I couldn’t remember the last time I walked new ground without a plan. Can you? I passed food trucks sizzling with carnitas. I stopped at each guitarist who found a perch to sing for their supper that night. I admired all the boots and cowboy hats that passed by—wondering how these city slickers acquired them and if they were ever used as Jesus and John Wayne intended. And then wondered again if maybe, just maybe, I could pull them off without being a poser? Decidedly not, I told myself. I kept going. And then something amazing happened.

Bats.

Frickin’ bats.

They filled the night-ish sky. It was that time of day when the moon is just rising and the sun still has the upper hand. A prick might describe it as crepuscular, but I’d just like credit for knowing the word, thank you very much. I turned a corner and found a river, spanned by a bridge.

And the bridge was, much to my childish delight, surrounded with thousands, and I mean thousands, of bats. And boy, were they gonna show you this place was theirs. They swarmed in ribbons that collapsed into waves and made little spirals and weaves.

I knew where I was the moment I saw those bats. Named with good-headed common sense that tells you consultants had nothing to do with the branding, Texans call this “bat bridge.” I had wanted to visit this particular spot for some time. I had been to Austin about a year prior and put visiting it on a lengthy to-do list that inevitably got crowded out by all those blasted meetings and zooms and emails.

I hadn’t planned any of this. I just walked. And wonder found me. All I had to do was mosey.

That’s what democracy requires of us now—not a master plan, but motion.

My friend sat down with Senator Cory Booker right after his historic 25-hour filibuster. He asked Booker what came next—what to tell people who think a single speech isn’t enough.

Booker’s answer struck me:

“That’s the truth. It is one tactic. It has to be part of a larger strategy—and I daresay a larger movement. But I’m playing catch-up, the Democrats are playing catch-up, because so many people are already out there, lifting their voices, going to rallies. There’s something growing… this is outrageous.”

Then he added:

“All of us have to think about what creative things we can do to be little points of ignition for this movement… Let’s demand more. Let’s demand it of ourselves—to think of the tactics we can do that are different, that can cause some good trouble.”

That’s it. That’s the path.

Far too many are still waiting—for the perfect plan, for the right moment, or for someone else to take the lead. But we can’t wait for one heroic figure.

We need a million people doing small, brave things.

The greatest country in the history of the world is facing one of the most consequential moments in its history. Authoritarianism grinds you down. It wants you to feel small, helpless, and defeated.

But even against the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest man in the world, we can win—through a million small acts. Seemingly aimless. Surprisingly ordinary. But powerful because they are part of a larger chorus.

So don’t wait. Don’t overthink it. Start small, but start. You don’t know what you’ll stumble into—or what might come alive because you moved.

If we want to protect democracy, we have to practice it. Show up in our communities, talk to our neighbors, play music with our friends, have family over for dinner. Join clubs and socialize. Volunteer for legal aid clinics and bring food to the local shelter.

We must wage peace.

You and I are creatures of hope. We are meant to love. We ought to seek understanding. The world needs us to console those who have been injured. In this age of despair and darkness, we must wage peace.

And when the world is a little overwhelming, just give yourself the space to breathe and step away, with the knowledge that you’re not in this alone. That others will continue to wage peace. And then you’ll come back in so we can rest as well. We’ll be salt and light for one another.

When someone speaks an unkindness, and you turn to the accosted offering a shoulder to cry on, you’re waging peace.

When someone believes a falsehood—because they’ve been lied to by those who profit off misinformation—and you sit with them in patience to surface the truth, you’re waging peace.

When someone’s job has been ripped away by an unceremonious purge of public servants, and you refuse to look away or offer soft condolences, but step in with meals and maybe half a month’s rent, you’re waging peace.

When national media conglomerates buy up your local paper and gut the newsroom, leaving your neighbors in the dark—and you step up to share real community updates—you’re waging peace.

Peace is not passive. It is not, merely, the absence of violence. It is the fruit of active pursuit. Peace mobilizes our better angels in service of healing, justice, and reconciliation.

