Dear readers,

It’s been a while.

What started as a short break for the holidays unexpectedly became a five-month sabbatical. Between working full-time, parenting three busy kids, participating in two theatrical productions, and navigating a job change, the time and energy I had for writing became incredibly limited.

That being said, I started this Substack nearly a year ago with very little expectation beyond using it as a healthy outlet for my frustrations, with the support of a small number of family and friends.

But it became so much more.

After publishing my second piece, I experienced an unexpected surge in subscriptions, temporarily placing my Substack at #68 on Substack’s leadership board for U.S. Politics. I was shocked, and deeply grateful.

Subscriptions continued steadily until the summer of 2025, when I noticed a sharp shift: less engagement, fewer subscriptions, minimal restacks. While it’s entirely possible that some readers simply moved on, I also began seeing other writers report the same thing. Substack had changed its algorithm, prioritizing Notes frequency and video content over long-form essays.

And honestly - that just not a structure I can sustain with my current responsibilities.

In full transparency, I would rather write when I feel a fire in my belly - when I have something true to say - than force myself to meet a deadline for the sake of visibility.

Whether you are a paid or free subscriber, I hope you stay. I’ve lowered the paid subscription prices to the minimum Substack allows because, more than anything, what matters most to me is the engagement - your thoughts, your stories, and the conversations that happen because of these pieces.

That is what keeps me writing.

Whatever you decide, thank you for being here.

The last year has taught me that speaking honestly - even when it’s uncomfortable - has a way of finding the right people.

It has reminded me that I’m not alone, that my voice matters, and that there is still value in saying the hard thing out loud.

For that, I’m deeply grateful.

A note from Jessica:

Over the past several weeks, many of you have written to me about the same kind of heartbreak I shared in When They Don’t Listen: the ache of trying to stay in relationship with family members who shut you out, dismiss you, or refuse to even hear your thoughts.

Your messages were vulnerable and familiar. I recognized myself in every one of them.

And while I shared my own experience, I also knew I couldn’t fully answer the deeper questions you were asking. So I reached out to someone whose work has helped me stay grounded in the middle of my own grief.

, therapist, podcaster, and the author behind here on Substack, offered to write the piece below (you can also find her podcast, The Hidden Way, here). It’s thoughtful and clear, and it opened my eyes to the bigger picture of what’s going on in our families when politics enters the conversation. Her words brought me a kind of clarity I didn’t expect, and I hope they do the same for you.

I’m deeply grateful for her voice in this space, and I’m honored to share her work here with you.

Guest essay by Rudi O. Betzold:

As a therapist, I’ve sat with so many people who are heartbroken, confused, and asking the same question in different words: “How did someone I love become a stranger?”

Each week, clients describe the late-night replaying of conversations, the dread before a family gathering, the shock of realizing you don’t share the same reality with someone you once trusted. I see this pain every week, and I want to clearly name what is causing this distress.

What most people misunderstand about political division in families is that the pain isn’t actually about politics. It’s simply the arena where a deeper relational pattern shows up. It’s easier to blame the latest headline, the “outrage of the week,” or the widening gap between left and right.

But the real issue causing pain is that your loved ones insist on making their reality the only valid option. And the emotional toll of being dismissed, minimized, or gaslit is what leads to feeling defeated and maybe even hopeless.

If you and I were in a therapy session together, I wouldn’t start by asking about your political beliefs. I would ask:

• What does it feel like to have your version of reality repeatedly denied?

• Where in your body do you hold the grief of being misunderstood?

• What part of you still hopes they will wake up, soften, or come back to you?

Because the primary injury here is not ideological. It’s relational.

This dynamic isn’t unique to politics. It shows up in families affected by addiction, narcissism, and emotional immaturity — systems where one person’s version of truth dominates and everyone else learns to either fall in line or be cast as the problem. Whether you’re discussing religion, career choices, parenting styles, or conspiracy theories, the pattern of being dismissed and belittled remains the same.

Grieving the loss of a relationship with the parent you used to admire or the sibling who once felt like a friend is necessary. Accepting the limits of their ability to relate to you or care for you in a healthy way is part of the work. And it ushers in a deep and painful grief. However, grieving what’s no longer possible for the relationship allows you to understand what is possible moving forward. That clarity will allow you to live with greater peace and wholeness.

The Bridge-Builders Are the Ones Who Suffer Most

Most of the people reading this are the ones who often adapt and give the benefit of the doubt in relationships — the peacekeepers, the ones who try to stay curious, stay kind, look for common ground, and work twice as hard to stay connected. And because of that, you are also the ones most likely to:

• Blame yourselves when things fracture

• Wonder if you’re being dramatic

• Think, “If I could just say it differently…”

• Feel guilty for even considering stepping back

But, you may be past the point where trying to persuade and use logic or reason with your loved ones is helpful or even possible.

There is a moment — and only you can name it — when you realize you are not in a relationship of shared reality. You’re in a one-sided conversation with a psychological brick wall built to keep out anything that threatens identity, belonging, or certainty. And no amount of clarity, data, compassion, or self-improvement will dismantle a defense that person does not want dismantled.

That’s when the real question shifts from “How do I fix this?” to “How do I live with integrity inside something I cannot change?”

Two Questions That Bring Clarity

Instead of rehearsing arguments in your head or replaying conversations you wish had gone differently, try asking yourself these two questions instead:

1. What do I want?

2. What is actually possible?

You may want your dad to stop sending articles, or your sister to finally say, “I’m sorry I dismissed you.” You may want the version of your family that existed ten years ago. You may want family reunions to feel lighthearted again.

But what is possible may be very different, and that truth can be devastating before it becomes freeing. The process of grieving requires that we let reality be real. The more we fight what’s truly possible, the more stuck in denial, anger, or confusion we remain.

Boundaries That Don’t Require Permission

In addition to grieving, you will need to decide what you are willing and not willing to do. It’s crucial to understand that you do not need to announce every boundary you have to make it valid. A boundary becomes real the moment you act on it. Many people get worn out and discouraged because conversations about boundaries with dismissive family members don’t go well. That is part of this entire pattern of hurt.

Instead, you have the option of saying internally:

• “I’m not talking about this topic anymore.”

• “I’m leaving the room when this starts.”

• “I love my family, and I also don’t have to attend everything.”

• “I can care about this relationship and still protect myself.”

This is not disloyalty. This is using your wisdom and discernment about how you want to spend your energy.

You can love someone and still limit how much access they have to your nervous system. You can choose peace without abandoning truth. You can stop arguing not because you’ve given up, but because you’ve grown up.

What Healing Actually Looks Like

It is not about winning them back. It is not about proving you’re right. It is not about being so “open-minded” that you lose your sense of reality.

Healing looks like:

• Validating your own perception when others won’t

• Letting go of fantasy versions of people

• Choosing peace-of-mind over obligatory contact

• Feeling the absurdity and naming it as grief, not failure

• Staying rooted in integrity even when others don’t join you

The real work is holding the complexity:

I love my mother. And she is not well enough right now to see the world clearly.
I care about my brother. And I cannot keep sacrificing my sanity to spend time with him.

That’s not betrayal. That’s the truth adult relationships often require.

If no one has said it plainly: You are not crazy for being heartbroken. You are not weak for needing space. You are not failing because the relationship changed.

You are simply waking up to the truth, and telling yourself the truth is the beginning of freedom.

Rudi has kindly offered to answer questions in the comments. If something in this piece brings up a question or a story of your own, we’d love to hear from you. This is a hard conversation, but none of us have to move through it alone.

When I started this Substack, it was to leave a written legacy for my kids. But if I’m being honest, it was also to express what I’ve been trying to tell my parents—because they won’t listen to my words.

And by “won’t listen,” I don’t mean they won’t change their minds. I mean they truly won’t even hear my thoughts or opinions. They shut me down before I ever finish a sentence. They dismiss me, even laugh at me.

I’ve wrestled, I’ve cried, I’ve poured myself into this project, often in the wee hours, hoping each essay would open them just a little.

I felt an urgency. A hope after every new essay that they would finally see me. And that hasn’t happened.

After long, quiet reflection, I’ve realized it won’t. And that truth is a wound that may never fully heal.

I have to let go—not of my parents themselves, but of the crushing belief that if I just found the right words, they would finally listen and understand. That burden has been breaking me. And I can’t carry it anymore.

In the quiet that followed, darker thoughts crept in.

I’ve wondered if I’m unlovable. If I’ll ever be chosen.

Sometimes I catch myself thinking that if I were just a better person—if I could make myself believe what they believe, or at least pretend—I would finally be loved.

Not being chosen by the people who are supposed to choose me is devastating.

I am an orphan.

Read more

In a dramatic turn of events that surprised many, the late Senator John McCain famously voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare, in 2017. While voting on whether to repeal the ACA at 1:30 am, McCain, who was fighting brain cancer at the time, walked up slowly to the table at the front of the crowded room. He raised his right arm to the side, paused, then turned his thumb down, and said, “No.” The room gasped, then broke out into scattered applause. A Republican, McCain was expected to vote for the repeal of the ACA. But his “thumbs down” no-vote is now remembered as a defining act of political courage. He placed principle over party.

Eight years later, that same courage is hard to find. The government is currently shut down due to disagreement over whether to continue the ACA subsidies or allow them to expire.

What was once about principle is now about power.

Instead of governing, both sides now compete to win. Citizens have become pawns in the very game the founders worked so hard to prevent

Somewhere along the way, the idea of governing as service gave way to the spectacle of governing as sport. The shutdown isn’t just about a budget. It’s about what kind of democracy we’ve become—one that rewards outrage more than outcomes, performance more than principle. When politics becomes about winning instead of governing, it’s the people who pay the price.

At the center of this standoff is something deeply human: the cost of being sick. ACA subsidies were first introduced during the COVID pandemic in 2021 to improve affordability and access to health insurance. However, these subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025.

If the subsidies do indeed expire, up to 7 million Americans will lose health care coverage, of whom 65% already work full-time. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), annual premium payments would increase for subsidized ACA enrollees by 114%, raising monthly premiums by up to $500 a month. I don’t know anyone who has an extra $500 a month to spare.

And the consequences go beyond individual citizens. When healthy people drop coverage, the pool grows sicker, and costs spiral. As more uninsured Americans need emergency care they can’t afford, hospitals will absorb more unpaid bills. Clinics will close. Communities will lose care.

Picture a rural hospital forced to close its labor and delivery department, or a nurse practitioner whose clinic can no longer afford to stay open. These aren’t just numbers on a budget. They represent people losing care, losing jobs, losing faith in the system that’s supposed to protect them.

Congress has known this deadline was coming. Why has no one prepared Americans for it? Are the people who are supposed to represent us so far removed from what life is like for the average American that they think a sudden $500 hike in premiums won’t be challenging for their constituents? Do they understand, or even care, about their constituents’ daily lives? Their struggles?

Meanwhile, the very people deciding this debate don’t have to worry about health insurance.

Members of Congress who choose to take advantage of health care benefits through their employer — the federal government — use DC Exchange, a special ACA marketplace for federal employees. And it’s subsidized by us — the taxpayers.

Taxpayers contribute thousands annually toward members of Congress’s insurance premiums. The coverage they receive is far more generous than most Americans will ever see. As illustrated in the chart below, federal taxpayers fund the most generous coverage, while individual enrollees shoulder the most direct cost.

Fairness isn’t just about numbers. It’s about who gets to feel secure. When lawmakers are shielded from the consequences of their own decisions, empathy becomes optional. A government that protects its own comfort while debating whether its citizens deserve the same safety net has lost its moral compass.

What does it say about a government that debates affordability for citizens while its own members enjoy taxpayer-subsidized care?

Who’s really getting subsidized?

The government isn’t a business. It exists to protect its citizens. A single mother working two jobs should not have to choose between paying for health insurance, food, or face going into medical debt. A self-employed father of four should not have to rely on GoFundMe when he is diagnosed with cancer. Sometimes, doing the right doesn’t turn a profit.

Every great society is judged by how it treats the vulnerable. It’s not that we shouldn’t aim for efficiency, it’s that we’ve forgotten who government is for. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Painting the system as “bad” because there are some instances of abuse doesn’t make the entire system worthless.

McCain’s act of defiance wasn’t about saving a law. It was about saving a principle: that leadership means choosing sacrifice over convenience. That kind of moral clarity shouldn’t be exceptional. It should be the standard.

John McCain once said he’d rather lose an election than lose his integrity. That kind of courage feels rare now, but it’s not extinct.

If our leaders can insulate themselves from the hardships they create, what does that say about who we’ve become—and what kind of country we still want to be?

Sources

ACA health care plans are at the center of the shutdown fight : NPR

These people will lose if Affordable Care Act health subsidies expire | AP News

ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire | KFF

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

— Pastor Martin Niemöller

Even though it already seems like an enormous chunk of time has passed, just last month, I wrote a piece about the importance of the Constitution, stressing what freedoms could be lost if we didn’t have this guiding document, or if it wasn’t honored or respected by leaders in government.

It didn’t take long for that warning to feel less hypothetical.

Shortly after publishing that piece, there were several attacks on American rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While I wasn’t surprised, I was disheartened by how quickly it happened.

Although some people may think the word “fascism” is over the top, the term fits. Fascism, a more extreme form of authoritarianism, is a political system where one person or group controls everything and violence and fear are used to control the population.

It also depends heavily on propaganda, and those in power frequently claim that their nation or race is superior to others. As I’ve written in previous pieces, there is evidence that democracy in the United States is eroding and sliding toward authoritarianism.

It’s not a term I throw around lightly, but the backsliding we are seeing is truly consistent with a fascist government.

