Author: Tom Forden

The Moon Mission Revival

We got Bin Laden; we should be able to get back to the moon without this circus. The American Democracy Project urges policymakers to cut the partisan nonsense, fund the program properly, and commit to a sustained presence on the moon. Because if we don’t, others will—and that’s a loss we can’t afford.

Finally, readers should stay informed and demand accountability. Space exploration is not a luxury; it’s a strategic imperative.

The American Democracy Project will continue to monitor this story closely, exposing failures and celebrating successes. The moon mission is back, but whether it succeeds depends on us.

Purpose of Artemis II

Artemis II represents more than a symbolic return. It’s a testbed for the technologies and strategies that will underpin sustained lunar presence.

The mission will orbit the moon, testing life-support systems and spacecraft performance under real conditions. This is crucial because, unlike the Apollo missions, which were brief and focused on planting flags, the current agenda aims for long-term habitation and resource utilization.

The moon is no longer just a trophy; it’s a potential launchpad for Mars and beyond. Its strategic value extends beyond scientific curiosity to future deep‑space endeavors.

Political Landscape and Governance

However, the political backdrop complicates this ambitious vision. While the Artemis program is a beacon of hope for space enthusiasts, it also exposes the chronic dysfunction in American governance.

Funding delays, bureaucratic infighting, and shifting priorities have plagued the program. Democrats, despite their rhetoric about science and innovation, have often failed to provide consistent support.

Meanwhile, Republicans have weaponized space policy as a political football, undermining the very institutions that should be advancing national interests. This dysfunction threatens to turn what should be a unifying national project into a fragmented mess.

For example, the Artemis program’s success depends on competent governance and clear strategic vision—qualities that have been in short supply. The American Democracy Project has watched with a mix of frustration and disbelief as political squabbles delay launches and squander taxpayer dollars.

International Competition

Similarly, the international context cannot be ignored. China and Russia are aggressively pursuing lunar ambitions, with plans for bases and resource extraction.

The United States risks ceding strategic advantage if it doesn’t act decisively. Artemis II is a litmus test for whether America can still lead in space or if it will be relegated to a spectator role.

The stakes are existential: control of the moon could translate into dominance in space‑based technologies and military capabilities. Such dominance would reshape global power dynamics.

Call to Action

To sum up, Artemis II is a critical mission that could mark the dawn of a new era in space exploration. But it also highlights the deep institutional failures that threaten American leadership.

The moon is not just a rock; it’s a test of our ability to govern effectively and think long‑term. The American Democracy Project urges policymakers to cut the partisan nonsense, fund the program properly, and commit to a sustained presence on the moon.

Because if we don’t, others will—and that’s a loss we can’t afford. Readers should stay informed and demand accountability.

Space exploration is not a luxury; it’s a strategic imperative. The American Democracy Project will continue to monitor this story closely, exposing failures and celebrating successes.

The moon mission is back, but whether it succeeds depends on us. We must ensure America leads the way.

Final Note

Accountability demands continual vigilance, and the American Democracy Project remains committed to tracking progress and exposing shortcomings.

Only through informed citizen engagement can we ensure that the lunar journey advances national interests and unites humanity under a shared purpose.

Let us champion ambition, demand competence, and hold leaders accountable as we embark on this new chapter of exploration.

The future of space hinges on our collective resolve.

Stay tuned for updates as the mission unfolds.

Together, we can turn the moon’s silence into a chorus of possibilities.

Join us in advocating for bold leadership and sustained investment.

Our nation’s destiny is written among the stars.

Let us write it wisely.

Because the stakes are existential, and the world is watching.

We must not let political infighting derail our destiny.

Let us rise together.

The moon awaits.

And so does our future.

We look forward to the next chapter.

Stay engaged, stay informed, stay hopeful.

Because the journey is far from over.

It has just begun.

And we are ready.

Let us embark.

Together.

Forever.

Onward.

To the moon.

To the stars.

To America.

To peace.

To progress.

To possibility.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Moon Mission Returns: Artemis II and the Future of Lunar Exploration

Justice Samuel Alito’s Two‑Decade Tenure on the Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito’s two decades on the Supreme Court offer a revealing window into the conservative judicial philosophy that has reshaped American law—and not always for the better.

