When We All Vote is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that is on a mission to increase participation in every election and close the race and age voting gap by changing the culture around voting, harnessing grassroots energy, and through strategic partnerships to reach every American. Launched in 2018 by co-chairs Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monae, Chris Paul, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, When We All Vote is changing the culture around voting using a data-driven and multifaceted approach to increase participation in elections. In the months directly before the 2018 midterm elections, When We All Vote organized 2,500 local voter registration events across the country, engaged 200 million Americans online about the significance of voting, and texted nearly four million voters the resources to register and get out to vote. And we're just getting started. We're helping bring even more people into the voting process because when we all vote, we all do better.
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
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press aboard Air Force One on April 17, 2026, just prior to landing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
(Win McNamee/Getty Images/TCA)
MAGA is starting to question Trump
Apr 26, 2026
If supporters of Donald Trump were to be studied — and I very much expect they will be for years and years to come — academics may be hard-pressed to find the connective tissue that unites them all together.
It’s clear they’re not with Trump for his ideology — he doesn’t really have one, not that hews to ideas espoused by the traditional political parties at least. His policies have been all over the map, and even within his own presidencies he’s reversed them substantively or abandoned them outright.
It’s not because he’s done anything heroic or admirable, other than get very, very rich using legally and ethically questionable practices — admirable, perhaps, to some.
And it’s not because he’s done anything particularly great for them. He’s broken most of his promises, and by nearly any metric, he’s made the lives of his own voters demonstrably worse.
But they do love him, in spite of all of this. They love what he represents, what he projects back to them, a version of America they miss, even though he cannot deliver it. And they’ve decided to believe that he truly cares about them, even though he’s taken their money to line his own pockets, he’s endangered their lives by pushing baseless conspiracy theories, and he’s threatening to send their children to another endless war.
The thing that has united Trump supporters, if anything, has been their enduring faith in HIM.
But for how much longer?
Thanks largely to Iran, deportations, and the economy, Trump’s approval is at a second-term low, according to a trio of new polls out this week, which show him at just 33% to 36%.
And we’re starting to see one-time loyalists do something the MAGA base has never really done before: Question him.
They’re questioning Trump on his policies. From his decision to go to war with Iran to the efficacy of his tariffs, MAGA media influencers are vocalizing their concerns about his judgment in ways we haven’t heard before. From a crowd that even managed to justify an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol, this sudden skepticism is interesting.
They’re questioning his morality. The Epstein files have rankled Trump supporters in a way that little else has, and his obvious efforts to cover them up have them raising questions about his involvement and what he knew. Trump’s infidelity, his payoffs to porn stars, the “Access Hollywood” tape, the sexual abuse adjudication — none of that managed to turn MAGA voters off the way Epstein has.
They’re questioning his sanity and competence. In the wake of Trump’s deranged threats to end Iranian civilization, and his bonkers attacks on the first American pope and Catholics writ large, folks like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Marjorie Taylor Greene are openly questioning his mental acuity and fitness for office. They didn’t do this during his impeachments, after his 34 convictions for fraud, or when his deportation goon squad killed two American protesters.
And now, they’re questioning his veracity. Several former Trump supporters have come out to question whether the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024 was staged or is being covered up in some way. That’s questioning whether Trump can be believed, something no MAGA star dared to do just months ago.
Whatever may be motivating these influential one-time MAGA devotees to break ranks, they could very easily give MAGA voters permission to do something they’ve not felt they could do before — question their faith in Trump’s policies, his moral compass, his sanity, and his believability.
And if they start doing that, well, I’m not sure what’s left for them to buy into anymore.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
April 22, 2026, in Tehran, Iran. The United States extended the 2-week ceasefire with Iran and awaits a new proposal from Iran.
(Photo by Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images)
War, Morality, and the Questions We Keep Confusing
Apr 25, 2026
When Pope Leo XIV speaks about war, his message is clear: violence degrades human dignity, and peace must remain the goal even when it feels out of reach. When Donald Trump speaks about conflict, his clarity takes a different form: threats must be confronted, adversaries deterred, and, at times, force becomes unavoidable.
To many observers, this sounds like disagreement. It is something more fundamental — two different responsibilities, shaped by two different roles, answering two different questions simultaneously.
The emergence of Leo XIV as the first American pope only sharpens this divide. For the first time, an American-born moral leader is speaking to the world not from a national-interest perspective, but from a global vantage point that transcends borders. His words carry no military weight, no enforcement mechanism, no immediate consequence beyond persuasion. Yet they are intended to do something different: to call the world toward a higher standard.
Political leaders operate in a different arena. Their responsibility is not to articulate moral ideals in the abstract, but to manage real-world threats in real time. When leaders like Trump speak about adversarial regimes or rising tensions, they are not primarily asking what is morally pure. They are asking what prevents the worst possible outcome. Their decisions are measured not only by principles but also by consequences.
This is where the confusion begins — not in the answers, but in the questions themselves.
When Leo XIV condemns war in absolute terms, he is not ignoring reality; he is fulfilling a different purpose. The papacy has long served as a moral witness, reminding the world of what it ought to be, not merely what it is. His language reflects a commitment to human dignity that cannot be negotiated without losing its force. To soften that message would be to abandon the very role he occupies.
When Trump or any political leader defends the possibility of force, they are not necessarily rejecting morality; they are operating within constraints that moral leaders are not bound by. A nation must protect its citizens, anticipate threats, and sometimes act before harm is fully realized. In that context, the question is rarely “What is ideal?” but rather “What is necessary?”
These are not competing answers to the same question. They are answers to entirely different ones.
One asks: What do we owe to each other as human beings?
The other asks: What must be done to preserve order in a dangerous world?