Although this sentence was written during World War II, we’ve seen echoes of this in modern politics. The Army warned of this exact pattern:

“The fascists promised everything to everyone: they would make the poor rich and the rich, richer… It was easy enough for the fascists to promise all things to all people before they were in power. Once they were actually in power, they could not, of course, keep their contradictory promises.”

One of the more frightening components of fascism is that people think they are safe if they are not immediately affected — until they aren’t, as that same source warned:

“Once the fascists were in control of the government, not even the gang on the top was safe from its own members.”

The vast majority of us have relatives that fought fascism in World War II. I will never forget their sacrifice and choose to honor it by fighting — peacefully — for democracy in any way that I can. It’s easy to think of fascism as something that happens elsewhere or long ago, but the threat still exists today.

In fact, in 1945, the Army warned troops that America was not immune to fascism:

“The fascists knew that all believers in democracy were their enemies. They knew that the fundamental principle of democracy — faith in common sense of the common people — was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few. So they fought democracy in all its phases.”

The military even developed a video in 1943 for the troops titled Don’t Be a Sucker. This video outlines how fascism relies on division and hatred to thrive. A line in the video includes, “We must guard everyone’s liberties, or we can lose our own,” which reflects back to Pastor Martin Niemöller’s poem at the beginning of this piece. While the video is lengthy, it is well worth your time. The parallels between the video and today’s political climate are uncanny.

I will be protesting peacefully tomorrow. For myself, my children, and your children.

I am not being paid.

I am not a member of “antifa” (whatever that means), but I am anti-fascist. And it really concerns me if you’re not.

I am not a Communist.

I am not a Marxist.

I am not a terrorist.

I am not pro-Hamas (and I don’t know a single soul who is).

I love the United States. In fact, the love I have for my country is why I am choosing to protest.

Lately, those in power have started using words like these to describe people like me. But if I paint a picture of someone that doesn’t fit that narrative, please ask yourself why government leaders are lying about the protests and the protesters themselves.

I will be practicing my First Amendment right to assemble and protest peacefully. Protest has helped to gain or preserve rights for all of us. It doesn’t matter if you like it, or even if you agree on the issue. From praying the rosary in front of Planned Parenthood to burning the American flag, protest is a protected Constitutional right in the United States.

If you ever sat in history or social studies class wondering what you would do during the Civil Rights movement, or even as an everyday German citizen in the 1930s, this is your chance to answer that question.

If I could get one point across, it would be this: we are being pinned against each other. The military warned troops about this as well, stating:

“They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled against each other.”

Fascism doesn’t just thrive on hate — it thrives on indifference. It takes hold when people stop believing their voice or their government matters.

Make your young self — and future generations — proud.

Are you protesting tomorrow — or supporting from home? I’d love to hear what’s motivating you in the comments, and feel free to share pictures if you’re out there.

Sources

Holocaust Memorial Day Trust | First They Came – by Pastor Martin Niemöller

The Army Warned Troops in 1945 of the Danger of Fascism. That Warning Rings True Today — History News Network

Don’t Be a Sucker : U.S. War Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

“Lock down! Lock down! Active shooter. This is not a drill,” the principal’s voice announced in an eerily calm manner across the static of the school intercom system.

My heart dropped in fear. Immediately, my friend and I ran into our classroom, as the next period was just about to begin.

I’d heard about recent shootings at other schools. We’d even watched videos about what to do in these situations. But I’d never imagined it would happen at my school.

My muscles remained stiff and my breathing rapid and shallow.

Full of adrenaline, my classmates and I quickly began to shut and lock doors and turn off all lights in the room. My teacher quietly took attendance to “find out where every duckling was” and passed out suckers.

She then stood by the door with a broomstick, ready to sacrifice herself for any one of us.

My heart skipped a beat as I realized only half of my classmates had made it into the classroom before the announcement was made and the doors shut. That meant they were stuck in an open space, looking for a safe place to hide.

As my friend and I sat together in the dark holding hands, I couldn’t stop thinking about my other friends. My little brother — our first week of school in the same building — had just started at the school this year. Was he okay?

Suddenly, we heard a banging on the doors. Tears rolled down my cheeks. Even though my palms were sweaty, I couldn’t let go of my friend’s hand.

Was this it? Was I going to die? Were one of my friends going to die?

With both horror and relief, we realized the banging at the door was our classmates trying to get into class, shouting, “We need to find somewhere safe!”

I made eye contact with my teacher. She desperately wanted to open the door. To let them in and help them feel safe. But every active shooter training she had ever taken specifically instructed her — and all staff — to keep the doors closed once they were shut, no matter who was on the other side.

For forty minutes, my classmates and I waited. We couldn’t answer each other’s questions. Nobody could in that moment. Not a single person knew if we’d be safe. Everyone was completely silent.

And even though it was terrifying, we all waited for the even scarier sounds of gunshots. Screams. Sirens.

— Written in collaboration with my daughter, Amelia, who generously allowed me to share her story

During the first week of the school year, I found myself as a parent trying to help my children process the terror after there was an active shooter threat at their school.

As described above, my daughter sat in a corner of her chorus classroom with the lights off and doors locked, while my son and his classmates stuffed themselves into a closet. Other students crouched under their desks.

Although the threat fortunately ended up being just that — a threat without an actual weapon — there were approximately 300 students in the building who, for forty minutes, thought they might die. At school.

Both of my kids, as well as other students we know well, were affected mentally by this threat and associated lockdown. Intense fear. Anxiety. Headaches and stomachaches. Absenteeism. Inability to concentrate. Loss of appetite. Difficulty sleeping.

For students involved in an actual school shooting, the evidence is disturbing. According to research, exposure to this type of violence increases the likelihood for lower test scores, decreased school enrollment for up to three years, increased absenteeism, and mental health struggles, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD.

But often overlooked are students involved in threats of violence, where their school building is locked down. These events are far more common and their effects on students’ mental health can’t be understated.

According to a report by the Civic Research Institute, the more children perceive their lives or the lives of loved ones to be threatened, the higher are their reports of PTSD symptoms, even though no one may have actually been injured.

Additionally, a 2025 preprint from the Journal of School Health found that youth who experienced a school lockdown due to a violent or firearm-related threat — even without gunfire — showed significantly higher anxiety, somatic and stress symptoms than those who hadn’t.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) utilized by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental health disorders defines Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as developing after “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence.” That includes situations where a person believes death or serious harm is imminent, even if it’s later revealed to be a false alarm.

As psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk writes in The Body Keeps the Score, what imprints trauma in the brain is the subjective experience of helplessness and terror, not necessarily the objective danger. In other words, students don’t have to witness or be physically affected by the violence to experience trauma.

When a child hides in a classroom closet, believing that someone with a gun might enter, their body doesn’t distinguish between threat and reality. The fear, psychological stress response, and memory consolidation that follow are the same pathways seen in trauma from actual violence.

Sadly, a 2024 Pew Research survey demonstrated that about 1 in 4 teachers in the US say that their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the prior school year.

While there isn’t a central registry to tally school lockdowns, there were at least 2,058 threats of school violence logged by media-confirmed reports during the 2024-25 school year. Even more concerning, these threats are considered underreported because they are now so commonplace that they are less likely to be reported by media.

Numbers like these can feel abstract until we consider their human meaning. Even if we take this conservative number of threats and apply a conservative number of students per threat at 50, that is 102,900 students who were potentially affected. 102,900 scared children — children hiding in closets, under desks, and in restrooms. Children predisposed to developing a mental health disorder.

Over and over in the news and in the community, I hear that our children are in mental health crisis.

The Kaiser Family Foundation and Johns Hopkins both emphasize that gun violence exposure at school is a major, often underestimated driver of youth mental health challenges.

While schools, including the school my children attend, do an amazing job with services such as counseling, we have to get better at preventing violence or threats of violence from happening in the first place.

Death is not the only potential result of gun violence, or the threat of violence, at schools.

We must do better.

We are not protecting our children.

Sources

Exhibit 1.3-4, DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for PTSD - Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services - NCBI Bookshelf

Trauma at School: The Impacts of Shootings on Students’ Human Capital and Economic Outcomes

About 1 in 4 public school teachers experienced a gun-related lockdown last year, survey finds | Pew Research Center

The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Adolescents | KFF

Gun Violence in the United States 2023

Violent Threats and Incidents in Schools — The Educator’s School Safety Network

Frequency and Predictors of Adolescent Worry for School Gun Violence In the United States: Findings from a Nationally Representative Study - PMC

van der Kolk, B. A. (2015). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth

Whether or not you agree, evidence shows that democracy is under pressure in the United States. Yet Christians have long affirmed it as the system most consistent with the Gospel — the form of government that best supports human dignity, justice, and love of neighbor.

Why does this matter? Because when I am out in my community, even at church, I rarely see any recognition of this problem. No urgency. No honest discussion. Life just rolls along. I think many have forgotten history or are in denial about the warning signs around us. While we sing “Alleluia” or nod to the homily, innocent people are being sent to detention centers where human rights are violated. And God’s name is being wielded as a tool for power.

Some argue that the United States is not a democracy but a republic. In reality, a constitutional republic is democratic. You cannot have one without the other.

In this piece, “democracy” means democratic governance: free and fair elections, equality under law, consent of the governed, and the peaceful transfer of power.

And to be clear: this is about values, not church rule. When I say democracy best reflects Christian values, I do not mean theocracy. History shows that when church and state merge, both genuine faith and healthy politics are undermined. In fact, I often worry about a sense of nationalism, where one group insists their beliefs dominate, and everyone else must conform.

The values I learned in church line up surprisingly well with democratic ideals. Human dignity and equality. Justice. Freedom. Responsibility to others. Faith provides the moral framework; democracy provides the civic one. Genesis teaches that every person is made in God’s image, while democracy affirms that every citizen is equal before the law. Jesus blesses those who hunger for righteousness, while a healthy democracy enforces laws to protect the vulnerable. The church speaks of spiritual freedom, and democracy guarantees political liberty. One calls us to love our neighbor, the other expects us to participate, respect rights, and work for the common good. When those two strands are woven together, both faith and society grow stronger.

The verse, “what you do for the least, you do for me,” has always been a cornerstone for me, and I try to live it out in my daily work as a health care provider. I often care for individuals struggling with alcohol or drug abuse, living in unsanitary conditions, or just needing a temporary boost to stay above water.

Aside from my personal take, what have historical leaders said about democracy?

When war, political turbulence, and human atrocities threatened freedom, Catholic leaders increasingly spoke out in democracy’s defense.

From Pius XII to present-day, Catholic popes have been speaking in favor of democracy for decades. Many of these leaders faced Nazism, fascism, and communism themselves, witnessing clergy and innocent people losing their lives.

While some popes spoke more about values such as human dignity, pluralism, and limits on power, others spoke directly about the benefits of democracy and how it aligned with Christian values.

In his 1944 Christmas message, broadcast over the radio, Pope Pius XII said: “The democratic form of government can contribute to the development of society, inasmuch as it recognizes the dignity of the human person, and protects the rights of citizens.” He also warned that democracy without values could slip into totalitarianism. People still debate whether Pius should have spoken out more forcefully earlier in the war, but for me, this moment stands out. Speaking up in 1944 was no small thing — silence would have been much easier.

Pope John Paul II took it a step even further, becoming a global champion of democracy. In Centesimus Annus (1991): “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices and guarantees… accountability.”

More recently, Pope Francis tied democracy to Christian values of service and solidarity. “Democracy,” he said in 2021, “is not an automatic achievement once for all, but rather a process… always at risk of regression. We must be vigilant.” That warning feels especially relevant in our own time, when democracy itself is so easily taken for granted.

The defense of democratic values has not been limited to popes. Protestant and Anglican leaders also bore witness to freedom, dignity, and justice.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer resisted the Nazi regime even as much of his church capitulated. Arrested and executed in 1945, he lamented: “The church was silent when it should have cried out.” His witness embodied democracy’s essentials: freedom of conscience, limits on power, and courage against tyranny. What has always struck me about Bonhoeffer is that he was a member of the clergy who concluded that resisting evil might mean joining a plot to assassinate Hitler. It’s unsettling and raises a number of questions and ethical dilemmas for me, especially in light of today’s political tensions in the U.S.

Martin Luther King Jr. tied nonviolent protest and biblical justice to equality under the law. I remember reading about the civil rights movement in school, and I always wondered if I would have been brave enough to risk jail time, or even bodily injury, to march for the rights of all, regardless of race or color.

Desmond Tutu, after apartheid, modeled reconciliation and forgiveness while insisting on accountability. I admire Tutu’s ability to forgive. I think this might be the weakest part of my own faith and values. I hate to admit it, but forgiveness is sometimes difficult for me.

Their courage and conviction remind me that democracy has never been abstract for people of faith. It has always been lived out in costly, personal ways. That witness continues in our own time. In 2024, more than 200 Christian leaders from across traditions signed a public document declaring that “democracy stands embattled” and urging believers to defend voting rights, civic participation, and institutions.

Reading that statement gives me the strength to continue to fight — peacefully — for democratic values for all, even if it means lost friendships or feeling like an outcast at church.

Why Other Systems Fail the Gospel Test

If democracy best reflects Christian values, history also shows how other systems distort or oppose them.

Authoritarianism is a system of government where power is concentrated in one person, or a small elite. When I think of authoritarianism, I think of political opponents being wrongfully prosecuted. Of media being censored. Of government wanting control over the narrative. I think about people fearing their government. They dread saying the wrong thing. Losing their job — or worse. That’s not freedom. It means being told not only what you can do, but what you must believe. I can’t imagine living in a world where even prayer or faith is dictated by government, where free will does not truly exist.

Communism rejected religion outright and claimed absolute authority over society. In practice it suppressed faith, denied freedom of conscience, and erased human dignity, a contradiction that popes from Pius XI to John Paul II denounced as incompatible with the Gospel. I think of churches being shuttered, pastors imprisoned, and families forced to hide their Bibles.