As The American Democracy Project reflects on his tenure, it’s clear that Alito’s rulings and rhetoric have consistently pushed the Court toward a rollback of constitutional protections and democratic norms.

Originalism as a Conservative Trojan Horse

Alito’s unapologetic embrace of originalism has often served as a Trojan horse for conservative policy goals.

He once declared that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of its framing, a stance that conveniently ignores the evolving needs of a modern, pluralistic society.

This rigid approach has justified decisions that undermine voting rights and civil liberties, signaling a Court more interested in preserving power structures than protecting democracy.

Skepticism Toward Checks and Balances

Alito has suggested that courts should defer heavily to legislative bodies, except when those bodies enact progressive reforms.

This selective deference betrays a political agenda masquerading as judicial philosophy, eroding public trust in the Court’s neutrality.

Religion and Public Policy

Alito’s comments on the role of the judiciary reveal a troubling disdain for checks and balances.

His skepticism toward the separation of church and state has emboldened efforts to inject religious doctrine into public policy.

Defending religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, he has paved the way for discrimination under the guise of faith, threatening the secular foundation of American governance.

Executive Power and Partisan Bias

Alito has expressed a willingness to grant expansive authority to the presidency, particularly under conservative administrations.

At the same time, he shows less enthusiasm for constraints when Democrats hold the office, fueling the dangerous politicization of the judiciary.

Precedent and Stare Decisis

Alito’s approach to precedent is anything but consistent.

He has openly questioned landmark rulings that protect reproductive rights and affirmative action, signaling a readiness to dismantle decades of legal progress.

This selective respect for precedent undermines the stability of the law and the principle that justice should not be subject to political whims.

Tone‑Deafness to Real‑World Consequences

His rhetoric often betrays a tone‑deafness to the real‑world consequences of his decisions.

Dismissive remarks about the impact of certain rulings on marginalized communities reveal a judiciary increasingly detached from the lived experiences of ordinary Americans.

Call to Action

To sum up, Justice Alito’s 20 years on the Supreme Court have been marked by a relentless push to reshape the judiciary into a conservative bulwark against democratic progress.

The American Democracy Project urges readers to recognize the stakes: this is not mere legal debate but a battle over the soul of American democracy.

We must hold our elected officials accountable for the judges they confirm and push for reforms that restore balance and fairness to the Court.

Because if we don’t, the erosion of democratic norms will continue unchecked, and the promise of justice for all will remain a hollow slogan.

Justice Alito’s 20 Years on the Supreme Court: A Critical Look Through His Own Words

The Crisis of Inequality and Unaffordability

The growing chasm between inequality and unaffordability is no longer a distant warning but a present-day crisis. The American Democracy Project has been tracking how economic disparities fuel a vicious cycle of hardship for millions, and the latest developments only deepen our frustration.

Inequality Is About Access

First of all, let’s acknowledge the obvious: inequality isn’t just about income gaps. It’s about access—access to opportunities, to affordable living, and to a stable future. When wages stagnate but costs soar, families are forced to make impossible choices.

Housing and Renters Crisis

The American Democracy Project has seen the data: housing prices have outpaced income growth for years, pushing homeownership out of reach for many. Renters are squeezed tighter every month, with eviction threats looming large. This isn’t a market correction; it’s a systemic collapse.

While political leaders squabble and posture, the average American faces skyrocketing costs for essentials like housing, healthcare, and education. This isn’t just a policy failure; it’s a betrayal of the social contract.

Political Inaction and Systemic Collapse

Secondly, the political class’s inability to address these issues is maddening. Democrats, despite holding power in various branches, have failed to enact meaningful reforms that could ease the burden. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to dismantle regulatory safeguards and social programs, accelerating the crisis.

Healthcare System Failures

The result? A democracy that looks increasingly like an oligarchy, where the wealthy consolidate power and the rest scramble for scraps. For example, consider the healthcare system. Costs continue to climb, leaving millions uninsured or underinsured.

Education Debt Trap

Similarly, education costs have ballooned, saddling young Americans with crushing debt before they even start their careers. This debt trap limits social mobility and perpetuates inequality. The failure to address student loan burdens is a glaring example of political paralysis and misplaced priorities.

