President Biden and lawmakers on Capitol Hill are entrenched in a high stakes battle over the debt limit – also known as the debt ceiling. But what exactly is the debt ceiling?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Expand Democracy: Musk’s Third Party, RCV in NYC, and Miami Backlash
Jul 11, 2025
The Expand Democracy 5: Elon’s push for a third party, turnout and RCV in NYC, preserving voting rights for the incarcerated, cancelled Miami elections, and timely links
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. From Eveline Dowling, with Rob Richie and Juniper Shelley’s assistance, we highlight timely links and stories about democracy at the local, national, and global levels. Today's stories include:
🚀 Deep dive: Elon’s push for a third party reflects issues in the US two-party system
🏆 RCV and voter turnout in NYC
⚡ Preserving voting rights for incarcerated citizens
❌ Cancelled Miami election sparks outrage
🕓 This week’s (many!) timely links
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Deep Dive: Elon Musk’s “America Party” - Ambitious Disruption or Doomed Spoiler?
[Source: Wired Staff]
Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s recent announcement on X about founding an “America Party” marks a bold challenge to the entrenched two-party system. He frames it as a response to bipartisan gridlock, runaway spending, and unresponsive governance, asking whether a new political force could better represent the “80 percent in the middle.”
Musk’s announcement and his financial ability to back a new party have triggered a wave of reactions. FairVote’s Rachel Hutchinson argues that “until ranked choice voting (RCV) becomes the norm in US elections, third parties will continue to be perceived as ‘spoilers’ and struggle to break through as viable, lasting options for voters.” In “What Elon Musk Gets Wrong About Our Broken Political System,” Lee Drutman critiques Musk’s premise as overly simplistic. Drutman argues that the “moderate middle” is a myth. While many voters identify as “independent” or “moderate,” their beliefs are often ideologically mixed and have cross-cutting identities (i.e., holding both conservative and liberal values), which doesn’t translate into a single centrist vote bloc.
The idea of a broad, cohesive “middle” that could support a centrist party is undermined by research showing that so-called independents often hold conflicting or ambivalent views (Ellis and Stimson, 2012), or have a partisan preference and wish to stay out of two party political bickering (Klar and Krupnikov, 2016) rather than consistent ideological moderation. Klar and Krupnikov, in particular, find that many Americans identify as independents not because they reject party ideology, but because they want to appear above partisan conflict, suggesting that appealing to independents through new parties may miss the deeper psychological and social dynamics of political identity.
In addition, structural barriers present challenges for third parties that are all but unsurpassable. Our single-member, plurality electoral system and complex ballot-access laws almost guarantee the failure of third parties. Political scientists have long studied the structural barriers that limit third-party success in the US, most notably through Duverger’s Law, which posits that single-member, plurality-winner electoral systems tend to entrench two-party dominance. According to a seminal piece by Riker in 1982, Duverger’s Law remains one of the most empirically grounded and theoretically sound generalizations in political science, and Riker claims that we abandon it, or dismiss it as too “law-like,” at the cost of explanatory clarity.
Drutman (2020) argues that public frustration with the two-party system exists, but without reforms like proportional representation, alternative parties struggle to gain traction without acting as “spoilers.” Bawn and colleagues (2012) argue that American political parties are dominated by coalitions of policy-seeking interest groups that use nominations to control access to power, offering a compelling explanation for why outsider or third-party candidates struggle to gain traction within the current system. While political entrepreneurs like Musk can bring attention to democratic dysfunction, the literature suggests that without systemic reforms, such as RCV or multi-member districts, third-party efforts are more likely to fragment opposition or reinforce existing power structures than to transform them.
The practical and political risks of developing a new political party must also be considered. Ballot access and preexisting infrastructure are immensely difficult in the United States. Politico explains that getting on ballots in 50 states demands enormous logistical, legal, and administrative investment. Musk would face thousands of petition-signature thresholds, lawsuits, and deadlines, a decades-long slog. Musk’s party also lacks a coherent identity. The America Party’s agenda, fiscal conservatism, crypto advocacy, and tech priorities mirror those of existing platforms, such as Libertarian or moderate Republican ones. Without a distinctive message, it risks becoming indistinguishable.