Theocracy coerces belief through law, undermining genuine faith and blurring the line Jesus drew: “Render unto Caesar… and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). This is why I flinch whenever I hear calls for a “Christian nation” — it risks damaging both our democracy and our faith.

Oligarchy and monarchy privilege elites and concentrate power, ignoring the biblical command to care for the poor and marginalized. I picture a society where wealth buys influence, where decisions are made in rooms ordinary people can’t enter. That doesn’t look like Jesus, who lifted up the lowly and centered the poor.

Across history, Christian leaders have warned that when governments ignore justice, suppress freedom, or oppress the vulnerable, they stand against the Gospel.

I want my children to grow up in a democracy. I want them safe. I want them to be able to speak freely. To have opportunity. To know liberty.

And I want that for all children.

Democracy works best when every voice is heard. It guards the vulnerable, checks those in power, and reminds us to love all people. Without values, it crumbles. But when grounded in Christian values, it has the strength to flourish.

Democracy is not perfect, but it remains the system most consistent with Christian values of dignity, justice, and love of neighbor. Like faith itself, democracy is not self-sustaining. It must be nurtured, defended, and renewed. As history teaches us, democracy requires both participation and values.

Use your voice to defend it, no matter who you voted for. Show up at the ballot box, in town halls, in protests, and in honest, graceful conversations.

The future of our democracy is in our hands.

Sources

Understanding democratic decline in the United States | Brookings

U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Reversing the Decline of Democracy in the United States | Freedom House

Pius XI | Biography, Legacy, & Facts | Britannica

Pius XII | Biography, World War II, Cause of Death, Sainthood, & Facts | Britannica

Radio message “Benignitas et humanitas” for Christmas (December 24, 1944)

St. John XXIII | Pope, Second Vatican Council, Feast Day, & Facts | Britannica

St. John Paul II | Biography, Death, Miracles, Feast Day, & Patron Saint | Britannica

Pope John Paul II | USCCB

Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer | Biography, Theology, Writings, Death, & Facts | Britannica

Desmond Tutu summary | Britannica

More than 200 Christian leaders have signed a document arguing that ‘democracy stands embattled.’ | National Catholic Reporter

Pope: Indifference is a ‘cancer of democracy’ | USCCB

When I first heard that Charlie Kirk had been shot, I hoped with intensity that he would survive. When I learned it was a gunshot to the neck, my chest tightened.

And still, when the news broke that he had succumbed to his injury, I was horrified. I audibly gasped, hand covering my mouth, while standing at a sporting event for my kids. My hands shook as I texted my sister in disbelief.

Like many of us, I have a lot of feelings right now. But mostly, I’m troubled by how we respond to tragedy.

We All Want Someone to Blame

As I scrolled through social media, one thing stood out: everyone wanted someone to blame. And honestly? I understand.

But before we react, we must first turn down the temperature.

My plea is simple: stop dividing people into camps of “right” and “left.” These boxes are a mirage, and I refuse to be imprisoned by either one. I’ve been called a “liberal” and a “leftist,” but I see myself simply as someone who cares deeply about honesty, empathy, truth, human rights, and integrity.

If that earns me a label, fine. But if those values are considered partisan, what does that say about the values of those pointing fingers?

Where Was This Energy Before?

If we met one another with honesty and empathy, instead of just trying to prove a point, maybe we wouldn’t be here.

What happened to denouncing horror, period?

I saw many people rightly condemn Charlie Kirk’s assassination. But what shocked me was how many of those same people had been silent after similar political violence, including the brutal murder of Minnesota lawmaker and Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, just three months ago.

When I brought up that tragedy online, I was told, “All I saw was outrage and support for them.” But I remember otherwise. I remember people speculating that the couple were drug dealers. That they were targeted because of “woke politics” or imagined ties to BLM — none of which turned out to be true. The cruelty was there. It just wasn’t surprising to anyone at the time.

And I can’t ignore the stark contrast in how leaders responded.

After Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their home, Minnesota honored her with a state funeral, but on the national stage there was little attention. I could find no record of President Trump attending the funeral, lowering flags to half-mast, or calling Governor Tim Walz to offer condolences. If he made a statement at all, it was not widely visible.

But after Charlie Kirk’s death, even though the killer has not yet been identified, Trump immediately blamed Democrats and announced he would fly Kirk’s body to Washington, D.C., where he plans to posthumously award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I’m not saying one life mattered more than the other. It didn’t. I’m saying this: if we only know how to grieve when it benefits our politics or platform, that’s not empathy. It’s exploitation.

This isn’t about “both sides do it.” It’s about asking: Why do we only seem to care when a tragedy confirms our bias or threatens our tribe? Why are we surprised by cruelty when it hits our side, but numb to it when it hits someone else’s?

So I ask — with genuine curiosity:

• Why was this the first time you posted about something like this?

• Why didn’t you speak out when Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered in their home?

  • Was it because they weren’t on your “side”?

  • Was it because you didn’t agree with their politics?

  • Was it easier to stay silent than risk ruffling feathers with your family or friends?

  • Or was it because the leader you admire didn’t say anything either?

I saw real outrage over some of the comments made after Kirk’s death, and I agree that many were cruel, inappropriate, and completely unnecessary.

But I have to say: this kind of cruelty appears after every major tragedy.

If you’re only noticing it now, maybe it’s because you’re in a deep echo chamber.
Or worse — maybe you only care when it threatens your worldview.

I pray we never face another tragedy like this. But if we do, I hope those who are outraged now will show the same compassion and horror, even if the victims don’t share their politics.

Call Out the Problem — Not Just the Side

I’m not saying everyone needs to post after every tragedy. But selective outrage helps no one.

What if instead of defending “your side,” we just called out the issue?

“No more gun violence.”

“No more political assassinations.”

“No more children killed in schools.”

Those are statements we should all be able to get behind.

Silence Becomes Complicity

I’ve never once seen my conservative friends or family publicly call out Trump for his cruel, unhinged rhetoric. Why? Either they’re afraid to speak up, or they agree with him.

I understand the fear of losing relationships — I’ve lost some myself. But at some point, silence becomes complicity. Choosing comfort over truth may feel safe. But it gives cruelty more room to grow.

Meanwhile, Trump has already blamed Democrats for Kirk’s death, and the killer hasn’t even been identified.

Tell me: is that message unifying or divisive? And more importantly, does it make our political climate safer, or more dangerous?

If we were sitting face to face, and I asked you what you would look for in a leader after a horrific event, what would your answer be?

We Are the Only Ones Who Can Fix This

Politicians won’t save us. Parties won’t save us. We have to save us.

Can’t we agree, without caveats or deflections, that no one should be murdered in cold blood? That truth still matters? That children shouldn’t have to fear for their lives at school?

Choose Courage Over Comfort

Living in a red, rural area, I see tribalism everywhere. People stay silent so they can fit in. They don’t want to be “too opinionated,” especially with family or friends.

If the politician you follow thrives on hate and division, unfollow them. Better yet, call or write them and tell them their behavior is unacceptable.

If someone on social media consistently dehumanizes others, stop giving them your attention.

Read a balanced diet of credible news sources — especially some that challenge your beliefs.

Don’t bend reality to fit your beliefs. Seek out credible facts first, and let your opinions grow from there.

Because in the end, the people sowing hatred and division only have power when we give it to them.

As we wait for more information, we need to be prepared for the inevitable spin.

Once the killer is in custody, the headlines will shift, and the political blame will begin.

If the perpetrator is identified as a Republican, Democrats will sound the alarm about extremism.
If the perpetrator is identified as a Democrat, Republicans will do the same.

But here's the truth: we should not be painting with a broad brush.

This kind of violence is horrifying. Period.

And no matter who committed it, we should be able to say:
This was wrong. This does not represent everyone. And we refuse to let grief become another excuse for hate.

If we can come together, we can help cool the current political tension. Who knows—by calming the rhetoric, we may be able to stop the next horrible event before it happens.

I don’t come to you as an expert. I come to you as someone with faults, biases, and a long way to go.

But at least I’m trying.

Are you?

Hard Truths, Honest Heart is my commitment to speak up — even when it feels scary — so my kids can one day say I chose honesty over silence. Through essays on civics, history, and personal truth, I’m building a record of courage and clarity, showing that integrity matters more than comfort. This isn’t just about politics or personal stories; it’s about leaving a legacy my children can be proud of.

A quick note before we dive in: thanks to all who voted in my recent survey! Why the Constitution Still Matters came out on top, and it will also be the first essay in a 3-part mini-series on civics. The other two? Democracy Is a Christian Value and Parallels Between 1930s Germany and Today’s Political Climate. Stay tuned. I can’t wait to share them with you.

Not long ago, I heard someone say we should “get over the obsession with the Constitution and the founding fathers.” On one level, they’re right. The founders were fallible. Some upheld and justified slavery — one of the deepest injustices in our history.

And yet, the document they produced has outlasted more than two centuries. We can hold both truths at once: that the men who drafted the Constitution were deeply flawed, and that the framework they built remains essential to our democracy.

Brief History of the Constitution

During the Revolutionary War, delegates from each of the 13 original colonies met and later adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 as the Continental Congress.

The Continental Congress developed our nation’s first Constitution, called the Articles of Confederation. But the Articles proved too weak: no executive branch, no power to tax, and no way to keep order, as Shay’s Rebellion revealed.

So in 1787, delegates met again in Philadelphia and developed a new charter: the Constitution.

The Convention lasted four full months through the summer of 1787. Luckily, James Madison took meticulous notes, so we have an insider’s view of the debates themselves.

Imagine this: 55 strong-willed men of varying opinions wearing powdered wigs and wool coats stuffed into a room in sweltering heat with the windows closed to maintain secrecy. These men discussed, debated, and argued from approximately 10 am to 3 pm every day, and then sometimes again in the evening at a local tavern or boardinghouse.

The conversations weren’t all cordial and unifying. Some of the arguments were tense. Luther Martin of Maryland stormed out over compromises on slavery, and Alexander Hamilton left in protest, but then returned.

However, at the end of four long months, the men had finally stitched together an imperfect but solid document: the US Constitution. After being ratified by the States, the Constitution went into effect in 1789.

The Constitution is currently the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. But it hasn’t been without its challenges.

So why is it important?

What Life Might Be Like Without a Functional Constitution

Without a Constitution, the US would lack the fundamental framework for self-government, leaving citizens without guaranteed rights and protections, and the government with unlimited power, potentially leading to tyranny, discrimination, and instability.

None of these changes would arrive all at once. They’d seep in slowly, until what was once unthinkable became normal.

History shows that when constitutions weaken, the loss usually begins with individual rights.

Lack of Guaranteed Rights

The Bill of Rights protects individual freedoms. Without these protections, daily life could look very different:

• Speech and press: You could be jailed for criticizing the president, while newspapers and websites are shut down for publishing stories officials dislike.

• Protest and religion: Peaceful demonstrators could be arrested, tax money directed to one denomination, and minority religions banned from worship.

• Privacy and security: Police could enter your home without a warrant and search your phone and emails at will.

• Justice and fairness: People could be forced to testify against themselves, imprisoned without trial, or tried in secret without a lawyer. Bail and fines could be set impossibly high.

• Limits on government: States and the federal government could claim nearly unlimited powers, with citizens having no constitutional ground to push back.

Now imagine waking up in a country where these rights no longer exist.

A Day in the Life…

You scroll through the news in the morning, but nearly every outlet echoes the same voice. The few independent sites left are flagged as “foreign-influenced” and carry government warnings. On social media, a friend’s account has vanished after she questioned a new policy. At work, your supervisor reminds staff that attending Saturday’s protest could end up on personnel records. That night, your child brings home a civics workbook — half the content praises the current leader by name. On the surface, life looks ordinary. But piece by piece, the space to think freely, speak openly, and live without fear is shrinking. The Constitution exists to stop this very spiral, not just to protect institutions, but to protect us.

And without democracy, even the strongest rights collapse.

Absence of a democratic framework

The Constitution defines the structure of our government and the principles of democracy, including the right to vote. Without it:

• Elections lose meaning: Leaders appoint loyalists, outcomes are predetermined, and opposition becomes dangerous.

• Justice is corrupted: Courts serve the ruler, laws punish dissenters, and insiders are shielded from consequences.

• Force replaces service: Police and military enforce regime loyalty instead of protecting citizens.

• Public life is controlled: Schools teach propaganda, media is captured, and even art or comedy is censored.

This kind of erosion rarely begins with tanks in the streets. It begins in ordinary routines. Here’s what a single day under that framework might feel like:

A Day in the Life…

You turn on the television in the morning, but the comedy shows and satire you once enjoyed have vanished, replaced by state-run broadcasts. On your way to work, you hear a neighbor has been questioned after criticizing a local official — no one knows if she’ll be back. At the office, a colleague quietly deletes old social media posts, afraid even sarcasm could cost him his job.

That night, your child’s art project is returned with red marks: no political themes allowed.

On the surface, life looks familiar. But the ability to laugh, to question, to dissent — all the things that keep democracy alive — have begun to slip away.

History teaches that when constitutions fail, the result isn’t neutrality. It’s instability, chaos, and tyranny.

Instability and Tyranny

Without a functioning Constitution, power becomes unchecked and life grows fragile:

• Economic chaos: Inflation and shortages become common. Currency loses value, businesses falter, and jobs vanish.

• Broken systems: Healthcare, schools, and infrastructure collapse as policies reverse with each leader.

• Violence and fear: Protests, riots, and even armed clashes spill into the streets, while citizens self-censor to stay safe.

• No recourse: Courts, police, and officials no longer serve the people—laws punish dissenters and shield loyalists.

• Total control: News, education, and culture praise the leader. Religion, art, even humor fall under government intrusion.