Path Forward

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. The American Democracy Project believes in holding power accountable and pushing for solutions that restore functional democracy. We need policies that tackle inequality head-on: affordable housing initiatives, healthcare reform that genuinely reduces costs, and education policies that make college accessible without lifelong debt.

Call to Action

Finally, the public must demand better. Voter engagement and activism are crucial to breaking this cycle. The American Democracy Project urges citizens to recognize that the stakes are existential.

Conclusion

If we allow inequality and unaffordability to continue unchecked, we risk eroding the very foundations of our democracy. To sum up, the nexus of inequality and unaffordability is a crisis born of political failure and economic injustice. It demands urgent, competent action—not empty promises or partisan finger-pointing.

Final Thoughts

The American Democracy Project will continue to expose these failures and advocate for a democracy that works for all, not just the privileged few. The time for excuses is over; the time for real change is now.

The Inequality and Unaffordability Crisis: A Stark Reality Check

Trump’s Claim About Iran and the Missing Strategy

Donald Trump recently asserted that Iran is interested in making a deal, yet he declined to clarify whether he plans to pursue a Venezuela‑style operation to pressure Tehran. This vague stance comes amid signals from Iran that it might be open to negotiations, but the lack of a coherent U.S. strategy leaves more questions than answers.

Iran’s Willingness to Negotiate Is Not New

First of all, it’s worth noting that Trump’s claim about Iran’s willingness to negotiate is nothing new. Tehran has long dangled the prospect of talks, often as a tactic to ease sanctions or gain leverage.

Venezuela‑Style Ambiguity Raises Red Flags

However, Trump’s refusal to specify his approach suggests either a lack of planning or a deliberate attempt to keep options ambiguous. Secondly, the comparison to Venezuela is telling.

The Need for Transparent U.S. Policy

Moreover, the American Democracy Project finds it frustrating that the administration continues to operate without transparency or strategic clarity. Functional democracy demands leaders who communicate plans clearly and act with accountability.

Democratic Accountability Demands Clarity

Instead, we get vague assertions and half‑baked threats that do little to advance peace or security. Iran’s signals toward talks should be met with a serious, well‑defined diplomatic effort, not empty rhetoric.

High Stakes and the Call for Coherent Diplomacy

Finally, the stakes here couldn’t be higher. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence pose real challenges, but reckless brinkmanship only increases the risk of unintended consequences.

Risks of Brinkmanship

The American Democracy Project urges policymakers to abandon vague threats and develop a coherent strategy that combines diplomacy with firm but measured pressure. To sum up, Trump’s claim that Iran wants a deal is overshadowed by his administration’s failure to present a clear plan.

Conclusion: Towards Real Diplomacy

The comparison to Venezuela‑style operations is a red flag, signaling potential chaos rather than constructive engagement. The American Democracy Project calls for a return to competent governance—where transparency, strategy, and accountability guide U.S. foreign policy.

Readers should demand clarity and responsibility from their leaders, especially when the stakes involve potential conflict with a volatile regime. It’s time to stop the guessing games and start serious diplomacy.

Trump Claims Iran Wants a Deal, But Offers No Clear Strategy

The FACE Act and Its Misapplication

The FACE Act, originally pitched as a law to protect access to abortion clinics, has become a glaring example of how justice in America operates on two very different tracks. The American Democracy Project has been watching this unfold with a mix of disbelief and frustration.

When a high-profile figure like Don Lemon faces charges under this law, the stakes become crystal clear: is the law truly about protecting clinics, or is it a tool wielded selectively to shield certain interests?

First, the FACE Act was designed to prevent violence and intimidation against patients and staff at reproductive health facilities. That sounds reasonable on paper.

However, the way it’s enforced reveals a disturbing bias. When activists or protesters face charges, the law is aggressively applied.

But when media personalities or others who might disrupt the narrative come under scrutiny, suddenly the law’s teeth seem to vanish. If Don Lemon’s case is dismissed, it won’t just be a legal technicality—it will be a glaring admission that the FACE Act is less about justice and more about protecting abortion providers at all costs.

Selective Enforcement and Legal Bias

The American Democracy Project has long warned that Republicans are weaponizing legal frameworks to dismantle constitutional norms. Yet, Democrats and their allies are not blameless.