Contradictions between celebrity status and political credibility can be overcome by candidates seeking election victory, but they present different challenges when building a nationwide political party. Musk's takeover strategy, to launch via X, funnel funds, and hire a few candidates, leans more casual than organized. Experts caution that sustainable parties require a deep grassroots foundation, legal expertise, and institutional capacity. While Musk’s fame and wealth offer a fast track to short-term success, many warn that money alone won’t overcome the complexities of politics. Ballot rules, state laws, and local infrastructure matter far more.
History suggests that Musk’s movement could simply siphon votes, primarily from disenchanted Republicans, without winning races, potentially helping Democrats. Drawing historical parallels, Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign shifted deficit discourse, even without capturing electoral votes. Musk could influence policy debates without securing election victories, potentially encouraging more Republicans to back electoral reforms such as RCV that aim to solve the “spoiler” problem he might pose for them.
Before discounting his electoral chances entirely, some see a chance that Musk can succeed where others have failed if his mission is deployed tactfully. Nate Silver discusses this in his Substack newsletter, The Silver Bulletin. He notes that while Musk faces an "uphill climb" in launching a viable political party, it's not impossible. He outlines a serious path forward: invest in a diverse team of innovative young thinkers, focus on under-addressed issues like AI and fertility, and play a behind-the-scenes role, funding and mentoring rather than fronting the movement. Silver suggests Musk should repair his public image, avoid reactive tweeting, and prioritize ballot access and strategic candidate recruitment over early hype.
Musk’s America Party may bring energy and attention to the shortcomings of bipartisan politics. Yet, as political pundits and decades of political science research warn, without structural reforms and multi-party pluralism, it risks being yet another single-party vanity project rather than meaningful systemic progress.
RCV and Voter Turnout Impact in NYC 🏆
[Source: Politico]
Opponents of ranked choice voting often claim that it's “too complicated” for voters, allegedly leading to voter confusion and lower turnout, especially in communities of color or among less frequent voters. My research has found that the opposite is true; in fact, RCV boosts turnout and does not disenfranchise voters of color. The recent Democratic mayoral primary in New York City provides perhaps the most compelling real-world evidence to the contrary.
Turnout has dramatically surged since New York City began using RCV, with the two RCV elections placing second and third in the most mayoral primary votes cast in the city's history. According to the NYC Board of Elections, voter turnout surpassed both 2013 and 2017 levels, with particularly strong participation among young voters and multilingual communities. This follows a similar pattern in 2021, when turnout in the Democratic primary was the highest in two decades for a non-incumbent race. Additionally, exit polls revealed that 96% of voters understood their ballots.
Claims that RCV hurts turnout have been incorporated into the political science literature, often through limited case studies or confounded comparisons. A recent paper “Shaky political science misses mark on ranked choice voting” published on SSRN by Steven Hill and Paul Haugley, argues that the academic discourse around RCV has at times been shaped by selective methods and a tendency to assume negative effects without sufficient contextual grounding. Their paper highlights an important point: that RCV research, like any policy research, should be approached carefully, especially when new data challenges long-held assumptions.
In NYC’s case, the data point for RCV looks positive. Voter education efforts by community groups, along with a diverse and competitive field of candidates, likely contributed to broader engagement. However, it is quite plausible that the incentives of the system drove higher turnout. Candidates have every reason to communicate with more voters, not just those likely to give the first-place rank, and voters have reasons to learn about more candidates. Candidates with similar views could support each other instead of engaging in discouraging attacks.
In short, while critiques of RCV deserve serious scrutiny, recent real-world data from the country’s largest city suggests that RCV, far from depressing participation, may help broaden and deepen it, especially when paired with meaningful voter outreach.