Here’s what life under that kind of rule could look like on an ordinary day.

A Day in the Life…

You wake to the sound of your phone buzzing: gas prices have doubled again overnight. The news explains nothing—every outlet repeats the same government statement that the economy is “strong.” At work, you overhear two coworkers whispering about a protest planned for the weekend, but when you approach, they fall silent. People have been fired, or worse, for being seen at the wrong rally.

That evening, your daughter spreads her homework across the table. The civics chapter praises the president for “saving the nation” and omits any mention of elections. When she asks if you voted for him, you change the subject.

Later, as you line up at the grocery store, you notice shelves are half-empty again. A man mutters about corruption, and the room goes quiet. Everyone pretends not to hear. You do too.

Life looks ordinary: schools, jobs, groceries. Yet it all feels fragile, precarious, and watched. You survive by keeping your head down, but in private, you wonder how long until there’s nothing left to say.

Everyday life feels suffocating. You can work, eat, go about errands, but always under watch, never secure, never free.

And yet, the Constitution has always been more than laws and power — it is also the glue that binds us together.

No Core Values or Social Benefits

The Constitution doesn’t just structure government. It also anchors our shared values and social safety nets. Without them:

• Loss of unity: Citizens retreat into tribes of geography, race, or ideology. Patriotism empties into partisanship.

• No common ground: With no shared values like liberty or equality, every issue becomes a zero-sum fight.

• No safety net: Illness, job loss, or disability bring financial ruin. Education and opportunity belong only to the wealthy.

• Generational hardship: Without school meals, child health programs, Social Security, or Medicare, families carry burdens alone and poverty deepens.

What happens when there’s no “we” left in the nation? It looks something like this.

A day in the life…

You wake up to an empty fridge. Payday isn’t until Friday, and the school lunch program was cut last year. Your youngest pretends not to be hungry, but you can see it in her eyes. On the way to work, you pass two neighbors shouting in the street. One blames immigrants for lost jobs, the other blames corporations. No one steps in. Everyone keeps to their own corner now.

At work, your supervisor announces another round of layoffs. No unemployment benefits this time; the state stopped funding them. A coworker breaks down in tears—her mother needs medicine she can’t afford without insurance. No one knows what to say.

That night, the power flickers. Your neighborhood has argued for months about repairs, but no one trusts anyone else enough to cooperate. As you tuck your kids into bed, you realize the scariest part isn’t the hunger or the bills. It’s that nobody believes in the same country anymore.

If all this feels unsettling, remember: the Constitution was written in anticipation of struggle. It has been stretched thin before—and survived.

Our Constitution Has Been Stretched Thin Before

Our Constitution has weathered turbulent times before. Here are some historical examples:

1798 — Alien & Sedition Acts: Criticizing the government made illegal; journalists jailed.

Civil War & Jim Crow (1861–1960s): Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; later, segregation and poll taxes gutted equal rights.

World Wars & Red Scare (1917–1950s): Antiwar speech criminalized in WWI; Japanese Americans interned in WWII; McCarthyism silenced dissent.

Watergate (1970s): Nixon abused presidential power; scandal proved no one is above the law.

Post-9/11 (2001–Present): Patriot Act expanded surveillance; Guantanamo detentions stretched due process.

Contested Elections (2000, 2021): Bush v. Gore halted a recount; January 6th attacked the peaceful transfer of power.

History reminds us that the Constitution’s survival is never automatic. It endures only when each generation chooses to defend it.

The Constitution’s greatest weakness is also its greatest test: it depends on the integrity of those who swear to uphold it. It requires leaders who will work across the aisle for the good of all citizens, who will fight for the rights of every person regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or immigration status. It demands the courage to honor checks and balances, to stand up for what is right instead of blindly obeying the executive, and to make difficult choices even when they are unpopular with their party. Above all, it requires integrity to respect the rule of law and the authority of the courts, because the Constitution endures only if it’s obeyed in practice, not just praised in theory.

But do we still believe in that vision? A July 2025 poll by More in Common found that nearly 9 in 10 Baby Boomers believe leaders must always follow the Constitution, even if it slows them down, while only 53% of Gen Z agreed. That gap should sober us — younger Americans may not see the Constitution as essential to their freedom.

Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor captured this tension perfectly when she wrote:

“What makes the Constitution worthy of our commitment? First and foremost, the answer is our freedom…”

Her words remind us that this framework, the shortest and oldest still in use, is flexible enough to endure, but only if we remain committed to it.

And these aren’t just distant warnings from history or abroad. Even today, we see attempts to stretch our Constitution thin: efforts to expand executive authority, undermine judicial independence, politicize the civil service, and restrict access to the ballot box. Each of these pressures chips away at the framework that protects our freedoms.

The founders themselves rarely agreed. They argued fiercely — sometimes storming out of the room — but they returned, debated, and compromised with the future of the nation in mind. Today, by contrast, Congress often seems paralyzed by partisanship, more committed to defeating one another than to solving problems. That contrast should remind us: the Constitution’s endurance has always depended on leaders willing to put country before faction.

The Constitution still matters, but only if we defend it, generation by generation.

What part of the Constitution feels most important to defend today? Share your perspective in the comments. I’d love to learn from you!

Hard Truths, Honest Heart is my commitment to speak up — even when it feels scary — so my kids can one day say I chose honesty over silence. Through essays on civics, history, and personal truth, I’m building a record of courage and clarity, showing that integrity matters more than comfort. This isn’t just about politics or personal stories; it’s about leaving a legacy my children can be proud of.

When you lose a loved one, the pain is intense. Suffocating. And while the passage of time softens the edges, the ache never really goes away.

But with death, there is closure: you know your loved one is never coming back.

How, then, do we grieve when the people we love have changed so much that the person we once knew feels gone forever?

Throughout this piece, ‘you’ isn’t just one person. It’s pieces of several people I’ve loved and lost in different ways, even while they’re still alive.

And that’s the hardest part — realizing that people I once trusted with my innermost thoughts and dreams no longer feel safe.

Conversations skim the surface, reduced to the weather, errands — or worse, they turn sharp without warning. Because in truth, no topic feels safe anymore. Even the tragedy of a school shooting, something that should unite us in sorrow, somehow splinters into politics.

And then comes the sting of being called “distant” or “cold,” when really, you’re just trying to protect your heart — or keep the peace while biting back everything you want to say. It’s easier to seem aloof than to risk the pain of another hollow, fractured conversation.

Sometimes it’s hard to even look your loved one in the eye, because the respect you once felt has eroded.

On occasion, I still catch glimpses of the old version of the people I am grieving. They show up every once in a while, though less and less as time passes — a quick grimace or eye roll at something that’s always annoyed you, before you had a chance to filter it. Asking for my advice. Teasing my oldest daughter about having a boyfriend — and suddenly I’m pulled back to when you used to chase me around the house, pants hiked up to your chest, laughing, “I’m Jessie’s boyfriend, Urkel!”

I hear you brag about how smart your grandchildren are, and it reminds me of when you once bragged about me to the wrestling team you coached just because I could spell “Milwaukee.” Later you bragged again when I earned my doctorate. But now, it feels like you don’t trust anything I say.

And I remember when a young mother nearly killed her infant — her baby left with broken bones throughout her body. I was furious, but you showed compassion. You wrote to her in prison. Now, you talk about immigrants as if they’re all criminals who deserve to be locked away, when their only “crime” is searching for a better life.

When the “oldies” play on the radio, I think about you. I’m grateful you introduced me to great music when I was young, and now I share it with my own kids. Even though I rolled my eyes as a teenager, I wish you were here in the car again, singing and explaining the stories behind songs like Mr. Bojangles, Cat’s in the Cradle, and In the Ghetto. The sad part is that you could be here. But it’s different now. You don’t even listen to the oldies anymore.

And it’s not just the music. I miss the way you told stories at family dinners, weaving history and humor until we were all leaning in for the ending. I miss your pep talks when I needed encouragement, when you’d remind me: I believe in you. Never give up. Can’t isn’t a word. These weren’t small things. They were the threads that stitched our lives together, and now those threads are fraying.

On one hand, these glimpses bring relief — proof that you’re still in there somewhere. On the other hand, they cut deep, because every memory of who you were sharpens the ache of who you are now. And that ache feels so much like grief, looping through stages I once only associated with death.

I once studied the ‘stages of grief’ in college — denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. But grieving the living doesn’t look like that. For me, it circles through something different:

• Self-doubt: Am I remembering incorrectly? What if I’m wrong? Is it just me?

• Anger: How could you support this? Why won’t you listen?

• Empathy: You’re still good at heart, caught up in something bigger.

• Disbelief: How can you make so many excuses? You’re too intelligent not to see.

• Hope: Maybe if I talk to you. Maybe if you read my work. Maybe this line will be the one that wakes you.

• Grief: They’re never coming back, are they?

Maybe acceptance belongs on this list too. But I’m not there. How do you accept the loss of someone who’s still alive? How do you let go when hope keeps whispering it’s not final?

Unlike grief after death, these stages don’t move in order toward resolution. They circle back. Sometimes I feel them all in a single conversation: rage boiling under my skin, then sadness at the memory of who you were, then empathy because I know you’re not cruel, just caught in something I can’t reach. It is whiplash for the heart.

You can’t fully let go because they’re alive, but you can’t fully hold on because it hurts too much. That push and pull keeps the wound raw.

Death brings rituals, sympathy, communal acknowledgment. Grieving the living brings none of that. There are no bereavement days, no casseroles delivered to the door, no grace for the unknown mourning. And unlike death, you can’t silence the whisper: maybe one day, they’ll return. Hope becomes the cruelest companion, a flicker that comforts even as it torments.

I’ve realized this isn’t just conflict. It’s grief. It’s mourning the people I still love, because love doesn’t forget. And it doesn’t let go without a fight.

And I know I’m not the only one. Across kitchen tables, across church pews, across family group texts, countless people are grieving the living. Quietly. Lonely. And for all its invisibility, it is real.

Maybe naming it is the first step. It’s how we begin to carry it together.

If this spoke to you, a “❤️” helps it reach others who may be wrestling with the same questions.

Share

Have you felt the grief of losing someone who’s still alive? I’d love to hear your story in the comments — your words may remind someone else that they’re not alone in this.

In a future piece, I’ll share reader-requested guidance on how to manage these difficult relationships with care.

For some of us, this grief began when loved ones were swept up in Trump’s MAGA movement. Naming that isn’t about sides — it’s about holding onto truth. About people. About decency.

If you—or someone you love—is quietly rethinking everything, this is a gentle place to start:
👉 Leaving MAGA

They have their homework “done” for them by Mom.

They serve their “punishment” in front of the TV or a video game console.

They show up to school only when they feel like it.

They call a parent to hand-deliver whatever they forgot that morning.

They see their consequences shrink after Dad calls the principal to say it “wasn’t a big deal.”

They watch their parents launch Facebook crusades against the teacher instead of speaking with them directly.

Moments like these make me wonder if we’ve quietly rewritten the rules about consequences, because when I was a kid, even a single gummy bear could land you in serious trouble.

I learned that in sixth grade.

I had gummy bears in my lunchbox, and a classmate dared me to throw one so he could catch it in his mouth. I did. I can’t even remember if he caught it, because the next thing I knew, my best friend hurled her entire sandwich across the table.

The lunch lady wasn’t impressed. She sent my friend to the principal’s office, but not before my friend pointed at me and yelled, “She did it too!”

The principal had me write a letter of apology and sit alone at lunch for three days. When my parents found out, they grounded me for a week.

The lesson stuck. I never threw food at school again. Facing consequences at both school and home taught me that the adults I trusted expected better from me.

That’s the part I don’t see as often today. And it’s not just kids.

I’m not here to come at parents. Parenting is hard. We’re all guilty of occasionally bailing our kids out — myself included. But over time, small exceptions can turn into a pattern of never holding kids accountable. And when that happens, the habit grows.

From the lunchroom to the West Wing

It’s easy to laugh when a kid says, “It wasn’t me.”

But when the most powerful people in the country do it? That’s not just childish—it’s dangerous.

Here’s what “young child logic” looks like when it graduates to national politics:

This isn’t just me shaking my finger at “kids these days”. Teachers see it, too.

For example, 79% of teachers say parents do too little to hold kids accountable if they misbehave in school. And while the answer isn’t harsher punishment, it’s certainly not looking the other way.

The good news? We don’t need to call Miss Trunchbull and send kids to the chokey to hold them accountable.

All joking aside, repeatedly failing to hold kids accountable for poor behavior can have serious consequences.

Kids who consistently get away with poor behavior often show a worrying pattern: a sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, and sometimes even bully behavior—even when they seem to hurt others without remorse. Studies link bullying to a strong sense of superiority and emotional detachment.

By the age of 12, most kids have the ability to self-reflect and take accountability.

When these patterns never get corrected, they don’t disappear — they scale up.

When kids avoid accountability… and when leaders do the same

These same accountability gaps show up outside the classroom, and the consequences are just as damaging. You don’t have to look far to see leaders who dodge responsibility using the same tactics as a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

If you think these lines belong on a playground, you’re not wrong, but you’ll hear them just as often in politics, where the consequences are a lot bigger.

1. Deflection & Excuses

Shift the blame or reframe the facts so you’re not the one in trouble.

Young child logic: “It wasn’t me” →

Trumpworld logic: “Witch hunt! Fake news!”

“WITCH HUNT!!! Crooked Joe Biden & his Injustice Department want to indict & arrest his presumed political opponent (ME!)…”

— Donald J. Trump via Truth Social, July 18, 2023

When caught red-handed, both the kid and the politician point the finger anywhere but themselves.

Young child logic: “It’s not my fault” →

Trumpworld logic: “Biden/Obama/Hillary/Pelosi did it.”