Their failure to hold the line on consistent, principled enforcement only fuels cynicism and deepens the divide. When laws meant to protect vulnerable groups become shields for political interests, democracy itself takes a hit.

Moreover, the Don Lemon situation underscores how media figures are caught in the crossfire of this legal and political tug-of-war. Instead of serving as impartial observers, some media personalities become part of the story, complicating public perception.

Political Weaponization and Equal Treatment

The American Democracy Project sees this as a symptom of a broken system where accountability is uneven and justice is a commodity traded by power brokers. Finally, the implications extend beyond one case or one law.

The FACE Act’s selective application is a microcosm of the dysfunction plaguing American governance. We have institutions that should protect rights and ensure fairness, yet they falter under political pressure and partisan gamesmanship.

This isn’t just about abortion clinics or media figures—it’s about the very foundation of democratic rule of law. To sum up, the FACE Act’s enforcement—or lack thereof—reveals a two-tiered justice system that undermines public trust.

Media Influence and Accountability

The American Democracy Project calls for transparency, consistency, and above all, competence in applying laws that affect fundamental rights. If we want a democracy that works, we must demand that laws serve justice equally, not selectively.

Otherwise, we’re just watching the slow dismantling of the principles that hold this country together. The next step is clear: hold officials accountable for how they enforce laws like the FACE Act.

Broader Implications for Democracy

Demand clarity on the criteria used to prosecute or dismiss cases. And insist that our democracy’s stewards stop playing favorites. Because if we don’t, the only thing protected will be the interests of the powerful, not the rights of the people.

Call to Action

Let’s push for transparent, consistent enforcement of all laws that protect fundamental rights.

The FACE Act and the Two-Tiered Justice System Exposed

Sanctuary Cities: A Failure of Governance

Sanctuary cities have long marketed themselves as havens for immigrants, but the reality is far less noble. When a city declares itself a sanctuary, the critical question is: sanctuary for whom?

The blunt answer is criminals. This isn’t hyperbole; it’s a direct consequence of policies that prioritize political posturing over public safety and the rule of law.

Refusal to Cooperate with Federal Enforcement

First of all, sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement. This means local law enforcement often turns a blind eye to detainers on individuals with serious criminal records.

The result? Dangerous offenders remain on the streets, shielded by bureaucratic loopholes and political theater. It’s a bitter irony that these cities, which claim to protect vulnerable populations, end up enabling repeat offenders and violent criminals.

Political Exploitation of Sanctuary Policies

Secondly, the political class in these cities uses sanctuary policies as a cudgel against federal authority, framing cooperation with immigration enforcement as an attack on immigrant communities. However, this framing conveniently ignores the fact that many of those shielded are not innocent immigrants but individuals with histories of assault, drug trafficking, or worse.

The American Democracy Project has observed that this selective enforcement undermines trust in law enforcement and erodes the social contract that keeps communities safe.

Perverse Incentive Structure

Moreover, sanctuary policies create a perverse incentive structure. Criminals know that if they can reach sanctuary cities, they might evade deportation or prosecution.

This attracts not only undocumented immigrants but also those who exploit these protections to avoid accountability. The consequences ripple beyond city limits, affecting neighboring communities and states that bear the burden of increased crime and strained resources.

Lack of Democratic Accountability

However, the failure to address sanctuary cities’ impact isn’t solely a Republican talking point. Democrats, who often champion these policies, have shown a stunning lack of political will to reform or even acknowledge the problem.

Instead, they double down on rhetoric that prioritizes optics over outcomes. This incompetence fuels frustration among voters who demand both compassion and security—a balance sanctuary policies fail to strike.

Path Forward: Restoring Balance

To sum up, sanctuary cities represent a glaring failure of governance. They sacrifice public safety on the altar of political expediency, leaving citizens vulnerable and law enforcement hamstrung.

The American Democracy Project calls for a sober reassessment of these policies, demanding accountability and a return to functional democracy where laws are enforced fairly and effectively.

Finally, the path forward requires more than finger-pointing. It demands honest dialogue, bipartisan cooperation, and policies that protect immigrant communities without compromising public safety.