When you choose dialogue over destruction, you are waging peace. When you choose nonviolence in the moment of provocation, you are waging peace. When you practice temperance in an age of immoderation, you are waging peace. Peace is not some meek or modest sparrow. It is an eagle that refuses to be cowed. It is steady because it has someone from whom to stand.

We must wage peace.

We live in a time of tyrants. Fabled monsters and wicked kings make for heart-racing stories and blood-chilling realities. Their attacks are coordinated, relentless, and brutal. It’s tempting to believe they’re too powerful to overcome—that our efforts are too scattered, too late, too small.

But that is a lie.

The seduction of tyranny is the belief that the underdog isn’t enough. That history is already written. That nothing we do matters.

But history tells a different story.

We win when we stay in the fight. When we overwhelm cruelty with courage. When we overwhelm lies with truth. When we overwhelm hate with hope.

Peace does not—cannot—win at any cost. It can only deliver victory through truth-telling, accountability, and forgiveness. It takes more effort. But it endures. It follows the higher, harder, longer road—but it is the road that lasts.

I believe in the goodness of America and Americans. We’ll wage peace through a million different hands, in a million different ways, with a million different methods. Yes, it will be messy. Yes, it will feel disjointed and scattered.

But democracy is messy. It is disjointed. And still—through a thousand points of light—we can overcome the darkness.

So, what will you do?

Let us not give up the fight.

Let us wage peace.

Here’s what I’m doing next…

Want to meet up with other Americans fed up with Trump and Musk?

Donald Trump and Elon Musk believe the country belongs to them. On Saturday, April 5th, millions of Americans at thousands of events across the country are meeting up to peacefully demand: “HANDS OFF!”

Rally for Peace

This week, U.S. officials including National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright are visiting Greenland, accompanied by Second Lady Usha Vance.

Ostensibly a cultural and strategic mission, the trip takes place against the backdrop of Trump’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric about acquiring the island “one way or the other.” Danish and Greenlandic leaders have made it clear that they neither invited nor endorse this visit.

The move follows a pattern: what Trump once floated as outlandish fantasy—buying Greenland, annexing Canada, “reclaiming” the Panama Canal—he now advances through official channels.

While Trump sends emissaries to scout foreign land he has no right to claim, American voters should ask loudly: What does this do to help me?

The answer is nothing. It won’t lower costs. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fix schools, healthcare, or infrastructure. Trump has imperial delusions. He’s an unserious man playing at empire while real people suffer.

• Today the New York Times reports U.S. officials are headed to Greenland, including Second Lady Usha Vance, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

• Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated the visit was unsolicited: “It must—and shall—be a cooperation based on sovereignty and mutual respect.”

• Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, and neither government supports U.S. acquisition.

• Trump said the U.S. would acquire Greenland “one way or the other” and floated tariffs on Denmark to force cooperation.

• The delegation will visit U.S. troops and energy sites, signaling Arctic military and strategic interest.

• Trump Jr. previously led a “fact-finding” trip to Greenland with MAGA loyalists (including Charlie Kirk), reportedly staging photo ops.

This is yet another episode of Trump-generated chaos that does absolutely nothing for the American people. It won’t make groceries more affordable, it won’t lower gas prices, it won’t improve schools, or bring jobs back to struggling towns.

Trump isn’t doing this for you.

It reveals once again why he is unfit to govern. Voters want stability, solutions, and seriousness—not distractions, not cosplay diplomacy, not dangerous provocations with our allies.

The people of Greenland aren’t asking for this. The people of America aren’t asking for this.

It’s time we stopped pretending this behavior is anything but reckless—and demanded better.

Subscribe now

Let’s Do Something

On Wednesday, March 26, Sojourners and partners from the Washington Interfaith Staff Community (WISC) are hosting weekly multi-faith vigils at the Capitol from noon to 12:45 p.m. These “Faithful Witness” events are calling on Congress to step up—to reclaim its moral courage and fulfill its constitutional responsibility to check executive overreach.