When these questions are collapsed into a single debate, both sides appear inadequate. The moral voice seems detached from reality, while the political voice appears morally compromised. But this perception is less a failure of either position than a misunderstanding of their purpose.
Early Christian teachings emphasized radical nonviolence and personal transformation — a vision rooted in love, restraint, and sacrifice. Over time, as those teachings encountered the demands of governing societies, they were adapted into frameworks that could account for conflict, security, and justice. The tension between moral ideal and practical necessity was never resolved. It was managed.
What we are witnessing now is that same tension, playing out in real time.
Leo XIV speaks to what humanity should strive toward, even if it feels unattainable. Political leaders speak to what must be managed, even when it falls short of that ideal. Both roles are necessary. And both, on their own, are incomplete.
A world governed only by moral clarity would struggle to survive its first serious threat. A world governed only by necessity would gradually lose sight of why survival matters in the first place.
The challenge is not to eliminate the tension between these perspectives, but to recognize it. When we expect moral leaders to provide tactical solutions, or political leaders to speak in absolutes, we ask them to become something they were never meant to be.
The more useful task is to understand the limits of each.
Leo XIV cannot secure a border or neutralize a threat. Trump cannot speak with universal moral authority detached from national interest. But together — or more accurately, in tension with one another — they reveal the full complexity of leadership in a fractured world.
What appears to be disagreement is often something deeper: a reflection of the dual reality we all inhabit, where ideals guide us and constraints define us.
Until we learn to separate those two, we will continue to hear conversations like this as conflict, rather than what they truly are — different voices answering different questions — each necessary, neither sufficient on its own.
Joe Palaggi is a writer and historian whose work sits at the crossroads of theology, politics, and American civic culture. He writes about the moral and historical forces that shape our national identity and the challenges of a polarized age.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Fulcrum Partners With ACE to Feature Student‑Led Nonpartisan Policy Briefs
Apr 25, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Fulcrum is pleased to announce a new partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement (ACE), a nonpartisan policy research institute that develops emerging policy leaders. Building on The Fulcrum’s ongoing commitment to featuring student work, we will now publish weekly nonpartisan policy briefs produced by ACE fellows. This collaboration is part of The Fulcrum’s NextGen initiative, which expands civic education, elevates young voices, and strengthens public understanding of democracy and governance.
Founded in 2020, ACE has trained hundreds of students nationwide. Its mission is rooted in the belief that “a healthy democracy requires two things: a well‑informed public and a new generation of policy leaders empowered to lead with integrity.”
Under the new partnership, ACE fellows’ research briefs—covering issues related to democracy, civic engagement, and social determinants of health—will be regularly featured on The Fulcrum, expanding access to fact‑based, student‑driven policy analysis.
“This partnership strengthens The Fulcrum’s commitment to elevating emerging voices and expanding access to trustworthy, nonpartisan information,” said Hugo Balta, Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. “ACE’s fellows bring rigorous research and fresh perspectives that align with our NextGen initiative’s goal of supporting the next generation of civic leaders.”
Ella Dennis, Director of Policy at ACE, emphasized the shared mission behind the collaboration.
“ACE and The Fulcrum partner to bring balanced policy coverage to Americans looking for trustworthy information,” Dennis said. “Our partnership reflects a shared commitment to making policy information more accessible. At a moment when trust in information is fragile, our collaboration ensures that the next generation of policy voices is helping lead the conversation on the issues that matter most.”
The Fulcrum’s NextGen initiative focuses on amplifying youth‑driven reporting, civic education, and solutions‑oriented journalism. Featuring ACE’s student work will expand the initiative’s reach and provide readers with deeper insights into policy challenges and opportunities identified by emerging analysts.
The first ACE‑produced briefs will appear on The Fulcrum’s website on Thursday, May 7, and every Thursday afterward.
Keep ReadingShow less
House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., says the committee is committed to accountability for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
(Photo by Samantha Freeman, MNS)
Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion
Apr 25, 2026
WASHINGTON – Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moments before the full Ethics Committee convened to weigh expulsion for allegedly stealing millions of dollars and funneling some into her congressional campaign.
Cherfilus-McCormick was not present at the hearing. “After careful reflection and prayer, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my constituents and the institution that I step aside at this time,” her statement read.
Cherfilus-McCormick is the third congressional leader to resign since April 13. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned last week, following sexual assault allegations and discussions of expulsion at Capitol Hill.
“If members that conduct, bad conduct, whatever that conduct may be—we’ve seen sexual misconduct, we’ve seen financial misconduct—that those members are going to be held accountable,” House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss.
In March, a special subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee found Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of 25 ethics violations. She also faces a criminal trial in South Florida, scheduled for February 2027.
Cherfilus-McCormick said she’s not guilty of the ethics violations or the criminal charges.
“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away,” she said in a follow-up statement, calling the Ethics investigation a “witch hunt.”
The Ethics Committee is also investigating Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, stolen valor, and profiting from federal contracts while in office.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday calling for the expulsion of Mills.
“The swamp has protected Cory Mills for far too long and we are done letting it slide,” Mace said in a statement. “Any Member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud. He needs to be expelled immediately.”
In response, Mills told NOTUS he is considering an expulsion resolution against Mace over an interaction that she had at Charleston International Airport in October 2025, where she berated TSA officials.
Mills has denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically motivated.
Guest said the investigation into Mills is ongoing and reiterated the committee’s dedication to holding members of Congress accountable on both sides of the aisle.
“We want individuals to have trust in their elected officials,” Guest said. “And I think as members of Congress, we should be held to a higher standard than the general public.”
Samantha Freeman is a graduate politics, policy and foreign affairs journalism student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More