Sanctuary cities, as currently constituted, are a sanctuary for criminals, not democracy. It’s time to stop pretending otherwise and start fixing the mess.

The American Democracy Project urges readers to stay informed, demand transparency from local officials, and support reforms that restore the balance between compassion and security. Because democracy doesn’t thrive when criminals find safe harbor under the guise of sanctuary.

Sanctuary Cities: Protecting Criminals at Democracy’s Expense

Democrats Secure short-term Funding Extension for DHS

Democrats have secured a short-term funding extension for the Department of Homeland Security buying themselves two more weeks to negotiate reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The measure prevents an immediate shutdown but is only a band-aid on a festering wound.
The extension is a short-term political win that buys breathing room but does not solve deeper systemic issues.
It highlights Democratic legislative leverage yet exposes party fragmentation on immigration policy. Republicans are poised to exploit the uneasy truce for broader gains.

Immediate Political Implications

The extension is a short-term political win that buys breathing room but does not solve deeper systemic issues.
It highlights Democratic legislative leverage yet exposes party fragmentation on immigration policy.
Republicans are poised to exploit the uneasy truce for broader gains.

The Real Challenge – ICE Reform Negotiations

ICE reform has become a lightning rod for protests especially in cities like Minneapolis where public outrage is palpable.
Activists demand sweeping changes to an agency accused of human rights abuses and aggressive enforcement.
Yet the political reality involves bureaucratic inertia partisan hostility and public skepticism.

Democratic Vulnerabilities and Republican Exploitation

Democratic internal divisions and lack of a unified strategy have allowed Republicans to frame the debate as a wedge issue.
The party appears reactive rather than visionary as it wrestles with constitutional norms and governance credibility.
This dynamic fuels a cycle of brinkmanship that undermines public trust.

Minneapolis Protests and Public Sentiment

Protests in Minneapolis illustrate the urgency and complexity of the ICE debate.
Demonstrators chant for accountability while lawmakers debate budgetary constraints.
The standoff underscores how policy disputes translate into street-level confrontations.

Broader Democratic Dysfunction

The episode reflects broader dysfunction in American democracy where polarization stalls long-term funding and meaningful reform.
Both parties contribute to the stalemate Republicans through shutdown threats Democrats through disjointed messaging.
The result is a system paralyzed by short-term calculations.

Path Forward – What Democrats Must Do

Democrats must sharpen policy proposals build coalitions beyond their base and craft a compelling narrative that resonates with the electorate.
Without a clear pragmatic vision they risk repeating the same mistakes and ceding ground to opponents.
The call to action is clear demand accountability insist on transparency and push for reforms that restore integrity to besieged institutions.

Democrats Secure Temporary DHS Funding, Face Tough Road Ahead on ICE Reform

President Trump’s Announcement of Kevin Warsh

President Trump’s announcement that Kevin Warsh will succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair is a move that reveals more about Trump’s desperation than sound economic strategy. Trump, who has consistently positioned himself as an inflation dove, has been pushing hard for lower interest rates.

This appointment is a puzzling choice given Warsh’s history as an inflation hawk, someone who typically supports tighter monetary policy to keep inflation in check.

Background and Role of Kevin Warsh

Warsh’s background is notable. He served on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors during the financial crisis and has been known for his hawkish stance on inflation.

This means he prioritizes controlling inflation over stimulating growth through lower rates. For Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the Fed for not doing enough to boost the economy, Warsh’s appointment seems counterintuitive.

However, it might be Trump’s way of signaling toughness to markets or trying to appease factions within the Republican Party that favor fiscal discipline.

American Democracy Project’s Reaction

The American Democracy Project has watched this unfold with a mix of incredulity and frustration. Trump’s tenure has been marked by a reckless disregard for the norms that keep our institutions functioning.

His obsession with lowering interest rates at any cost is no exception. Last year, he even toyed with the idea of firing Powell, whose monetary policy views are mainstream and grounded in economic reality.

That Trump would now pick Warsh, who has a track record of opposing the very rate cuts Trump craves, suggests either a lack of understanding or a cynical political calculation.

Implications for Monetary Policy and Politics

The irony here is thick. Trump’s economic instincts have often been at odds with the realities of monetary policy.