Preserving Voting Rights for Incarcerated Citizens Eligible to Vote ⚡
In a political moment seemingly defined by the steady erosion of democratic freedoms, we wanted to highlight legislation passed in Connecticut last week. On June 30th, the state’s legislature passed a bill designed to improve voting access for incarcerated people who are eligible to vote (see page 418 of the bill). This legislation will require the Secretary of State to supply correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications, saving inmates from the logistical challenge of requesting a ballot without internet access.
Connecticut’s change is long overdue. According to a report from Yale University, Connecticut’s previous system effectively barred all eligible incarcerated voters from the ballot box. In order to exercise their legal right to vote, incarcerated people had to research the name of their town clerk, write them a letter requesting an absentee ballot application, mail back the completed application, wait to receive their ballot, fill out their ballot, and get it in the mail in time for election day. Absentee ballots are only released 31 days before an election, so the speed of the postal service made this correspondence nearly impossible.
Connecticut is not the only state that has failed to make voting a reality for incarcerated people. Among other states, Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana all rely on an arduous absentee ballot system for voting prisoners. Connecticut’s new legislation may serve as a model for other states looking to expand access. However, critics of the bill argue that it doesn’t go far enough.
One of these critics is Avery Gilbert, a faculty member at Yale Law School. While Gilbert supports the legislation’s sentiment, she argues that the bill lacks the provisions necessary to ensure that voters actually receive their ballots. “There’s no guarantee that those [the ballots] are going to be handed out. There’s no guarantee that someone is going to be informed enough to know to put it in the envelope, have the resources to get the postage, mail it, and do all those things in a timely fashion,” says Gilbert. While supplying correctional facilities with absentee ballot applications is a strong first step to ensuring voting access, states looking to adopt similar legislation should address enforcement mechanisms and financial concerns in the bill language.
Miami Cancels 2025 Election and Outrage Grows Over "Power Grab"
[Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, left, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Source: Miami Herald]
In a sharply divided 3-2 vote, the Miami City Commission voted to cancel this November’s municipal elections, pushing them to 2026 and extending their own terms, along with Mayor Francis Suarez’s, by a full year. Supporters argue the move will boost turnout and save costs by aligning city elections with higher-profile federal contests.
But critics call it an unprecedented overreach. No public vote was held on the decision, and mayoral candidates, including Emilio González, who is now suing, are calling it an illegal and undemocratic power grab. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a legal warning, stating that the move violates both the state constitution and the county charter. Governor Ron DeSantis echoed these criticisms, saying, “It is wrong for incumbent politicians to cancel elections and unilaterally extend their terms.”
Municipal elections during odd-numbered years typically experience low turnout. Research indicates that aligning elections with presidential and midterm cycles can significantly increase voter engagement. Analyses in 2024 show that the 50 largest US cities typically see turnout of 20% or less in local municipal elections under off-cycle timing, while syncing them with even-year federal elections dramatically increases participation.
The move to even-year elections forces a choice on how to handle terms: does a city reduce terms by a year, extend terms by a year, or delay the change until voters have another election under the current calendar, with clarity that the winners will have an extra year in office? While it’s been typical for city leaders approving these changes to add a year to their term, critics argue that any change must involve voters themselves, not just elected officials, to maintain democratic legitimacy.
The backlash in Miami suggests that cities should be wary about independently postponing elections and prolonging their tenure without voter approval. The debate about this controversy may set a precedent for how municipal democracies strike a balance between efficiency and voter input when changing election dates to boost voter turnout. The legal showdown now begins, and Miami residents are watching closely.
Timely Links
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
[Source: Pew Research Center]
- What Future for International Democracy Support?: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace lays out a forward-looking agenda in the wake of the Trump administration’s dismantling of pro-democracy initiatives around the world. An excerpt: “It is daunting to imagine how global democracy can be effectively supported as the United States retreats from the field and other major democracies step back from vital aid commitments. Yet reimagining and reinvention are possible—necessity can be turned into opportunity.”
- Dissatisfaction with Democracy Remains Widespread: Underscoring that pro-democracy have work to do, here’s an excerpt from a new Pew Research Center release: “Across that set of countries – Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States – a median of 64% of adults say they are dissatisfied with the way their democracy is working… In 2017, a median of 49% of adults across these countries were satisfied with how their democracy was working, while an identical 49% were not.”
