We are building a citizen army across America fighting for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that will end the rampant corruption of our federal government and ensure Free and Fair Elections. The massive amounts of money spent in our elections from outside special interests, often with little to no transparency, is drowning out the voices of average citizens and distorting the most fundamental principle of America - a country dependent upon the people alone. By working together, we can solve this problem and ensure true representative government in America for ourselves and future generations with an amendment to the Constitution. Wolf-PAC is using a proven strategy of going through our state governments to achieve an amendment. Learn more about our plan and how to become an active citizen by visiting our website.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Question marks on a stack of small blocks.
Getty Images / Sakchai Vongsasiripat
The Power of Outrage and Keeping Everyone Guessing
Jan 23, 2025
Donald Trump loves to keep us guessing. This is exactly what we’re all doing as his second term in the White House begins. It’s one way he controls the narrative.
Trump’s off the cuff, unfiltered, controversial statements infuriate opponents and delight his supporters. The rest of us are left trying to figure out the difference between the shenanigans and when he’s actually serious.
At a recent news conference, Trump was in an expansionist mood, telling reporters he wants to take over Greenland, annex Canada, and return the Panama Canal to U.S. control. But is this all a part of a negotiating strategy to get something else?
For extra measure, he also declared “all hell will break out” if a deal to release Israeli hostages held by Hamas was not done before his inauguration on January 20, 2025. Both Israel and Hamas wanted to avoid finding out what his comments mean as both sides reached a ceasefire agreement within days of Trump’s threat. Now he’s getting credit for movement in negotiations that had been stalled for months.
Will the next four years be like his first administration? Yes and no. While Trump himself doesn’t appear to have changed much, apart from getting older (quite a bit older) and more experienced in the ways of Washington, his administration could be far more disciplined than the chaotic first four years.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Susie Wiles, the incoming chief of staff—Trump’s closest advisor—says backbiting and drama won’t be tolerated in this White House. Wiles is a politico pro, seen as a steady and experienced hand who played a key role in Trump’s well-run 2024 campaign. She will control information and access to the Oval Office, set the president’s daily agenda, and manage his White House staff.
Unlike the first time around, Trump’s top picks for his second term were announced very quickly. All but a few nominees are poised to win easy approval in the Republican-run Senate.
From Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at HEW and Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence to Scott Bessant at Treasury and Marco Rubio at State, the new administration will include a surprisingly broad range of opinions, from brash tech entrepreneurs to traditional corporate conservatives, to conspiracy theorists, and Make America Great Again (MAGA) populists.
Are diverse viewpoints a sign of confident strength or mere confusion and chaos? We are kept guessing and only time will tell.
While the president-to-be and his loudmouth MAGA allies have cowered all but a handful of Republicans in Congress, the Trump coalition is already facing a bitter split over immigration. Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and the big business wing of the Republican Party think that admitting more skilled immigrants, including brainy scientists and technology wizards, would be good for business innovation and the economy. Trump’s hardcore populist supporters want to shut the door on newcomers. So far, Trump seems to be siding with Musk.
We know that many will be angered by what Trump does, but exactly who he surprises and who he offends is almost impossible to predict. Despite what you may read from ever-confident pundits online or in the columns of your favorite newspaper, we’re all guessing. Perhaps that is all part of Trump's negotiating strategy.
In a best-case scenario, a second Trump administration will boost growth, reduce undocumented immigration in an orderly way, manage China, and broker a ceasefire in Ukraine. But the worst case would include an assault on democratic norms and trust in public institutions, along with more political polarization and violence in the streets. Under Trump, the U.S. may help Putin and America’s adversaries by turning its back on long-time allies, undermining NATO and Ukraine, and getting into a full-on trade war with China, leading to higher inflation and an economic crisis.
The possible outcomes range from exhilarating to deeply alarming.
For almost a decade Donald Trump and his MAGA movement have been banging at the gates of power, challenging the elite, and ridiculing the government. And now there's a chance to prove they can go from complaining about the problem to implementing solutions.
Now he’s in charge. It’s his show. His supporters are a new establishment.
So this question for the next leader of the free world: Will you lift up more than you tear down? We’re still guessing what the outcomes will be.
Richard Davies is a podcast consultant, host, and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Newspaper headline cuttings.
Getty Images / Sean Gladwell
To help heal divides, we must cut “the media” some slack
Jan 23, 2025
A few days ago, Donald Trump was inaugurated. In his second term, just as in his first, he’ll likely spark passionate disagreements about news media: what is “fake news” and what isn’t, which media sources should be trusted and which should be doubted.