His inflation dove stance clashes with Warsh’s hawkish record, creating a tension that could lead to unpredictable outcomes. The American Democracy Project sees this as another example of Trump’s chaotic approach to governance—appointing officials whose views don’t align with his own, then expecting miracles.

Political Context and Irony

Moreover, this decision exposes the broader dysfunction within the Republican Party. While they loudly decry inflation and economic instability, their solutions often lack coherence.

Warsh’s appointment might placate some critics, but it does little to address the underlying economic challenges. It also raises questions about the Democrats’ ability to hold the line on competent governance when faced with such reckless political maneuvering.

Conclusion and Democratic Accountability

In short, Warsh’s nomination is less about economic expertise and more about political theater. Trump’s desperation to lower interest rates blinds him to the complexities of monetary policy and the importance of a Federal Reserve that operates independently and with credibility.

The American Democracy Project urges readers to watch closely how this appointment unfolds because it will have real consequences for the economy and democracy itself.

To sum up, Kevin Warsh is not the Fed chair of Trump’s dreams if those dreams include easy money and low rates. Instead, he represents a clash of economic philosophies that highlights the dysfunction at the heart of Trump’s approach to governance.

The American Democracy Project will continue to monitor this story, holding all parties accountable for the health of our democracy and economy. Readers should stay informed and demand transparency and competence from those who steer our financial institutions.

Kevin Warsh: The Fed Chair Trump Hopes Will Lower Interest Rates

Justice Department’s Release of Epstein Documents

Sheer Volume of Documents

Overview of Federal Actions

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has publicly condemned the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown in his state, accusing the federal government of deliberately distorting reality to justify its harsh policies. The American Democracy Project spoke with Walz, who expressed deep frustration over the administration’s tactics, which he says undermine both the rule of law and the social fabric of Minnesota communities.

Aggressive Enforcement

First of all, Walz highlighted how the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts have ramped up dramatically, targeting immigrant populations with raids and detentions that sow fear rather than security. He pointed out that these actions are less about public safety and more about political theater designed to energize a base obsessed with immigration as a wedge issue.

Political Motivation

Consequently, the governor argued, the administration is twisting facts to paint immigrants as criminals, ignoring the reality that many are hardworking residents contributing to the state’s economy.

Lack of Local Collaboration

Secondly, Walz criticized the federal government’s refusal to collaborate with local authorities, which has created chaos on the ground. Instead of working with Minnesota’s law enforcement and social services to manage immigration challenges responsibly, the administration has imposed a top-down approach that disregards local expertise and needs.

Top-Down Approach

This disconnect has led to confusion, mistrust, and a breakdown in community relations, especially in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods.

Community Disruption

Moreover, Walz underscored the human cost of these policies. Families are being torn apart, children are traumatized, and entire communities live under constant threat of deportation.

Broader Democratic Implications

The governor lamented that the administration’s narrative conveniently omits these consequences, focusing instead on fearmongering and scapegoating. He warned that such tactics not only harm immigrants but also corrode the democratic principles America claims to uphold.

Call for State Resistance

Finally, Walz called on state and local leaders to resist the federal government’s overreach and to protect immigrant communities. He emphasized the importance of clear, compassionate policies that balance enforcement with humanity and respect for due process.

Advocacy for Compassionate Policies

He emphasized the importance of clear, compassionate policies that balance enforcement with humanity and respect for due process.

Broader Democratic Frustration

The governor’s stance reflects a broader frustration among Democrats who see the Trump administration’s immigration agenda as a reckless assault on constitutional norms and basic decency.

Summary and Call to Action

To sum up, Minnesota’s governor is sounding the alarm on the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, exposing it as a cynical manipulation of facts that prioritizes political gain over effective governance. His critique serves as a reminder that democracy requires honest leadership and policies grounded in reality—not fear and distortion.

Closing Statement

The American Democracy Project urges readers to stay informed and demand accountability from all levels of government to safeguard the rights and dignity of all residents.

Citizen Engagement

The next step for concerned citizens is clear: engage with local representatives, support immigrant advocacy groups, and hold elected officials accountable for policies that threaten the integrity of our democracy. Because if we don’t push back against this administration’s dangerous spin, the damage will only deepen.

Minnesota Governor Calls Out Trump Administration’s Immigration Spin