- 65% of 2024 Ballots Cast before Election Day: The Voting Rights Lab is an invaluable resource of voting legislation around the US. The newsletter lifts up this news: “The Election Assistance Commission’s 2024 Report identified key trends about the ways Americans vote and elections are administered. The report found that voting before Election Day, whether by mail (30% of voters) or in person (35% of voters), is extremely popular, with in-person early voting nearly surpassing Election Day voting. In addition, the data showed that overall voter turnout decreased by 3 percentage points compared to November 2020.”
- Support for Proportional Representation Hits Record High in UK: The Electoral Reform Society in London reports on how the same polling question asked in the UK for 42 years shows surging support for replacing U.S.-style winner-take-all elections. “The National Centre for Social Research has published the latest findings from their British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey…The latest BSA findings show that a clear majority of the population supports a change to Westminster’s broken voting system, as 60% of the British public now support proportional representation.”
- History’s Lessons for Reform Advocates: Mike Parsons and Ben Raderstorf dive into the history and possible future of proportional representation in the USA. An excerpt on their advice: “In short, a ‘policy first’ reform strategy in almost any jurisdiction is going to be inherently vulnerable to blind spots unless and until the coalition of support in that jurisdiction grows and expands to meet and include more of the people most affected by the proposed reforms: the voters themselves. If electoral reform is going to succeed, we’re going to have to center voters, constituencies, and parties, along with their concerns, politics, and desires. We might be surprised to find which reforms end up resonating with different communities as reform continues to gain traction. This may be a list system in some communities or a ranked system in others. Reformers have much to learn from those we seek to serve.”
- Independence Day, Ranked-Choice Wins and Jacinda Ardern: This Week in Women’s Representation: Ms. Magazine features a weekly column from RepresentWomen’s Cynthia Richie Terrell that focuses on structural and process reforms designed to boost women’s voice and representation. Her Independence Day issue includes several pieces on how ranked choice voting can boost electoral opportunities for women.
- Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025: From the summary: “The annual Electoral Integrity Global Report summarizes data from the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset. This data is based on a survey of academic experts for each respective country. This new report presents data on the quality of national elections around the world in 2024. It also includes historical data collected by Electoral Integrity Project teams dating back to 2012.”
- New York City Mayoral General Election Highlights Electoral Laws: After voters made effective use of ranked choice voting in New York City’s June 24th primaries, it’s ironic that another crowded field in the general election will revert to plurality voting, creating the potential of a winner who is strongly opposed by most voters. Extending RCV to the general election would be sensible. In addition, election law authority Jerry Goldfeder makes a good case in this article for changes to make it easier for candidates to drop out.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Photo of a car being assembled by robotic arms
Lenny Kuhne via Unsplash
Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?
Jul 11, 2025
President Donald Trump made economic waves earlier this year when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and parts with the stated goal of revitalizing U.S. auto manufacturing. Yet as of summer 2025, the majority (92%) of Mexican-made auto parts continue to enter the United States tariff-free.
That’s because of a March 2025 revision that exempts cars and parts manufactured in compliance with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from tariffs.
The auto manufacturing industries of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are deeply intertwined, in part because of trade agreements. USMCA, implemented in 2018, is essentially an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA established tariff-free trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico and led to an increase in manufacturing on the U.S.’s Southern border, with American companies manufacturing goods in Mexico to reduce labor costs. The exemption of Mexico from tariffs is likely to accelerate this trend.
While Mexico and Canada continue to largely dodge the auto parts tariffs, tariffs on imports from other parts of the world are still in effect. Manufacturer Marelli, which made internal electronics for Jeeps and Nissans, filed for bankruptcy this month due to the subsequent financial strain.
Price increases are quantified by inflation metrics like the personal consumption expenditures price index. The PCE price index measures consumer spending on a basket of goods and services, including motor vehicles and parts. The May numbers, released earlier today, show an annual inflation rate of 2.3%.