““Crazy Nancy Pelosi didn’t do an ‘Impeachment Inquiry’ on me for making a PERFECT phone call, the Radical Left Lunatics just ‘Impeached.’ Crooked Joe Biden stole Millions and Millions of Dollars from China…”

— Donald J. Trump, Truth Social, July 28, 2023

Why take responsibility when you can blame someone else entirely?

Young child logic: “The rules are unfair” →

Trumpworld logic: “The system is rigged against us.”

“The biggest thing to come out of the Twitter Targeting Hoax is that the Presidential Election was RIGGED - And that’s as big as it can get!!!”

— Donald J. Trump via Truth Social, December 9, 2022

If you can’t win, question the rules themselves — it’s easier than playing by them.

Young child logic: “You’re just picking on me” →

Trumpworld logic: “We’re being politically persecuted.”

““Why should a Crooked, highly political New York Judge… and the White House… be allowed to take away… very successful properties.”

— Donald J. Trump via Truth Social, March 25, 2024

When all else fails, cast yourself as the victim — bonus points if you can make it sound heroic.

Young child logic: “I didn’t know that was against the rules” →

Trumpworld logic: “You mean that is disqualifying?”

“Stupid social media activity should not ruin a kid’s life.”

— JD Vance, defending a 25 year-old DOGE staffer fired for racist social media posts

Play naïve and hope the grown-ups believe you didn’t understand the assignment.

2. Retaliation & Denial

Attack the accuser, question their motives, or flat-out reject the claim.

Young child logic: “I was just joking” →

Trumpworld logic: “That was sarcasm, the media took it wrong.”

“Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but not that sarcastic to be honest with you.”

— Donald Trump, claiming that Obama “founded ISIS”

Claiming it was “just a joke” is the classic escape hatch.

Young child logic: “But everyone else does it!” →

Trumpworld logic: “Other politicians have done worse”

“The Democrats don’t have clean hands here… Democrat states have effectively gerrymandered Republicans out of existence.”

— Julian Epstein, Republican strategist on Fox News, August 9, 2025

Point to others to make your own actions seem smaller.

Young child logic: “If I get in trouble, you’ll be sorry.” →

Trumpworld logic: “We’ll sue you into the ground.”

“We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone… I’m going to sue his [Rupert Murdoch’s] ass off.”

— Donald J. Trump via Truth Social, July 18, 2025 after the Washington Post published a bawdy letter purportedly written by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.

Turn the tables and make the accuser feel threatened.

Young child logic: Shoulder shrug →

Trumpworld logic: “I don’t know.”

“I don’t know—I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know”

— Donald Trump in reference to being asked if he was required to follow the Constitution.

Sometimes, the easiest way to dodge is to claim you didn’t understand the assignment.

These are just a few examples from thousands of similar statements made by Trump and his administration.

It would be one thing if they used immature techniques on social media but displayed mature, effective leadership in real life. Unfortunately, their actions match their posts.

These so-called leaders have proven that they have never matured beyond a young adolescent — and yet, they are leading our country.

When kids are little, we might laugh when they spin wild stories to dodge blame. But once they know better, it’s neither funny nor cute.

The word discipline doesn’t mean yelling, spanking, or humiliating. It means to teach. Real discipline is about guiding someone to develop self-control, responsibility, and the ability to handle discomfort without collapsing into excuses or deflection.

That’s a gift we owe our children, and it’s a skill we should expect from our leaders.

Because if we don’t expect accountability from the powerful, we shouldn’t be shocked when they act like the playground bully — and we’re the ones getting shoved.

If this spoke to you, a “❤️” helps it reach others who may be wrestling with the same questions.

Share

Speaking out against Trump doesn’t mean you’ve “switched sides.”
It means you still care about truth. About people. About decency.

If you—or someone you love—is quietly rethinking everything, this is a gentle place to start:
👉 Leaving MAGA

I remember clearly. I was in second grade, and I had brought a book home from school about MLK, Jr. You sat down with me and explained that young Martin’s neighbor was not allowed to play with him because of Martin’s skin color.

You told me how wrong it was—that no child should be turned away because of the color of their skin. You didn’t just say it. You meant it.

I could feel it, even then.

And I admired you for it. I still do, even as I carry the weight of what’s changed between us.

I remember when you ran for Sheriff on the Democratic ticket. You spoke about your values in a debate with the incumbent. You spoke to my high school government class as we learned about the democratic process of voting.

I’m convinced that if we’d been old enough to vote, you would have won.

But you didn’t win.

Still, you held your head up high.

And I was proud of you.

We used to agree on values such as integrity, equality, and justice. There was a time when certain values weren’t up for debate.

Truth mattered.

Integrity mattered.

Now?

Truth is dismissed as “biased.” Honesty is optional if it serves your tribe. And even when the abuse is exposed—blatantly, publicly, undeniably—the silence is deafening. Or worse—lies that attempt to cover it up.

The erosion of values didn’t happen overnight. It crept in—like a slow leak in the foundation, weakening what once held us upright.

We saw the signs:

• The rise of “fake news” and misinformation

• The fading sense of community

• Online cruelty and hate, normalized

• The death of civil debate

• Greed rewarded

• Accountability abandoned

• And abuse—still hidden, still protected—in places of power

And now, here we are.

One of my first pieces on this platform—"If This Isn’t Your Line, What Is?"—asked whether there was a line in the sand for Trump supporters.

I’ve tried to understand how the ground shifted so far beneath us—how values we once held sacred became negotiable. But nothing prepared me for the silence that followed this.

In May, Trump was told by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appears in Epstein-related investigative files—some of which are now public. There’s been no formal accusation. But the values you once taught me—truth, integrity, protection of the vulnerable—demand that we ask the hard questions anyway.

This is the line: child rape.

If you can’t speak out against this, what do you stand for? What are your values?

Maybe you once voted for what you believed were family values. But if that’s true—ask yourself: does this still align?

I’m not asking for perfection. I’m asking for clarity. Because silence in the face of child rape isn't neutrality. It’s consent.

I keep hearing the phrase “pro-life.” But life doesn’t begin and end in a womb.

If protecting children doesn’t include standing against the sexual abuse and trafficking of already-born children, then your version of “pro-life” is missing something very important—or, even worse, you’re hiding behind the label.

You taught me to stand up for what I believe in, no matter the cost. I don’t think you expected that I’d ever need to stand up to you.

I can accept that people I love voted for Trump. It’s painful—but the past is fixed. The future isn’t. What hurts the most is how Trump is still defended, as if voting for him once means you’re not allowed to say anything now.

But you are. And it matters.

When people say they love God and stand for values like integrity but won’t speak out against things like child rape—or even make excuses for Trump’s behavior—there is a disconnect.

I know that speaking out in a red, rural area can feel lonely. I know how painful it is to face the truth—that someone you trusted let you down, or worse, hurt people.

But I still believe in the person who taught me right from wrong.
The values you once stood for still matter.
And you can still show us what they look like—not just in words, but in action.

You may have abandoned the version of yourself who taught me those values. I haven’t. I still believe in them.

If this spoke to you, a “❤️” helps it reach others who may be wrestling with the same questions.

Speaking out against Trump doesn’t mean you’ve “switched sides.”
It means you still care about truth. About people. About decency.

If you—or someone you love—is quietly rethinking everything, this is a gentle place to start:
👉 Leaving MAGA

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
— Abraham Lincoln

We’ve long been taught to trust the smart ones—the Ivy grads, the lawyers, the data-driven “experts.” But intelligence, for all its prestige, doesn’t automatically come with a moral compass. It doesn’t ensure courage, compassion, or integrity. In the wrong hands, it can rationalize harm, spin propaganda, and erode trust in democracy.

As democracy weakens around the world, it’s not just the uninformed leading the charge. Sometimes, it’s the smartest person in the room.

Vice President J.D. Vance has the résumé of a statesman—but the instincts of a strongman. Yale Law. Bestseller. Political opportunist. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

And that’s what makes it worse.

Because intelligence doesn’t protect democracy. Sometimes, it helps dismantle it.

Vance built his brand on intellect and grit, but credentials don’t equal character. His record shows a calculated rejection of core democratic principles, often in service of consolidating power.

He’s also changed his stripes to fit the mold, shifting from Never Trump to MAGA loyalist, and converting to Catholicism along the way, aligning himself with the movement’s most fervent base.

To understand the threat he poses, let’s walk through five essential democratic principles—and how Vance has actively undermined each one.

Five Pillars of Democracy—and How Vance Undermines Them All

1. Free and Fair Elections (Including the Peaceful Transfer of Power)

Vance has stated that former Vice President Mike Pence should have refused to certify the 2020 election results.

2. Protection of Civil and Human Rights

In Up From Conservatism (a book he introduced), Vance endorsed language lobbying for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, "investigations into ‘gay lifestyle’” and defunding childcare.

In addition, during the Vice Presidential debate, Vance promoted a false and inflammatory rumor that Haitian migrants in Ohio were cooking and eating pets, despite local authorities confirming no evidence, leading to public fear and racism against the innocent migrants.

He opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which constitutionally protects same-sex marriage, and advocated for a national abortion ban with no exceptions, dismissing sexual violence as irrelevant.

3. The Rule of Law

Courts have constitutional authority to interpret statutes, check executive overreach, and ensure government actions follow law—not the whims of power. This preserves accountability and separation of powers.

Vance has argued that judges have no authority over the executive—a clear embrace of the unitary executive theory at the heart of Project 2025.

On the Interesting Times podcast and in multiple interviews, Vance claimed the courts have no authority over the executive and argued that if courts block presidential actions, the administration should simply ignore them—challenging judges to enforce their rulings. He framed the judiciary as an enemy of the people’s will, echoing historical defiance of constitutional limits.

4. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

No single branch (executive, legislative, or judicial) can operate without oversight from the others. This prevents power consolidation and preserves constitutional stability.

In a conversation with Ross Douthat (New York Times), Vance called the judiciary’s role in checking executive orders a betrayal of the popular will. He insisted that courts should defer to elected mandates. especially on immigration enforcement, even when they conflict with constitutional limits.

5. Free Speech, Press, Religion & Assembly

This includes:

• The right to speak, dissent, protest, and gather freely

• Journalistic independence and pluralistic media landscape

• Unfettered exercise of religion and worship

• Association and assembly without state suppression

Vance admitted he would "create stories" to attract media attention—even if unverified, as in the false Haitian migrant narratives—fueling disinformation that endangers journalistic trust and immigrant communities.

He has also been linked to banning reporters from events and branding mainstream outlets as “enemies of the people,” undercutting media independence and press accountability.

At the Munich Security Conference, Vance loudly defended free expression and religious speech, accusing European governments of silencing dissenters. Yet back home, his administration hypocritically banned the Associated Press from the White House for not following presidential terminology directives—a move criticized as censorship.

Authoritarianism: What It Is and Why It Matters

Britannica defines authoritarianism as blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. But there isn’t just one kind of authoritarianism. It wears many masks—religious, political, economic—and while the outcomes may vary, the aim is always control.

You can explore the different forms of authoritarianism here.

Authoritarian regimes eventually turn on everyone. Today’s loyalist is tomorrow’s dissenter. Nobody stays safe under unchecked power.

While younger generations are highly intelligent and understand history, a subject learned from a book is entirely different from lived experience. Many younger people have never experienced the real-time fight against fascism as was the case during WWII. They never experienced the horrors of what this type of government is capable of.

The US is toeing the line of becoming a more authoritarian country. For example, CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, placed the U.S. on its civic space watchlist, citing serious erosion of freedoms like peaceful protest, press access, and association rights. Actions included military responses to protests, journalist arrests, and funding cuts to PBS/NPR. The U.S. moved into a “narrowed” civic space category, alongside countries like Turkey and Serbia.

In addition, Trump also pursued unitary executive powers, suggesting courts have no authority over presidential decisions, comparing himself to a king, and encouraging public defiance of unfavorable court rulings.

Democracy experts like Larry Diamond now say the U.S. is a “democracy in decline”, comparing our trajectory to Hungary and Brazil and calling for urgent civic resistance and defenses of systemic norms.

A Broader Pattern: Other “Smart” Enablers

Aside from JD Vance, here are other prominent Ivy-league enablers of authoritarianism.

Usha Vance

Usha Vance is a Yale-educated attorney who clerked for both Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. Though she’s largely avoided the spotlight, her alignment with J.D. Vance raises valid questions about how brilliant, elite-credentialed figures can remain silent—or even complicit—in the face of democratic backsliding.

RFK, Jr.

RFK, Jr. is the son of the late Attorney General, RFK, and nephew of the late President JFK. RFK, Jr. launched his 2024 campaign as a Democrat before switching to Independent.

Though he hails from a legacy family, with a long career as a lawyer and now as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, RFK, Jr. is frequently at odds with the scientific community and democratic principles. Prior to joining the Trump administration, RFK, Jr. called Trump a “threat to democracy”, compared him to historical demagogues, dismissed him as “unhinged”, and challenged him to a debate.

Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller graduated from Duke University, where he honed a reputation for provocation—and then weaponized it in the Trump White House. This time, Miller isn't just advising. He’s running the show. He drafted and executed some of the administration’s most authoritarian immigration moves: mass family separations, drastic refugee caps, and policies widely condemned as xenophobic.

Miller doesn’t just tolerate cruelty. He institutionalizes it.

This year, he ordered ICE to arrest at least 3,000 undocumented people per day, including anyone found near Home Depot parking lots or convenience stores—many with no criminal record and no due process. He reportedly gloated about arresting “30 people outside a Home Depot near ICE’s D.C. headquarters.” Civil liberties groups describe the resulting raids as warrantless detentions, brutal and chaotic.

He didn't just stop there. Miller signaled willingness to suspend habeas corpus to speed up mass deportations—effectively paving the way for executive overreach far beyond constitutional limits.