We know we have a media distrust problem. Recently it hit an all-time low: the percentage of Americans with "not very much" trust in the media has risen from 27% in 2020 to 33% in 2024.
We think most would agree we want high trust in news. However, this growing distrust isn’t only about news quality; it’s also a manifestation of our toxic political divides. Many are, of course, angry at news outlets they associate with the “other side.” But many also have grievances against outlets largely aligned with their worldview when they think they’re not doing enough to support the “good guys” or fight the “bad guys.” Our stressful divides lead to us being upset about many things—and, unsurprisingly, this applies to our views of “the media.”
Amidst this rising distrust, it’s worth asking: Are we sometimes too angry at “the media”? We know many people have overly pessimistic views of their political opponents and that this “undue hate” helps drive polarization. Could excessive anger at “the media” also be contributing to our divides? If so, is there value in thinking about “the media” in more nuanced ways?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We can examine this question while acknowledging that news outlets, intentionally or not, do contribute to polarization. News outlets too often seem to cater to their audiences’ existing views which helps people stay in information bubbles. They tend to focus too much on divisive narratives and divisive leaders—and those choices influence our views of what politics can and should be. There are many criticisms we can and should make of news outlets; we must encourage them to do better. But we should also consider whether there’s value in tempering that criticism with empathy and understanding.
Some anger is based on a perception that “the media” is a powerful institution pulling the strings of society. But as media scholar Elizaveta Friesem points out: “Media is just us; it’s just people communicating with each other.”
Journalists are people, like us. They’re not omniscient arbiters of truth (even as their approaches, at times, make it seem like they think they are). Like us, they’re dealing with our confusing and stressful divides as well as a fractured and competitive information landscape. Journalists have conscious and unconscious biases, as we all do. And combatting our own biases is difficult—especially when we have such divergent political narratives.
For example, the New York Times is accused by many of having an extensive liberal bias—but some on the left accuse them of “enabling right-wing spin”, or even of being pro-Trump. Regardless of what you think of the New York Times, the point is that no matter the approach a news outlet takes, it’ll inevitably anger many people who have different politics. Acknowledging that reality can help us better understand the stress that our divides place on media creators.
Some of our frustration with the news is due to people simply not understanding their political opponents. When we’re in conflict, we find it hard to see our adversaries’ point of view. This difficulty is what leads to so many people accusing the “other side” of being brainwashed, of being in a cult, and of creating or believing propaganda. As our narratives diverge more and more, our opponents’ beliefs seem increasingly alien, inexplicable—even downright scary.
A grievance from conservative audiences is that many in the mainstream news have interpreted Trump’s statements in biased and overly pessimistic ways. Many conservatives see that as part of a malicious smear campaign. But there are other explanations for such things besides purposeful deception. Simply put, it’s just easy for people to arrive at very different stances, especially for issues associated with our divides. People’s views about Trump’s statements can vary depending on how they interpret his words and intentions, or how they connect his words to what he’s said in the past on the same issue. This dynamic happens on both sides of every conflict.
Of course, some people do promote information they know is false or misleading. We know our divides can make people think the ends justify the means. But often bias is a much simpler explanation than purposeful deception. We aren’t good at distinguishing genuine belief from deception—and this means we’ll often make mistakes about our political opponents.
Some talk nostalgically about the “golden age” of journalism in the 20th century as if it was a time of high-quality reporting and strong consensus. But we should recognize our rosy perceptions of that time may be largely an illusion, influenced by there being only a handful of powerful news outlets at that time. Some argue our current media fragmentation represents a return to a pre-golden-age environment where a multitude of competing narratives were found across many small newspapers and pamphlets.
No matter how we got here, today’s media is a reflection of our society and the people in it. To reduce political toxicity, we must criticize news outlets and demand that they do better. But if we temper our criticisms with empathy and understanding, we’ll be more persuasive—more likely to be heard and listened to. Maybe someday, we’ll find our way to a new age of trusted news.
Keep ReadingShow less
Tommy Gong is the deputy county clerk-recorder for Contra Costa County, San Francisco Bay Area—home to over 700,000 registered voters.
Photo Courtesy of Issue One
Meet the Faces of Democracy: Tommy Gong
Jan 23, 2025
Californian Tommy Gong is the deputy county clerk-recorder for Contra Costa County which is located in the San Francisco Bay Area and home to over 700,000 registered voters. He has been an election administrator for over two decades, having served in other California counties including San Luis Obispo and Stanislaus.
Gong, who is not affiliated with any political party, has received wide recognition throughout his tenure as an election official. He led efforts to coordinate communication tactics to increase public trust in election processes across the Bay Area by forming the Coalition of Bay Area Election Officials. This initiative received awards from the National Association of Election Officials and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
He is also an advisory board member for the Election Official Legal Defense Network, a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Elections, a member of the Election Workforce Advisory Council, and is on the board of directors for the California Voter Foundation.