So far since Trump took office, the PCE has seen monthly changes of +0.4%, 0%, +0.1% and +0.1% in February, March, April and May. The “motor vehicles and parts” component of the PCE has seen changes of +0.1%, -0.4%, 0%, and -0.1% over those same months, showing that the amount that Americans spend on cars and parts has not yet increased.
That component of the PCE did spike notably during the COVID-19 pandemic due to supply chain issues, resulting in slow-downs in car-buying at that time.
Changes in the PCE reflect shifts in price as well as shifts in consumer behavior. “It doesn't just track the cost of groceries per se,” explained Hoffman. “It tracks the cost of the groceries in my basket that I've chosen to purchase.”
In recent months, demand for cars has decreased as tariff news spooks potential buyers. As a result, car prices have remained relatively flat. But industry experts predict that prices will rise in coming months, even on vehicles that are manufactured in North America and thus exempt from tariffs.
“What we’ve seen historically is that if you put a tariff on an import, which drives up the cost, domestic firms are all too happy to raise their prices even though they're not paying tariffs to match the price of that import,” said Dennis Hoffman, professor of economics at the W. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
In the long run, Hoffman said, increases in the price of goods almost always lead to increases in the PCE price index.
Higher prices don’t necessarily spell the beginning of an economic downturn – if they’re matched by a corresponding rise in incomes. But if they aren't, they can portend further economic trouble.
“If goods that I need to purchase on a monthly budget go up in price, that leaves me with less income for discretionary spending, and that can be recessionary,” Hoffman said.
Meanwhile, the President is mulling further action, saying he might increase auto tariffs in the “not-so-distant future.”
Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy? was originally published by the APM Research Lab.
Maya Chari is the APM Research Lab’s data journalism fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Imagine a democracy concert followed by a yearlong democracy call to action roadshow—designed to build a new civic movement
Getty Images, gilaxia
Live Aid 40th Anniversary: Can Music Spark a Civic Revival Today?
Jul 10, 2025
On Sunday, July 13, CNN will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Live Aid with the start of a four-part documentary series that tells the definitive story of how two rock stars sparked one of the largest global music events in history.
Featuring interviews with icons like Bob Geldof, Bono, Sting, Patti LaBelle, Phil Collins, and Lionel Richie, as well as global leaders including George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, President Obasanjo, and Tony Blair, the series is enriched with rare archival footage of performances and intimate backstage moments featuring Paula Yates, Boy George, Status Quo, and George Michael.
Live Aid’s original mission was to raise funds and awareness for famine relief in Ethiopia, where millions were suffering amid drought and civil war in the early 1980s. But the event evolved into something far greater—a 16-hour transatlantic concert staged simultaneously at Wembley Stadium in London and JFK Stadium in Philadelphia, broadcast to an estimated 1.9 billion people across 150 countries.
More than a fundraiser, Live Aid was a cultural phenomenon—a moral call to action delivered in the universal language of music. As Bob Geldof put it, they spoke to the world using “the lingua franca of the planet—not English, but rock ’n’ roll,” confronting the absurdity of starvation in a world of abundance.
Live Aid didn’t just raise money; it redefined what music and mass media could accomplish together. Its legacy laid the groundwork for decades of benefit concerts and reimagined the civic potential of entertainment:
- It set a new standard for scale and reach. Live Aid proved a concert could be more than entertainment—it could be a planetary event.
- It galvanized a wave of charitable events. From Farm Aid to Live 8 to the Global Citizen Festival, Live Aid's model continues to inspire.
- It expanded the role of celebrity in activism. Bono, a Live Aid performer, would go on to launch initiatives like ONE and Product Red, becoming a lifelong advocate.
- It influenced institutional behavior. The global response pressured governments to release surplus grain and increase humanitarian aid.
- It sparked necessary debate. Live Aid also prompted critical discussions about the ethics of aid, representation, and Western involvement in global crises.
The Fulcrum now asks: If it was possible then—Why not now?
In this era of division, within the United States and across the globe, when many fear for the future of democracy itself, why not reimagine a democracy roadshow, a tour “For Democracy”?