In his own words:

“Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.”

If this is authoritarianism by design, Miller is its architect. He’s not behind the scenes—he’s shaping the entire playbook, making Project 2025 less theory and more imminent blueprint.

Why This Matters

People sometimes change their minds based on new information—and that’s fair. But when former critics turn into loyal allies overnight, it raises questions about conviction and moral clarity. And when longtime loyalists, like Stephen Miller, wield power with no regard for democratic norms, it’s not a change of heart. It’s a strategy.

In either case, the danger is the same: power unmoored from principle.

As a human creation, democracy is inherently imperfect. But if we don’t have a democracy, we have authoritarianism. In the future, we can—and should—work to improve democracy. But for now, it remains the best thing we’ve got.

What actually protects democracy?

• Moral courage, not IQ

• A commitment to truth

• Willingness to risk status or comfort

We’ve been told that knowledge is power. But power, when void of empathy or accountability, becomes dangerous.

Being intelligent doesn’t make you just. It doesn’t make you brave. It doesn’t make you good.

Intelligence is value-neutral. In the wrong hands, it becomes a weapon.

The future will not be decided by the smartest, but by the bravest.

Sources

JD Vance tied to extremists through messages, book endorsements

There’s No Need to Guess. JD Vance Is Ready to Ignore the Courts. - POLITICO

J. D. Vance Warns Courts to Get in Line | The New Yorker

Authoritarianism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

At This Point, We Are a Democracy In Decline | Washington Post

U.S. Highlighted on International Human Rights Watchlist for ‘Sustained Attacks on Civil Freedoms’ Under Trump

Authoritarian Threat Index } Protect Democracy

USA: Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance’s fake stories create real risks for journalists | RSF

In Munich, Vance accuses European politicians of censoring free speech | Reuters

Trump, Vance and Musk take aim at the courts as judges halt some of 2nd term agenda - ABC News

What Marbury v. Madison means for the Supreme Court — and America | AP News

WATCH: RFK Jr. says he’s suspending his presidential bid and backing Donald Trump | PBS News

RFK Jr. previously compared Trump to Hitler - Live Updates - POLITICO

JD Vance says he's wouldn't have certified 2020 race until states submitted pro-Trump electors - ABC News

J.D. Vance promoted book that prescribes repealing the Civil Rights Act | AllSides

The White House aide driving Trump's aggressive immigration agenda | Reuters

Deportations: Miller's threat to the courts | The Week

The Preamble

Who is Usha Vance?

Read more

a year ago · 389 likes · 123 comments · Sharon McMahon

Dear friends,

When I started this Substack back in April, I had one modest goal: reach 10 subscribers who weren’t close friends or family.

Four months later, we’ve officially crossed 500 subscribers—and I can happily say the majority of you found your way here not out of obligation, but by choice. I’m truly humbled. Thank you for reading, sharing, commenting, and trusting me with your time and attention.

As I reflected on this milestone, I took a look back at what I’ve written so far—and where I hope to go next. While I’ll always be proud of The Other Side of the Pew, it’s become clear that this space has grown beyond faith alone. It’s evolved into a place where we wrestle with truth, ethics, heartbreak, courage, and accountability.

To better reflect that broader scope, I’ve decided to update the name of this publication to:
Hard Truths, Honest Heart.

You’ll notice a new logo and title, but I promise: the heart of this work remains the same.

I hope you’ll stick around as we keep growing, asking hard questions, and holding space for nuance, conviction, and care. Your feedback and thoughts are always welcome—I love hearing from you.

A quick note:

The web address and email sender name will look a little different from now on.
The new domain is: www.hardtruthshonestheart.com
You may also see that name in your inbox.

There’s nothing you need to do—you’re still subscribed and will continue receiving every post as usual.
If you prefer to read in a browser, feel free to bookmark the new link above.

Thank you again for your support. Here’s to the next 500.

With gratitude,
Jessica C.

Last week, I shared Lisa and Charlie’s story—what happens when budget cuts aren’t just numbers, but real lives. I promised a follow-up to unpack the talking points behind the policy. This is that piece.

There’s a lot of noise right now—on social media, in comment threads, even from elected officials. These talking points show up everywhere. Let’s take a closer look.

1. “People need to work if they want benefits.”

✅ Reality:
Most Medicaid recipients already do work—or they care for loved ones, live with disabilities, or are in school. But here’s the catch: even with a job, many don’t earn enough to afford private insurance. In fact, nearly 3 in 5 adults on Medicaid are already working, often in low-wage jobs that don’t offer benefits. Work requirements don’t boost employment—they just add red tape. Miss a form, a deadline, or a shift, and you lose coverage. Not because you’re lazy, but because you’re navigating a system designed to trip you up.

2. “People just need to make better choices.”

✅ Reality:
No one chooses disability, cancer, a stroke, or a premature birth. And poverty isn’t a moral failure. It’s often the result of policy failure. The truth is, most Medicaid recipients are doing everything they can, but they’re forced to navigate a web of employment, healthcare, and bureaucratic hurdles that makes accessing care far harder than it should be.

Yes, some people make poor decisions. But poverty isn’t just the result of bad choices. It’s often the result of impossible ones, like choosing between rent and medication, between childcare and a job, between survival today and stability tomorrow.

Personal responsibility does matter. But even good choices aren’t always enough to overcome broken systems. And basic healthcare shouldn’t be reserved for those who never make a mistake. It should be guaranteed for everyone.

3. “Medicaid is full of fraud and waste.”

✅ Reality:
Medicaid actually has one of the lowest fraud rates of any federal program. Most of what’s labeled “waste” comes from red tape, not wrongdoing — complex rules and inefficiencies, not people trying to cheat the system.

Yes, there will always be some fraud in any large program. That’s human nature. But it’s not a reason to dismantle the system. We can demand accountability without using a few bad actors to justify cutting care for millions.

And here’s what often gets overlooked: Most Medicaid fraud doesn’t come from patients lying to get care. It comes from providers inflating bills, charging for services they never delivered, or exploiting the system for profit.

4. “We need to cut spending or we’ll go bankrupt.”

✅ Reality:
We’re not broke. We’re just making the wrong choices, like handing out huge tax breaks to billionaires while claiming we can’t afford basic care for kids with disabilities or low-income seniors.

The 2017 tax law added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit, mostly helping the wealthiest Americans. These cuts didn’t “pay for themselves.” They didn’t spark a wave of job creation or boost wages in any lasting way. What they did was drain funding from the programs that help everyday Americans.

Some massive companies, like Amazon and Netflix, have paid $0 in federal income taxes in recent years. Many of the wealthiest individuals use tax loopholes and offshore havens to avoid contributing their fair share, while teachers, nurses, and small business owners foot the bill.

That’s the real crisis—not Medicaid. Blaming people who rely on care instead of holding powerful corporations accountable isn’t fiscal responsibility. It’s a moral failure.

5. “If this bill hadn’t passed, taxes would have gone up.”

✅ Reality:
Taxes wouldn’t need to increase if we stopped giving billionaires and large corporations enormous tax breaks. This is a false choice: we could fund essential care and still close corporate loopholes.

6. “There are no cuts to Medicaid in the Big Beautiful Bill.”

✅ Reality:
On paper, the bill doesn’t directly slash Medicaid. But that’s not the full story. It reduces funding, tightens eligibility, and adds new restrictions. That means fewer people will qualify, and some services will quietly disappear.

It’s not a line item labeled “cut”—but the impact is the same: people lose care.

And why are these changes happening? To help offset the cost of even more tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. So when leaders claim they’re “protecting” Medicaid, but the result is fewer covered families and shuttered programs, that’s not protection. That’s a cut—just with a different name.

7. “This won’t impact single parents, kids, or people with disabilities.”

✅ Reality:
It already is, thanks to changes at both the federal level under the Big Beautiful Bill and shifts in state programs. None of this is hypothetical.

What’s Changing Under the Big Beautiful Bill?

• Work requirements & paperwork burdens are projected to remove healthcare from millions, including parents and adults with chronic illness. The CBO estimates 5 million adults could lose coverage by 2034—largely due to new reporting requirements and reduced eligibility.

• Cuts in provider reimbursements and funding caps will strain nursing homes, rural hospitals, and home health services, threatening closures and jeopardizing care for children and adults who rely on them.

What’s Already Happening at the State Level

• In Arkansas, a pilot Medicaid work-requirement program led to 18,000+ people losing coverage in just months—and it had no effect on employment rates.

• The Urban Institute found that nearly all adults who lost Medicaid due to state work requirements either went bankrupt or became seriously ill as a result of losing coverage.

• Meanwhile, 338 rural hospitals nationwide—including 11 in Ohio and 25 in Pennsylvania—are now on the brink of closure due to Medicaid cuts.

8. “Illegal immigrants are getting free healthcare while Americans suffer.”

✅ Reality:
Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for full Medicaid benefits. In emergencies, hospitals may provide care under federal law—but that’s about keeping people alive, not giving out perks.

What many people don’t realize is this: many undocumented immigrants pay taxes that fund programs they can’t even use. They contribute to the system without receiving the same support in return.

This claim isn’t just inaccurate—it’s a distraction. It turns neighbors into scapegoats and shifts attention away from real issues. When we blame the most vulnerable, we let those in power off the hook.

9. “Churches and charities should help—not the government.”

✅ Reality:
Churches and nonprofits do important work, but they can’t fund an entire nation’s healthcare needs. Especially when those needs include ICU care, ventilators, and long-term disability support. This is a government-scale issue.

10. “States should handle Medicaid—not the federal government.”

✅ Reality:
Medicaid is a shared effort for a reason. Many states—especially rural or lower-income ones—don’t have the resources to meet healthcare needs on their own. Without federal support, care would disappear for millions.

And in places where states have been given more control, we’ve seen what happens: work requirements, long delays, limited coverage, or outright refusal to expand access. Kicking the responsibility down the road doesn’t solve the problem—it just makes it easier to ignore.

Yes, we all know—or at least suspect—someone who may have taken advantage of Medicaid. And yes, that’s frustrating. But this isn’t an all-or-nothing game. A few misuses don’t justify cutting care for everyone else.

If you come from a faith tradition like I do, you might remember: Jesus didn’t avoid the poor. He didn’t shame them, test them, or ask for proof they were deserving. He fed them. He healed them. He stood with them. He never said, “cut their funding.” He said, “what you do for the least of these, you do for me.”

The people making these decisions—the ones crafting these talking points—aren’t some far-off elites. They’re our own elected representatives, sent to Washington to serve us. And yet, most of them have likely never scraped by month to month, wondering how to afford a doctor after finding a lump, or whether to pay the heating bill or buy food. They haven’t just lost empathy. Worse—they’ve become numb to other people’s suffering.

But we don’t have to be. Call your representatives. Write to them. Show up, speak out, and don’t let this issue slip quietly through the cracks.

The ten arguments above might sound like just talking points, but they have real consequences. They shape policy, steer funding, and determine who gets care, and who doesn’t.

We owe it to the millions who depend on Medicaid to tell the truth—and to keep telling it, especially when it’s uncomfortable.

Sources:

General Medicaid Context and Public Opinion
• What the Data Says About Medicaid — Pew Research Center (2021)

Work Requirements & Coverage Losses
• Impact of Arkansas’ Medicaid Work Requirements — Health Affairs
• Medicaid Work Requirements in Arkansas: 18,000 Lost Coverage with No Employment Gains — KFF
• State-by-State Estimates of Medicaid Expansion Coverage Losses — Urban Institute

Fraud, Abuse, and Program Integrity
• The Truth About Waste and Abuse in Medicaid — Center for Children and Families
• Medicaid Improper Payments Report — GAO
• Medicaid Fraud Myths — CBPP

Economic & Fiscal Impact
• Effects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — CBO
• CBPP Analysis: Budget and Tax Tradeoffs
• Projected Health and Economic Impacts of Medicaid Cuts (2025) — JAMA Health Forum

Hospital Closures & State-Level Effects
• Rural Hospital Closures Tracker — UNC / North Carolina Rural Health Research Program
• 338 Rural Hospitals at Risk of Closure — Chartis Center for Rural Health

Immigrants and Medicaid
• Facts About Immigrants and Medicaid — KFF
• Immigrant Tax Contributions — CATO Institute
• Immigrants Contribute Billions in Taxes — American Immigration Council

Moral & Ethical Perspectives on Medicaid
• Why Medicaid is Essential — Georgetown Center for Children and Families

Eligibility Rollbacks & Federal Trends
• CBO Estimates of Medicaid Coverage Losses
• KFF Medicaid Unwinding Tracker — Kaiser Family Foundation

Lawmakers often claim that Medicaid cuts won’t hurt the vulnerable. But there’s no such thing as a “safe” Medicaid cut—not when you’ve met families like Lisa’s.

After high school, Lisa took courses at a local community college, unsure of what she wanted as a career. However, at age 20, Lisa married her husband, Ben, and shortly after, found out she was pregnant. Lisa set school aside to prioritize her new family.

Lisa’s pregnancy was difficult. Midway through, she learned that her baby would likely be born with disabilities. With this news, Ben became more and more distant with Lisa, and shortly after Charlie was born, Ben permanently left his family.

As Lisa tried to make ends meet as the single parent to a child with profound disabilities, she received assistance from the government in the form of Medicaid and SNAP benefits. Charlie also received Medicaid benefits due to his cognitive and physical disabilities. This included physician visits, as well as Occupational, Physical, and Speech Therapy.

Lisa tried again and again to work outside the home. Each time, she felt the sting of shame, especially when others around her said things like, “There should be work requirements for Medicaid” or “People on Medicaid are lazy.”

Without a college degree, Lisa was unable to secure enough income while working outside the home to support herself and Charlie without relying on Medicaid benefits.