Outside of his passion for election administration, Gong is enthusiastic about practicing and teaching martial arts. He has served on the board of directors of the Bruce Lee Foundation and wrote the book, “Bruce Lee: The Evolution of a Martial Artist,” which was published in 2014.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Since 2024, he has been part of Issue One’s Faces of Democracy campaign advocating for protections for election workers and for regular, predictable, and sufficient federal funding of elections.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Issue One: How did you end up in this profession?
Tommy Gong: I grew up in the grocery business with my family. Then I went to UC Berkeley and ended up going to San Francisco State University for an MBA. I thought I was going to become an accountant but my folks ended up expanding the store.
When they did that, they needed me back in the family business. I did that for about 10 years, and then we decided to sell the business. I was looking for a new career, and I didn't want to stay in the grocery industry, and so I came across this job for elections manager in Stanislaus County. That was around 2001 or 2002 and the 2000 election was very fresh in our minds. I had been constantly watching the process regarding the outcome of the 2000 election. So, I applied, and was hired.
My first election was the governor recall race of 2003. There was a lot of public interest in that election. Suffice it to say that I caught the election bug. I really enjoyed the work and the way that we would always review how things went and how we were going to do things better. It always was this loop of continuous improvement.
That was the start. Then I ended up in San Luis Obispo. I was really wanting to learn my trade, learn my craft, and I wanted to apprentice under someone who could mentor me over the years. That person ended up being Julie Rodewald of San Luis Obispo. She hired me and I was just so fortunate to be able to work with her. She mentored me, giving me increasing responsibilities, to the point where in 2014, when she decided to retire, I was ready to run her position and was elected.
Then, in 2021, I transitioned to Contra Costa County, a much bigger county.
Issue One: What part of the election administration story in California do you think is not told or widely understood enough?
Tommy Gong: I think that the public doesn’t really understand all of the work that goes on during an election and when you're preparing for an election. They think that we’re only working one to two days a year. That's something that we need to overcome.
Specifically in California, there’s been an evolution of more voters voting by mail. This has happened over a 20 year time period. Eventually, in 2016, we hit a critical mass of those who were voting by mail. I realized that processing mail ballots is a time intensive process which includes things like signature verification. As more voters vote by mail, it requires a lot of time and preparation by the office.
Issue One: Could you elaborate on some initiatives including the Coalition of Bay Area Election Officials and PR firm partnerships—that have been integral to building trust in 2024? What can others learn from these initiatives? How have these initiatives changed public engagement?
Tommy Gong: When I was in San Luis Obispo, there was no budget for outreach and education for many years. We had a limited staff and it was really cut to the bone. Then we went through the economic downturn of 2008, 2009 and there was simply no money available for expanded programs. Voter outreach and education is not something that's statutorily required in California, so those who are managing the budget are not going to prioritize it.
During the 2020 election, I recognized the need for communicating with the public and with some grant money, I was able to hire someone to help facilitate the process of communicating changes that were going to happen for the 2020 election. That was my first taste of engaging more frequently with the public and with the media.
After facing skepticism following the 2020 election, I sought to expand these types of programs and outreach. One thing I recognized in the Bay Area is that we all use the same media market, including multiple channels of news media, local news media, newspapers and such. So I thought there had to be a way that we could work together to have a more uniform message, leverage creative energies to be able to have an even stronger message to the public and have a greater impact.
We reached out to all of the neighboring counties, the vast majority of them participated, and we were able to both have a uniform voice and also learn from each other. We would have opportunities to actually talk shop with one another such as about how to handle candidate filings or a particular ballot designation. It allowed us to talk through certain procedures and processes that we all do as small, medium and large counties within the contingent and realize that we're more similar than we are different.
It was great to have the ability to work together and not be walking over one another when we want to get out some particular news item. We were able to coordinate strategically and be more effective. The programs that we implemented over the last three years really helped increase public trust in elections, and I think that there is still a lot to be learned from communications professionals to do even a better job down the road.
Issue One: How has the role of an election official evolved over the two decades you’ve been in the field?
Tommy Gong: I started after the 2000 election. That election was really a watershed moment for the nation, and as a result, it brought the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding and programs to states and counties across the nation. It really was a game changer in the sense that it provided funding for upgraded voting equipment following that. In 2006, we implemented some new voting equipment away from the punch cards which were notorious in the 2000 election. Watershed moments like the 2000 election necessitate changes in the industry. We've embraced technology evermore.