As jazz icon Wynton Marsalis once said, “Music heals people because music is vibration, and the proper vibration heals.” Music brings people together. It multiplies energy. And when we join as one, we become greater than the sum of our parts.
Imagine a democracy concert followed by a yearlong democracy call to action roadshow—designed to build a new civic movement; a movement that transcends outdated definitions of right and left. One that centers on shared values, optimism, and active participation. In an age of algorithm-driven division, such an effort could channel celebrity influence and social platforms toward healing instead of fracture.
A democracy concert would unite artists from across genres and across the political spectrum—right, left, and center. It would reflect the diversity of American music and mirror the pluralism of its people. The concert would not be about being a Democrat or Republican but instead about being a participant in a more vibrant, inclusive democracy.
So—what’s changed since 1985: Why haven’t we seen another Live Aid-sized response to threats like democratic erosion, war, or climate collapse?
There are many reasons:
- Media fragmentation. In 1985, Live Aid reached billions through a handful of TV networks. Today, audiences are dispersed across countless platforms, making it harder to convene a singular cultural moment.
- The internet redefined activism. As Geldof has noted, online activism happens fast—but often fizzles quickly. Hashtags and livestreams have replaced the emotional resonance of shared, physical experience.
- Cynicism has grown. With hindsight, Live Aid faced criticism over how funds were distributed and for oversimplifying complex issues. Today’s public is more wary of celebrity-led efforts.
- The issues feel abstract. Famine is visceral. Democracy’s threats—disinformation, gerrymandering—are harder to embody in a single image or song.
And yet, Live Aid’s spirit still lingers—just in new forms. Global Citizen, One World: Together at Home, and Stand Up for Ukraine have built on its legacy, often leaning digital, policy-driven, and movement-based.
Part II: A New Kind of Cultural Catalyst
Perhaps what we need today is not just another concert—but a new kind of cultural infrastructure—one that fuses art, activism, and community building into a lasting democratic force. In Part II, we’ll explore how creative practice in the U.S. can meet civic needs, strengthen local economies, and restore our human connections.
Here are a few ideas we’ll unpack in Part II
- Civic Studios. Permanent community-rooted spaces where artists, organizers, and residents co-create murals, performances, and storytelling projects to address local democratic challenges. Part gallery, part organizing hub, part civic classroom.
- The Democracy Mixtape Project. A traveling concert–meets–town hall, remixing core democratic texts (like the Constitution) through music, spoken word, and civic education. Think Hamilton meets Live Aid—but grassroots and mobile.
- The Civic Imagination Fund. A pooled fund supporting long-term residencies for artists embedded in movement spaces—like voting rights or climate justice—designed to spur innovation at the intersection of creativity and civic infrastructure.
- Digital Public Squares. Online platforms that blend artistic storytelling with live civic dialogue. Picture a short film on gerrymandering sparking a real-time conversation between artists, organizers, and historians.
- The Civic Rituals Lab. A think-and-do tank that prototypes new public rituals—like a “Democracy Sabbath” or “Day of Listening”—to replace partisan spectacle with culturally resonant practices of reflection and connection.
Stay tuned for Part II, where we explore how art can become a civic muscle—energizing not just our culture but our democracy itself.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.Keep ReadingShow less
blue and yellow abstract painting
Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash
LGBTQ Refugees Came to America To Escape Discrimination. Now, They Live in Fear in the U.S.
Jul 10, 2025
Salvadoran refugee Alberto, who is using a pseudonym out of safety concerns, did not feel secure in his own home. Being a gay man in a country known for state-sponsored violence and community rejection meant Alberto lived his life on high alert.
His family did not accept him. He says one family member physically attacked him because of his identity. He says he has been followed, harassed, and assaulted by police, accused of crimes he didn’t commit when he was studying to become a social worker. His effort to escape the rejection in his community left him, at one point, homeless and lost in a new city.