A decade later, Lisa learned about a local program that helped parents like her return to school. It wasn’t easy—juggling Charlie’s appointments, managing the house, and studying late into the night—but she earned her degree in dental hygiene. It didn’t fix everything. But for the first time in years, Lisa felt like she could breathe. Medicaid made that possible—just enough support to imagine a life with stability, and a little more dignity.

But in 2029, the cuts from the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”—passed in 2025 by then-President Trump and a Republican-led Congress—finally began to hit home. That’s when everything started to unravel.

Now, Lisa is experiencing regular panic attacks. Due to the cuts, Charlie’s benefits have been significantly decreased. He no longer qualifies for OT, PT, or Speech Therapy services, and the hours for his aides have been decreased as well. Lisa has found herself having to take more and more time off from work due to reduced aide coverage for Charlie.

Today, Lisa received a phone call that her father, who is currently in a nursing home due to dementia, is no longer able to reside there. The nursing home is closing down due to lack of Medicaid funding. In fact, due to the cuts, there are no nursing homes available within 4 hours of Lisa’s home— and even those nursing homes are full.

Lisa doesn’t know what to do. If she doesn’t work outside the home, she won’t be able to financially support herself and Charlie. She’s considered taking her father in, but she knows he needs more care than she can safely provide.

Worst of all, the new work requirements mean that if Lisa quits her job to care for Charlie and her father, she’ll lose the very benefits she needs to keep them alive.

Lisa sits at her kitchen table, bills stacked beside her, her father confused in the next room, and Charlie humming softly from the couch. She stares at the Medicaid notice one more time. There’s no answer—just the cruel arithmetic of a country that decided her family was too expensive.

I’ve worked in healthcare for over a decade. I’ve met the Lisas. I’ve treated the Charlies. And I’ve seen firsthand what happens when we force families to choose between dignity and survival.

Lisa’s story isn’t unique—it’s just one of the countless stories we’ll never hear if we keep writing policy without listening.

This is the future we’re choosing. Lisa didn’t fail, but our policies did. Because we’ve decided that only some lives are worth supporting.

P.S. Some claim Medicaid cuts won’t affect people with disabilities. I plan to share a short follow-up this week unpacking that myth. If you have questions you'd like addressed, feel free to leave them in the comments.

Until recently, places of worship were barred from endorsing political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status. The rule was rarely enforced—but this past Monday, the IRS made it official: churches and clergy can now endorse candidates from the pulpit with no consequences.

While this may seem like a positive development to regular church-goers, it’s a slippery slope with serious consequences.

This new rule invites even more division. The Jesus I grew up learning about—the one who preached unity, compassion, and care for the vulnerable—would never want his church used this way.

I already know what it feels like to walk into a church, knowing exactly who the priest - and most of the congregation - want me to vote for.

During COVID, it was especially painful. A local priest refused to wear a mask and did not enforce the use of masks during mass.

The bishop told him that masks were required. He refused anyway. That decision didn’t just defy leadership—it modeled defiance to the entire congregation. And they followed. Including my own doctor.

This is the same priest who posted, “Happy Mother’s Day to mothers who are pro-life” on the church sign—and who used the parish bulletin to spread political misinformation comparing Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Image originally published by a regional news outlet in May 2022. View source.

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. Another local priest re-posted a video on his Facebook page stating that people who voted for Democrats would go to hell. This emboldened parishioners I thought were my friends to tell me this to my face.

Across parishes in my area, the message was loud and clear. Spiritual authority was used to abuse the platform of the Church to promote division, misinformation, and conditional belonging.

And - I promise you - this will only get worse if places of worship endorse political candidates with greater regularity than they already are.

Church bulletin excerpt (publicly shared, 2022).

Losing two grandparents to COVID within 4 months of each other was devastating. But even more painful in some ways was the way that people who said they followed Jesus and stood for love and caring for others refused to wear masks as a political statement. Including people I once considered friends.

Because of this, I walked into church and felt unwelcome. Unloved. Unseen. Outcast.

Although priests are put on a pedestal, they are fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.

They don’t deserve to be placed on that pedestal—because at some point, it starts to look a lot like idolatry.

This is a big problem in red, rural churches where I live. Critical thinking has been replaced with tribal loyalty. Parishioners huddle in their own groups, sharing the latest conspiracy theory like it’s gospel.

It would be easier for me to stay silent. I mourn people who are still alive every day. People who post scripture and their attendance at Bible studies on social media, but who either fully endorsed Trump or who are too cowardly to stand up for the cruelty caused by the current administration.

The deep red priests in my rural area stole my parents. My parents thought they were growing in faith. In reality, they were growing—apart—from their children.

So please excuse me if I am angry with the clergy in my area.

These are the clergy we’re supposed to trust for spiritual guidance—not political punditry.

They have caused nothing but grief and strife for me, and I mourn who my parents used to be. Because the longer this goes on, the less likely it feels they’ll ever come back.

While the late Pope Francis and Pope Leo have spoken out against the policies of Trump and Vance, a priest in my community posted on his Facebook that Vance’s mother did a wonderful job raising him.

These are the same clergy who preach that the Pope is chosen by God—then turn around and bash him for being “too liberal.”

But let’s be clear.

There’s a difference between thoughtful disagreement with the Pope and outright dismissing his authority because his message doesn’t align with American political ideology. Disagreement is part of Catholic tradition. But I’ve seen priests—and parishioners—reject Pope Francis and now Pope Leo not on theological grounds, but because they speak about things like climate change, poverty, or compassion toward immigrants. That’s not discernment. That’s partisanship wearing a collar.

Some might argue that the Pope himself speaks on political issues—immigration, poverty, climate change. And that’s true. But there’s a critical difference between a pastoral call to care for the vulnerable and using the pulpit to tell parishioners who to vote for. One is rooted in centuries of Catholic social teaching. The other is political coercion disguised as faith.

To be clear, I know there are priests and churches still doing the work of love, humility, and inclusion. But where I live, those voices are increasingly drowned out by political noise from the pulpit—and those loud voices have taken captive the people I love most. I know forgiveness is supposed to be a virtue. But I don’t know if I can forgive this.

Christian Nationalism is Not Christianity

The first clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

When church and state blur, faith becomes vulnerable to weaponization—especially in the form of white Christian Nationalism.

Entire books could be - and have been - written about white Christian Nationalism. But for now, here are a few essentials to keep in mind:

• Christianity and white Christian Nationalism are not the same thing.

• White Christian Nationalism is on the rise in the U.S., and some of its most visible champions have emerged from the Trump administration, including Pete Hegseth, Mike Johnson, and Pam Bondi.

• White Christian Nationalism is what happens when the power of faith is twisted into a tool for dominance and control. It merges national identity with a narrow vision of Christianity, often ignoring the teachings of Jesus in favor of political power, racial hierarchy, and cultural dominance.

As Sojourners puts it so clearly:

If faith were not powerful, people in power would not invest so much to manipulate it for their own interests. When we oppose Christian nationalism, we must begin with a recognition of the power of faith.

Faith has the power to bring us together and build up a democracy where everyone can thrive. Every movement toward a more perfect union in our nation’s past has been powered and sustained by deep faith traditions. We need to learn from the faith of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and William Lloyd Garrison; Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day, and Ella Baker. This rich theological heritage helps us guard against the forces that distort Christianity to justify extremism. But it also prepares us to practice prophetic faith in our own lives and ministries.

Source: Sojourners, “How Christians Can Counter Christian Nationalism” (September/October 2024)

This is the kind of faith I want to reclaim. Not the kind used to shame, divide, or dominate—but the kind that uplifts, heals, and dares to speak truth to power.
The kind that understands power comes with faith, and wields that power the way Jesus would have.

We cannot let our churches become megaphones for politicians. Not when they were meant to be sanctuaries. Not when our faith was meant to be a refuge for the lost—not a tool for control. The pulpit should never be red, or blue.

I’ve experienced firsthand what it feels like to be an outcast in church. It doesn’t lead to healing—it leads to doubt. And sometimes, to walking away from the faith entirely.

The very people who lament that “no one goes to church anymore” are the same ones making it unbearable to stay. This especially includes clergy.

And to any clergy reading this: please recognize the power you hold, and use it accordingly. Peoples’ families and relationships are in your hands.

I don’t know if my parents will ever come back. But I do know this: if the church becomes a mouthpiece for political power, it ceases to be a sanctuary at all.

Sources:

Separation of Church and State – U.S. Constitution.net

How Christians Can Counter Christian Nationalism | Sojourners

This year, I wasn’t sure how to feel about the 4th of July.

Then I cried in The Hall of Presidents.

I know that sounds dramatic, but it’s true.

To be fair, we were cranky. It was hot, we were tired, and we were completely over standing in lines. We were at Disney World with our three kids, and while they rode something with my husband, I ducked away from the “magic” in search of a shady spot. I ended up at The Hall of Presidents. It wasn’t part of the plan, but it turned out to be exactly where I needed to be.

As I sat on a blue padded bench, I looked at the faces of the men who have led our country to this point. None of them perfect. But most of them patriotic. Most of them carrying forward the ideals laid out by the Founding Fathers, even if imperfectly.

Then I got a news alert: “The Big Beautiful Bill” had passed the Senate and was heading back to the House for a vote. And something in me cracked.

A bill that strips away the rights of thousands of Americans had cleared the Senate. I sat there, stunned. And then I cried.

At the end of the presidential presentation, the animatronic Trump recited the constitutional oath. I felt sick. And I cried again.

I wanted to shout something. Or at least snicker. I secretly hoped someone else would say something first so I’d be brave enough to join in. But it didn’t happen. So I just dabbed my eyes with my cooling towel, took a deep breath, and knew exactly what I needed to write.

Now, as you likely know, the bill has passed the House as well. And it will soon be signed into law.

It is devastating. And I’ll dedicate next week’s piece to it in full.

But for now, for this 4th of July, I want to tell you this:

I still love my country.

Trump and Vance have repeatedly claimed that people who don’t support them hate America. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I still love this country. Deeply.

And that’s exactly why I speak out.

I love the United States for its founding ideals: liberty, equality, justice—even when we fall short of them. I love its history of fighting to become a place of hope. I love that it has fed hungry children around the world and helped bring relative peace to much of the globe for over 80 years.

I love this country’s beauty—its landscapes, its languages, its cultures.

From the mountains of Montana to the bustle of New York City to the quiet pines of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, I love what makes America, America.

Even now, even as so much is under attack, I love this country for what it could still become, if we the people continue to show up.

I know it may not feel right to celebrate Independence Day this year. I get it.

So much of what this country promises—liberty, justice, freedom—is being stripped away in real time.

Physical freedom. Financial freedom. The freedom to dissent without punishment.

But today, I will still celebrate.

Not what’s happening right now, but what’s worth fighting for.

I’ll celebrate the values we haven’t given up on. I’ll celebrate the future we’re still building.

Even in the midst of grief and frustration, joy still matters.

Joy keeps us grounded in what’s worth protecting. It reminds us of why we fight.

No matter how dark things feel, don’t let them steal your joy. Not today. Not ever.

So tonight, keep your loved ones close. Watch your children’s eyes light up during the fireworks. And promise yourself:

you’ll fight for them.

For their joy.

For their future.

For the country we still believe in. The one where all people are created equal.

We are the true patriots.

Next week, I’ll be unpacking the full impact of “The Big Beautiful Bill”—what it does, who it harms, and why it demands our resistance.

Share

Subscribe

I’ve truly loved hearing from you in the comments lately. This community means the world to me, and I’m so grateful we’re building it together.

How will you be celebrating—or not celebrating—the 4th of July today?

It’s on TV when I walk into patients’ homes. At my parents’ house. It’s even on at most military bases. While I try to be open-minded and listen, all I hear is rage, misinformation, and a weird obsession with Biden.

But worse than the noise—I’m losing my family to the alternate reality Fox News has created.

Because of Fox, my mom argues that babies are murdered after birth. Right before the 2024 election, another relative told me that she voted for Trump because illegal immigrants were engaging in unchecked crime sprees across the US. When discussing the country’s slide toward authoritarianism since the second Trump presidency, my aunt sent me a Facebook message that said that Heather Cox Richardson was a progressive Democrat who, according to my aunt, “writes for the Democratic Underworld.”

The ache of this loss is indescribable. I am unable to have deep discussions about my values with the people I love the most. When my own intelligent family members flippantly dismiss inconvenient truths, I feel like Scrooge watching his past life through a window. I can see who they used to be. I just can’t reach them.

I wish this were just about differences in opinion. It’s hard to stay close when we’re living in different versions of reality.

Instead, I am labeled a bleeding liberal who learned too much about science—and not enough about God. A soul in need of prayer.

To understand how this happened, we need to take a look at where Fox came from.

A Brief History of Fox News

Fox News was launched in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, a media consultant for former Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.

Despite its claims to be “fair and balanced”—a slogan that was changed to “most watched, most trusted” in 2017—Fox News forged strong links with many leaders in the Republican party.

These connections continue to exist to this day, including with the current president. In fact, in Trump’s first presidential term, he employed 20 Fox-affiliated staffers. In his second term, he employed 21, including for some of the most challenging and high-profile Cabinet appointments, such as the Secretary of Defense.

This level of media integration is unprecedented—neither Biden nor Obama brought individuals from a news company into the White House, outside of the role of press secretary.

While Murdoch and Ailes initially aimed to provide unbiased news coverage, they quickly learned that negative headlines, partisan talking points, and sensationalism drove increased viewership and financial gain.

Ailes even made the following observation:

“If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, ‘I have a solution to the Middle East problem,’ and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”

As Fox became more partisan, viewers’ ideology moved further right, pushing Fox to maintain and even increase partisan bias, fueling a dangerous cycle.