Small, medium, and large counties are going to be at different stages at different times of implementing technology. I see technology as a way to make the job more precise. For example, I see us being able to provide services more efficiently. We're communicating with the public much more than just mail, social media has really increased our means to communicate. I would say that's been a real watershed—seeing how election offices across the country have really embraced technology. I think we've discovered some really exciting things by seeing what other counties are doing and what we can learn from them.
Issue One: You’ve mentioned independent audits as a potential trust-building measure. What would such audits entail, and how might they impact public perception?
Tommy Gong: Independent audits are one area where we can find some bipartisan support. An independent audit would involve an external entity performing an audit or a checklist of all of the things that they should be looking for related to the requirements of an election, all of the checks and balances, all of the procedures and processes that are required. It would also include if there were any discrepancies and how they were resolved. Typically, audits are done within the office. I think that having an outside, legal entity might engender additional trust of the public knowing that their election is being audited.
Issue One: Many people are surprised to learn that the federal government doesn’t routinely fund the costs of running elections. Why do you think the federal government should routinely contribute to election administration costs? What steps are you and your colleagues taking to secure sustainable state or federal funding for elections, and how do you balance competing budget priorities? Can you speak to how the needs of smaller counties differ from larger ones in terms of resources, staffing, and challenges?
Tommy Gong: It starts by understanding who we are allowed to bill for election services and by examining our billing methodology. What's interesting about the local jurisdictions – such as cities, school districts, special districts – that we bill for election services, is that it wouldn't necessarily be fair for them to pay for the federal and state portion of the election. The federal government or the state government should be reimbursing us for their share so you have to allocate what those costs would be.
I've been doing a lot of studying of this over the last year and a half and it's staggering to see what amount of that is attributed to the federal and state governments, especially the state when you think about a gubernatorial cycle when you're electing all of the state officers and you might have 18 state propositions, for example, on the ballot. That would be a lot of ballot real estate. Rightfully, the state should be paying a larger percentage of the costs, but yet they don't. It's a huge challenge and it needs to be very well coordinated.
That needs to start at the state level, where localities are all governed by the same election laws. The 58 counties, through our state association, need to huddle together to come up with a game plan. This plan should include partners such as the state association of counties and the state legislative analyst office to determine state election costs and how they could be reimbursed to the counties.
The federal component is a tougher nut to crack because now you're dealing with 50 different states. Now, if we all had the same methodology, that would be great, but I'm not sure that we do. That's what makes it really challenging.
I think hesitancy for funding for elections from the federal or state government is that it will come with strings attached such as new legislation that would cost more for the counties. At the national level, this happened with HAVA in 2002. And the nuances in terms of creating a budget and competing with other priorities at the county level can be very challenging.
When you look at the budget process [in California], the County Administrator takes direction from the County Commissioners or the County Board of Supervisors, and oftentimes they are going to set the budget priorities for the county. Public safety is going to be number one. Then you might have things like road infrastructure or health services and things like that. Elections end up further down on the totem pole. When it comes down to dollars and cents, we get a smaller slice of the pie than others do. When you scale down regarding county size, it makes it even more difficult for the smaller jurisdictions to make do with even less, we all have the same things to accomplish.
Smaller jurisdictions may not have as much as many voters, but they still have a lot of the same processes and procedures to accomplish.
Issue One: You’ve announced your retirement—what’s next for you, and how do you plan to stay involved in supporting the election profession? What advice would you give to those entering the field of election administration, and what should the profession focus on in the years to come?
Tommy Gong: I’ve found myself with an interest in the intersection of election administration, advocacy, and academia, especially after seeing the external support in terms of services and assistance to election offices after the 2020 election.
We need to find a way to build bridges so that we can have greater continuity across all of the resources that are available to support the election system. My parting thought is that conducting elections is a noble profession. It's something that I've gained a lot of respect for — all of the people that I have known in the elections world, they are really passionate about elections. They might not be for politics, but they have found a way to be able to contribute to our process of democracy. Many people find out that they really love elections and they do have the passion to stick with it for as long as they can.
For me, I will say that all the years that I had worked in elections prepared me for 2020. I really see the 2020 election as the pinnacle of my career in elections because I had to pull out all the stops to make everything happen and be successful. My career here ending in Contra Costa has really been icing on the cake.
Knowing what has happened in the last number of election cycles, it may be really difficult to remain nonpartisan and apolitical in an increasingly polarized world. To maintain that level of nonpartisanship is going to be increasingly challenging now that we're all under a microscope. Before, maybe only one county that had some missteps were under a microscope, but I think we're all under a microscope today now with our communities. That's one of the major challenges that I see. But if we have this passion for our craft, then this idea of continuous improvement and innovation will keep us going to try and find the next best way that we can improve our process and share them with our fellow election officials. The intersection of advocacy and academia can really go a long way in terms of improving our profession and making us that much stronger down the road.
