen for two generations
And it means reprising Obama’s 2012 campaign of political conflict against the private equity CEO Mitt Romney. Mindful that 62% of independents believe the economy unfairly favors the wealthy, Democrats should channel voter economic frustration toward billionaire Republicans. They and Trump should be called out for their hostility and disdain for unions and working men and women.
This strategy upgrade would especially appeal to swing voters, disproportionately working-class men and women under economic pressure. And its populist foundation matches the profile of moderate Democrats like Kentucky Governor Beshear and Arizona Senator Gallego, who have overperformed recently with swing voters.
George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.
Keep ReadingShow less

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.
AI-created animation
Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule
Jan 18, 2026
We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.
The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.
Despite the absence of public acknowledgment, nothing in the intervening weeks suggests the rule has been revived. Since November 30, there have been no new entries on the administration's regulatory agenda. Key regulatory milestones have been bypassed, including deadlines for public comment periods and potential congressional hearings that would typically follow such a proposal. Additionally, no agency guidance or fresh reporting indicates a change in direction. The only developments from the Social Security Administration since November have concerned routine matters such as cost-of-living adjustments, modernization efforts, and internal restructuring, none of which affect the substance of the abandoned proposal. This lack of action stands out as an anomaly in standard federal rule-making practices, where a clear procedural timeline is typically observed.
For advocates, the lack of formal withdrawal is both reassuring and unsettling. Reassuring because every signal from inside the agency still points to the same conclusion: the rule is dormant. Unsettling because the decision that affects hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans exists only in private assurances, not in public commitments. As one advocate put it, 'We were told it was dead. But nothing is dead in Washington until it’s buried.' An administration spokesperson, however, might argue that the lack of a formal withdrawal is a standard due-process measure to ensure that all perspectives and interests are considered before finalizing any regulatory decision. They might emphasize that the administration is committed to balancing the needs of affected workers while ensuring sustainable policy outcomes.
The stakes remain enormous. The proposed rule would have redefined disability eligibility for older workers by effectively erasing age as a factor — a shift that would have hit hardest in communities already battered by economic transition: coal country, rural manufacturing towns, and regions where desk jobs are scarce and digital skills are not easily acquired late in life. The administration’s internal polling reportedly showed that older Trump voters overwhelmingly opposed such changes, a political reality that may have helped elevate the issue to the desks of senior officials in November.
But political sensitivity is not the same as policy certainty. Until the administration publicly affirms what it has privately conveyed, the disability community remains in a defensive crouch — vigilant, watchful, and aware that regulatory ideas have a way of resurfacing when attention drifts.
Perhaps concerns about the upcoming mid-term elections next November have played a role in the administration's reversal. As reported in November by the Fulcrum, "New polling by a Trump-aligned firm has suggested that older Trump voters would overwhelmingly oppose such changes to disability eligibility." According to the poll, 78% of voters over 55 opposed the rule, highlighting the political risk of moving forward with the proposed changes. In the wake of Democrats’ strong showing in recent elections, two people with knowledge of the situation said that the administration may have been particularly sensitive to these views. As one lobbyist put it, it’s all about the "elevation of an issue, and getting it on the right desks."
The deeper issue raised by this episode is not just the fate of a single regulation but the way major policy decisions can be made and unmade without the public ever being told. When a rule with the potential to reshape the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans can be advanced for years, nearly finalized, and then quietly shelved without a single formal notice, it exposes a structural weakness in how our government communicates with the people it serves. Transparency is not a procedural nicety; it is the foundation of democratic legitimacy. Legal frameworks such as the notice-and-comment process in administrative law underscore the principle that public participation is essential to developing regulations that reflect society's will and needs. Without such transparent processes, even good decisions can feel provisional and contingent on political winds rather than grounded in principle.
This is especially true in areas like Social Security disability, where the stakes are existential, and the public’s ability to monitor policy is limited by complexity. When agencies operate in the shadows — whether by design or inertia — trust erodes. People who depend on these programs are left to parse rumors, off‑the‑record assurances, and secondhand accounts from advocates who themselves are trying to interpret signals rather than respond to clear, public commitments. A system that governs millions of vulnerable Americans should not rely on whispered confirmations in West Wing hallways. It should rely on transparent processes, accountable leadership, and a shared understanding that decisions of this magnitude deserve daylight.
For now, the story is one of absence: no movement, no revival, no formal announcement. But in a system where silence can be strategic, it is also a reminder of how fragile protections can be when they depend on unwritten assurances rather than transparent governance.
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

