Much of Fox’s opinion reporting relies on manufactured rage, emotional manipulation, and misinformation. It’s not just news anymore. When something’s repeated enough, it starts to feel like the only version of the truth.

When viewers watch Fox for several hours a day without consuming diverse news sources, it becomes an addiction. An addiction to rage. An addiction to hating “the other”. An addiction to tribalism.

Fox viewers often struggle to engage in real dialogue—not because they lack intelligence, but because the network isolates them from other perspectives. They are entrenched in the emotion of the argument instead of the truth. This makes it far more likely that they revert to the use of logical fallacies (for more information on logical fallacies, please take a look at my previous piece here).

Lies Perpetuated by Fox

While it’s true that media bias exists across the board, what Fox News has done is not just biased. It’s intentional, far-reaching, and harmful in ways no other network comes close to.

Here are some examples:

Election fraud in 2020

Fox News played a central role in promoting the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen—a narrative now widely known as “The Big Lie.” In 2023, Fox agreed to pay a $787 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems after repeatedly broadcasting baseless allegations that Dominion machines had switched votes from Trump to Biden.

In its lawsuit, Dominion aimed to prove that Fox acted with actual malice—either knowingly spreading falsehoods or showing “reckless disregard” for the truth. Internal emails and text messages presented in court revealed that Fox executives and hosts privately admitted the claims were untrue, even as they continued to air them on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro.

The network is also facing an ongoing defamation lawsuit from another election technology company, Smartmatic. In response to Fox’s legal defense, Smartmatic’s attorney issued a stark rebuke:

“First, Fox uses its lies to disrupt American democracy and public trust in the election system, and now it is attempting to cover up those lies by misrepresenting basic constitutional law. Simply put: the First Amendment does not protect intentional lies. Fox has found themselves trying to justify the unjustifiable — they knowingly lied to their viewers and the public for profit.”

January 6

Fox News coverage of the January 6 insurrection included conspiracy theories, including that Antifa was present in the riot. The network’s hosts also stated that the event was not an insurrection, that white supremacy was not involved, that it was “just a riot”, that no weapons were present, that the rioters hadn’t used force, that the FBI instigated the attack, and framed the attackers as victims of the ‘Deep State,’ rather than instigators of violence.

Despite the public coverage on the network, in private, Fox News hosts reached out to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to stop the insurrection. According to Politifact:

“Fox News personalities went through his chief of staff Mark Meadows. ​​’Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home,’ Laura Ingraham of Fox News wrote. ‘This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.’ Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade sent similar messages to Meadows.”

COVID

Fox News coverage of COVID turned a global health crisis into a partisan wedge. Even before the virus reached the U.S., network hosts dismissed it as “just a flu” and accused public health experts of exaggerating the threat to harm Trump politically.

The coverage was so misleading — and potentially dangerous — that 74 journalism professors signed an open letter urging Fox to uphold basic journalistic ethics:

“Urgently, therefore, in the name of both good journalism and public health, we call upon you to help protect the lives of all Americans — including your elderly viewers — by ensuring that the information you deliver is based on scientific facts.”

Beyond COVID denial, Fox’s vaccine coverage fueled dangerous hesitation:

• Bloomberg reported that Fox's negative coverage of vaccines was directly associated with increased vaccine hesitancy among its audiences.

• According to the Washington Post, during March–June 2021, Fox viewers under 65 had substantially lower vaccination rates than viewers of other networks—even after accounting for partisanship.

Fox's COVID coverage wasn’t just misinformation—it shaped behavior and public health outcomes with lasting, measurable consequences. Areas with strong Fox viewership experienced measurably lower vaccination, illustrating the real-world cost of media-driven distortion.

Climate change

While Fox News covers climate change in its segments, it frequently does so to deny that it is an urgent issue, or is even an issue at all. In fact, climate denial claims dominated 86% of climate change segments on Fox News in 2019, according to a study completed by Public Citizen.

This study also found that there were three core messages being sent by the network to its viewers: that climate change is a vehicle for the Democrats’ radical big-government agenda, that responding to the climate crisis would kill our economy and send us back to the stone age, and that concern about the climate crisis is liberal hysteria.

“‘In this era of crisis, keeping climate denial alive is deadly,’ said Allison Fisher, outreach director of Public Citizen’s energy program and author of the report. ‘No other major media outlet is pushing out climate doubt to so many viewers as frequently as Fox News. Other media outlets should shame and expose Fox for its climate deception and its role in obstructing climate action.’”

A separate analysis completed by Yale compared cable news coverage of climate change between Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The study found that compared to the two other networks, Fox News coverage of climate change was more dismissive. Additionally, it found that Fox interviewed a larger number of climate change denialists.

A remarkable finding in the study was that while Republicans’ views of climate change correlated with which news outlet they watched, Democrats’ views of the same issue did not vary.

This asymmetry is especially revealing:

“‘Some Republicans… are less skeptical when exposed to information on the reality and urgency of climate change.’”

Immigration and Crime Narratives

Fox News frequently portrays undocumented immigrants as a national threat, spotlighting isolated violent crimes to stoke public fear. But data from the FBI, DHS, academic researchers, and national reporting tell a different story: undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens. In fact, crime has decreased as immigration has risen. The gap between Fox’s narrative and factual data is stark.

For example, Fox headlines frequently highlight alarming crime cases involving undocumented immigrants. One such headline, published in September 2024, read:

“Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with sexual assault, murder convictions… roaming US streets”

These stories spotlight worst-case scenarios to stoke fear and advance a partisan agenda—not to provide balanced reporting or context.

The American Immigration Council reports that immigrants, including the undocumented, are less likely to commit violent, drug, or property crimes than U.S.-born citizens. As immigrant populations grew from 1980 to 2022, crime rates dropped nearly 60%.

FBI/Texas data show undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born citizens for violent/drug crimes, and a quarter the rate for property crimes.

Studies cited by the U.S. Justice Department and the Center for American Progress show that states with sanctuary policies experience no rise in crime—and in some cases, even a decrease.

The Brennan Center calls the “migrant crime wave” a political construct built on anecdote, not evidence. Reuters has also debunked one of the most egregious claims—that undocumented immigrants kill 4,000 Americans annually—citing data that show fewer than 500 annual homicides involve rifles and no credible support for that figure.

These aren’t random fact checks. They’re well-established findings from federal data, bipartisan research, and nonpartisan watchdogs. Yet Fox continues to promote fear over facts—fueling public support for ICE raids and justifying the inhumane treatment of people seeking a better life.

Economic Misinformation

If you watch Fox News regularly, you’ve likely heard a steady stream of complaints about inflation, gas prices, and job numbers under President Biden. But here’s what the data actually show. And it’s worth sitting with—especially if you say the economy is your reason for tuning in.

Under Biden, the U.S. added 15 million jobs from 2021 to 2024—the strongest job recovery in modern history. In contrast, during the early months of Trump’s current term (2025), job growth has significantly slowed, averaging under 150,000 new jobs per month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) have increased under Biden. For example, average hourly earnings for non-supervisory workers rose from $29.92 in January 2021 to $34.91 in early 2025. Meanwhile, early 2025 data under Trump shows a deceleration in wage growth—particularly for low- and middle-income workers.

Inflation was indeed high in 2021–2022 as global economies emerged from COVID-19 shutdowns. But it has cooled significantly, falling from 9.1% (June 2022) to around 3.3% (May 2025). Fox rarely mentions this decline. And despite screaming segments about gas prices, average national prices have actually decreased from their 2022 peaks.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq hit record highs in 2024—under Biden—not under Trump. Retirement accounts recovered, small businesses rebounded, and consumer spending remained strong.

But if you rely solely on Fox News, you might assume the country’s in economic freefall.

Fox cherry-picks numbers, ignores context, and avoids data that challenge their “Biden ruins everything” narrative. That’s not journalism. It’s entertainment.

Many Americans cite “the economy” as their reason for voting Republican. But how many of those decisions were shaped by Fox’s skewed, incomplete coverage?

What would Fox News be reporting if Biden had tanked the markets with inconsistent tariff policies?

When a single network lies, riles people up, and drowns out dissent, it doesn’t just tilt the scales—it wrecks the foundation of an honest, informed democracy.

The Ethics of Fox News

Fox News does not merely fall short of public expectations—it fails to meet the most basic professional standards of journalism, as outlined by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).

Below are SPJ ethics guidelines Fox repeatedly violates:

• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.

• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.

The job of the press is to hold power accountable. Fox News follows power, even when it lies, and profits from breaking the rules it’s supposed to uphold. This is what happens when profit outweighs principle.

Lie By Omission

Lying by omission is when an individual purposely leaves out information in order to hide the truth from others.

Fox News frequently engages in this tactic. The network often covers immigration by highlighting stories that depict immigrants as dangerous criminals—airing footage of them in shackles, claiming they rely on Medicaid, and implying they are smuggling drugs into the U.S.

What they often fail to mention are the cases where immigrants seeking asylum “the right way” were still deported to El Salvador, that the father of three marines was beaten by ICE outside of his place of employment, or that a large majority of immigrants being detained have no criminal record.

This pattern of selective reporting isn’t limited to immigration.

Researchers at Cambridge developed a study that portrayed the systemic harm when lying by omission. In one fascinating study, Fox viewers were paid to broaden their news consumption to include CNN instead of Fox for 7 hours a week for 4 weeks. The particular content being studied was COVID.

The study concluded that when the participants expanded their news diet to include CNN, they were exposed to more information related to COVID that was not covered by Fox.

This shows how our decisions are shaped by the information we’re given—or denied.

According to Pew Research Center data, 95% of Fox viewers identify with a religious faith. Truth and humility are not just good values — they’re Christian values. We are called to seek truth, and to be humble enough to admit when we’re wrong.

We also have a civic duty — as citizens, as voters, as patriots — to stay informed.

And yet:
You get your news from one station.
You watch the same hosts, night after night.
You talk with friends who agree with you.
You avoid sources that challenge your perspective.

If you’ve read this far, you know the truth. Fox has omitted facts, inflamed division, and paid nearly a billion in lawsuits for spreading lies. And still, it continues.

Every time you turn on the TV to watch this network, you are making the choice to remain in a version of reality shaped by omission, distortion, and fear.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. But I do hope we can agree on this: Truth matters. Every time we choose what to believe, what to overlook, or what to share, we’re shaping the kind of country we live in.

The argument that “all news channels are the same” is a comforting one — because it lets us off the hook.

But the data doesn’t back that up. Fox News has paid out nearly a billion dollars in recent years for knowingly spreading lies. Their evening opinion shows consistently rank among the least reliable sources on the media bias chart.

Yes, all outlets make mistakes. But not all of them build an empire on misinformation — or refuse to correct the record when they’re caught.

Knowing this — why do you still watch Fox News?

Data nerds unite!
If you’re hungry for the full breakdown of bias and reliability scores from Ad Fontes — including ratings for Fox News daytime vs. primetime, plus Newsmax and OAN — I’ve got you covered. Click here for the bonus material.

If this resonated with you, I hope you’ll consider subscribing or sharing. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments, as long as they’re rooted in facts, not slogans. If you’re still reading, thank you. It means you’re thinking, and that matters.

Sources:

The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers

Rupert Murdoch summary | Britannica

Fox News is not news. Say it with me. | Press Watch

Fox News study comparing Fox and CNN highlights cable TV's harm

Roger Ailes - In his own words | Fox News

Newsmax and OAN News Consumers Also Likely To Turn to Fox News | Pew Research Center

SPJ’s Code of Ethics | Society of Professional Journalists

Faith in numbers: Fox News is must-watch for white evangelicals, a turnoff for atheists…and Hindus, Muslims really like CNN

Fox’s $787 million settlement won’t restore damage to US democracy | CNN Politics

Fox, Dominion reach $787.5M settlement over false election claims | AP News

Ad Fontes Media Releases New Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media

PolitiFact | The 2021 Lie of the Year: Lies about the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and its significance

The Effect of Fox News on Health Behavior during COVID-19 | Political Analysis | Cambridge Core

Climate Change Denial Dominates 86% of Fox News Climate Segments - Public Citizen

Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with sexual assault, murder convictions in US: ICE data | Fox News

Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate | National Institute of Justice

American Immigration Council

Debunking the Myth of the ‘Migrant Crime Wave’ | Brennan Center for Justice

Fact Check: No evidence 4,000 people are killed yearly by undocumented immigrants | Reuters

Ad Fontes - Bias and Reliability of Fox News

Ad Fontes Media brings together politically diverse analysts who apply a consistent methodology to rate news sources by reliability and bias.

As Ad Fontes explains:

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between articles.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to +42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being minimally biased, equally balanced, or exhibiting a centrist bias.

Below are the bias and reliability ratings for Fox News Daytime Shows, Jesse Watters Primetime, Hannity, and The Faulkner Focus. In addition, because so many Fox viewers cross over with One America News (OAN) and Newsmax, bias and reliability ratings have been included for those networks.

Fox News Live (Daytime Shows)

Reliability: 35.31

Bias: 11.06

Jesse Watters Primetime (Fox)

Reliability: 18.58

Bias: 22.96

Hannity (Fox)

Reliability: 17.93

Bias: 23.88

The Faulkner Focus (Fox)

Reliability: 28.28

Bias: 18.85

Newsmax

Reliability: 29.10

Bias: 13.44

OAN

Reliability: 28.49

Bias: 14.01

While Fox News Live scores below the threshold typically considered reliable, both the reliability and bias scores worsen in Fox’s evening programming, as the content shifts from news reporting to opinion-driven segments. Scores below 24, like those of Jesse Watters Primetime and Hannity, often reflect poor sourcing, unchecked claims, or sensationalism. By contrast, outlets like Reuters and Associated Press (AP) typically score above 50 in reliability and fall within a minimal bias range.