He sought help from the LGBTQ refugee resettlement program Rainbow Railroad to find a new home in the United States, a place renowned for its progressive advancement of LGBTQ rights. He is one of thousands of LGBTQ refugees from around the world who have been forced to flee their homes due to persecution and violence because of who they are or who they love.
“It's a second chance that I think life is giving me,” said Alberto, about resettling in the U.S.
However, many of those who have relocated to the United States, like Alberto, are caught at the intensifying intersections of discrimination and criminalization of asylum seekers and LGBTQ residents here in America.
“I felt safe to live here, but I don't feel safe with this administration, because for me, being a Latino, gay, I had some concerns about the situation for my community, for myself too,” he said, who has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Around the country, masked ICE agents have been seen arresting migrants and asylum seekers who appeared for their scheduled court hearings. Even those with legal residency or those with visas have been subject to detention and arrest by federal law enforcement agents.
The Trump administration has repeatedly deemed immigrants and asylum seekers “criminals,” even those without a criminal record, who have paid taxes to the federal government and/or are seeking asylum.
ICE has reported more than 60,000 removals since the inauguration. Migrant detention camps are expanding and popping up at the behest of the Trump administration in states like Florida and Texas. ICE raids have terrorized communities across the nation.
Alberto is in the middle of his own interview process with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, but it feels increasingly dangerous to attend even these routine check-ins: “I feel very worried, honestly, because I was watching many videos of the people who come for the appointments, and they have been arrested.”
He continued, “I did not cross the border, and I came with all documents, but nothing is secure with this administration. They can change the ideas whenever they want.”
For Alberto and others like him, this fear is compounded by the growing political and social hostility toward the LGBTQ community.
The ACLU is tracking 598 anti-LGBTQ bills across the country this year alone. GLAAD, a national LGBTQ media advocacy organization, tracked almost 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents in 2024, including bomb threats, acts of vandalism, assaults, and more.
Over the last year, the Rainbow Railroad received the most requests for assistance from callers in the United States, surpassing any other country.
National activist group Human Rights Campaign declared a “National State of Emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans” just last year, and created resources for those looking to move out of their state or the country.
“What we're seeing now could just be the start of the worst that is yet to come,” said Latoya Nugent, Rainbow Railroad’s Head of Engagement. “We are very fearful that in the next three and a half or four years that we may be in a world where we may not even recognize the U.S.”
The change in the dynamic was almost immediate after the inauguration. Rainbow Road’s refugee admissions programs were suspended, and similar global programs that addressed public needs connected to the LGBTQ community ground to a halt – from USAID to the U.N. LGBTI Core Group.
“The U.S. is a powerful actor in the global humanitarian protection system,” said Nugent. “It's not just what is happening in the US, but it's also the impact globally on the work that has been happening over the years.”
The new efforts by the Trump administration to turn back progress on LGBTQ and immigrant rights have increasingly exhausted and drained these already vulnerable populations fighting for their ability to stay safe and alive here in the U.S.
LGBTQ advocacy groups are preparing for the worst, as the changing legal and social U.S. landscape presents unknowns for the future of refugee resettlement and LGBTQ life in America.
“We are also seeing the community really rally around some of the most vulnerable people, including LGBTQ asylum seekers and refugees, recognizing that if we don't hold the line right now, things could become significantly worse,” said Nugent.
Still, many places in the U.S. are a beacon of hope for the queer and transgender community, especially those who hail from countries where they’d be persecuted for those identities. More than 60 countries currently criminalize the LGBTQ community. Individuals in these countries are often faced with state-sponsored violence, family violence, and societal rejection.
For Alberto, moving to Chicago has been a life-changing experience. Rainbow Railroad helped him find stability and build a support system of local connections that share in his experiences. He’s holding these positive moments close to his heart, which has helped him cope with the growing pressures of the political arena.
“For the first time in my life, I can live. I can feel, I'm feeling free to to be who I am, express my identity, who I am, and without concern over thoughts about who I am, and that's made me feel happy,” Alberto said.
Kiara Alfonseca is a reporter and producer with nearly a decade of experience reporting on the intersections of politics and identity.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More