And some parting words to the profession—as I'm seeing more and more about the misinformation cycle, I think that's where academia can really help us hone our message. Reaching out to and communicating on an emotional level to the public is very powerful and it's something that we really need to learn about and to harness. Facts only go so far and what we learned while working with our public relations advertising firm was how you craft that message that resonates in the public's minds and hearts.
We also need to advocate for ourselves. I know as an evolving process of elections, this is one of the things that's required of us as election officials today. It wasn't needed as much before, but we really need to advocate for our profession and for the integrity of our elections and why the public can come and trust what we're doing. The newfound world of outreach, education, the media, and public perception of the election process that we really need to work on now.
Issue One: Outside of being passionate about running safe and secure elections, what are your hobbies, or what is a fun fact that most people might not know about you?
Tommy Gong: I've been practicing martial arts for longer than I've been conducting elections. It's become this big passion for me. Especially as an Asian American growing up in America, Bruce Lee was my idol. I had the chance to learn the martial arts that he developed. As a result, I’ve met many people who knew Bruce Lee. I was able to meet his wife and daughter and contribute to the Bruce Lee Foundation. It came full circle for me because Bruce Lee evolved from a childhood hero for me to someone whose legacy that I'm responsible for.
I wrote a book, “Bruce Lee: The Evolution of a Martial Artist” which was published in 2013. I wrote it as a five year project. This book was a passion project of mine. It chronicles Bruce Lee's life and how he developed his martial art when he was in America. It gets into not only his technique, but his philosophy. I've had election officials who have purchased the book for a loved one—I sign it and I seal it with my Chinese chop.
Editor’s note: More than 10,000 officials across the country run U.S. elections. This interview is part of the Issue One series, Faces of Democracy, highlighting the election heroes who are the faces of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Darrious Hilmon
Credit: CAN-TV
Fulcrum Democracy Forum: Darrious Hilmon
Jan 23, 2025
Established in 1983, the Chicago Access Network Television, better known as CAN TV, is a public, educational, and government access (PEG) cable television service in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to "promote people's right to speak and be heard, teach independent media use, seek understanding through media, link people to local opportunities, and invest people with the power of technology."
Darrious Hilmon is the Executive Director of CAN TV. Hilmon provides global oversight of the five-station television network, serving as the lead champion for digital literacy, access, and equity, and the active engagement and partnership of community partners and other key stakeholders needed to ensure that community access remains relevant for viewers, producers, and guests.
I had the chance to speak with Hilmon on a recent episode of Fulcrum Democracy Forum (FDF). The program engages citizens in evolving government to meet all people's needs better. Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, FDF strives to share many perspectives to widen our readers' viewpoints.
Darrious and I have known each other for some time. In my role as publisher of Illinois Latino News, an affiliate of the Latino News Network, we have collaborated in the production of programs, including Chicago Politics, PRESENTE!, Sazon de Illinois, and 3 Questions With.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Hilmon is the host of the popular CAN TV Signature Program In the Arena airing Tuesdays at 7p on CAN TV19.
Most recently, Hilmon served as Executive Director of the Chicago State Foundation, where he was charged with advancing the interests and welfare of Chicago State University through partnership development, stewardship of university assets, and identification and solicitation of financial support from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Hilmon has also served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for the Chicago Urban League (CUL), overseeing fund development, outcomes-driven programs, and design and implementation of cross-functional initiatives, including CUL’s Race and Equity Initiative and Centennial Campaign. Hilmon hired and led the fund development team responsible for delivering the most successful annual fundraising campaigns in the civil rights organization’s 101-year history.
A graduate of the University of Michigan, Hilmon is the Essence® best-selling author of the novels, 5 Dimes (Penguin/NAL; 2003) and Divalicious (Penguin/NAL; 2004), and the anthology, Mad Love (AuthorHouse; 2005).
Here are other Change Leaders who I had the opportunity to interview as part of the Fulcrum Democracy Forum series:
- Sam Daley Harris, founder of Civic Courage
- Sylvia Puente, President & CEO, Latino Policy Forum
- Jaisal Noor, Solutions Journalism Network's Democracy Cohort Manager
- Audra Watson, Chief of Youth Civic Programs, Institute for Citizens & Scholars
I am the Fulcrum's executive editor. As a journalist, I take a collaborative approach to paving the path forward to a more informed and engaged citizenry, fortifying the foundations of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More