Our country is staring down the possibility of a constitutional crisis, and the silence from many in power is deafening. These vigils will be both prophetic and pastoral, lifting up prayers and public witness to say: we cannot look away. We cannot let fear or apathy win.

Dr. King said it best: this is the fierce urgency of now. If you feel stirred to take action—to show up with your body, your voice, or your prayers—I’d love to talk with you more.

Add Your Voice

Do We Really Want to Change?

America has never lacked prophets. It has lacked the will to listen.

For generations, this country has resisted the voices calling it to account. We tell ourselves stories of progress while avoiding the reckoning that real progress demands. We celebrate democracy while refusing to confront the forces that have undermined it from the beginning.

The temptation, in moments of crisis, is to believe that the threat we face is new. But the deeper truth—the harder truth—is that the crisis of democracy in 2025 is not just about Trumpism, or January 6, or the rise of authoritarian politics. It is about America’s long history of refusing to tell the truth about itself.

James Baldwin understood this better than most. He knew that the greatest danger to democracy was not just the open bigot or the demagogue, but the comfortable moderate—the one who refuses to see, who insists on illusions, who would rather preserve their own innocence than confront injustice.

And he warned us: “Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Who Was James Baldwin?

James Baldwin was one of the most brilliant and uncompromising moral voices in American history. A writer, essayist, and public intellectual, he spent his life telling the truth about America’s racial and political contradictions.

Born in Harlem in 1924, Baldwin grew up in a country that denied his full humanity. He saw how Black Americans were forced to fight for dignity at every turn. He saw how white Americans—especially well-meaning liberals—insisted that racial injustice was unfortunate but temporary, something that could be solved with patience rather than upheaval.

Baldwin was shaped by the Black church, mentored by the great preacher and activist Howard Thurman, and later, by his time living in exile in France, where he could see America more clearly from a distance. He wrote essays and novels that exposed not just the cruelty of racism, but the self-deception at the heart of American life.

His greatest works—The Fire Next Time, Nobody Knows My Name, Notes of a Native Son—were not just indictments of racism. They were indictments of moral failure. They demanded that America stop lying to itself.

And Baldwin was not just writing about race. He was writing about power, about the American tendency to ignore suffering in order to maintain the illusion of innocence. He was writing about the way people justify their silence in the face of injustice. He was writing about how a nation’s refusal to tell the truth will always, eventually, lead to crisis.

The Crisis of His Time—and Ours

Baldwin wrote in the 1960s, but he was writing about this moment too.

He saw how democracy could be hollowed out—not just through voter suppression or state violence, but through indifference. He warned that the great danger to America was not just hatred, but apathy.

That lesson has never been more relevant.

In 2025, American democracy is under siege—not just from those who openly seek its destruction, but from those who refuse to fight for its survival.

We see it in leaders who downplay the threats of authoritarianism.

We see it in moderates who say the fight is too messy, who long for civility over justice.

We see it in institutions that bend to power rather than holding power accountable.

We see it in the endless calls for patience, for gradualism, for waiting just a little longer for justice.

Baldwin had no patience for this.

"I can't believe what you say," he told America, "because I see what you do."

He knew that real change is not made by those who wait for a better time. It is made by those who force the issue—who make it impossible to ignore.

The Moral Question Before Us

Baldwin’s moral clarity came from his refusal to accept illusions. He understood that America’s problem was not ignorance—it was willful blindness. It was not that people didn’t know the truth; it was that they chose not to see it.

This remains our problem today.

The question is not whether we know what is happening. We know. We have seen the erosion of democratic norms. We have seen the way lies are repeated until they become truth. We have seen the retreat of moral leadership in the face of political pressure.

The question is: What will we do about it?

Baldwin reminds us that the work of moral leadership is not about comforting people. It is about disrupting them. It is about forcing people to confront what they would rather avoid.

"Precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must find yourself at war with your society."

We must ask ourselves:

• Where am I excusing inaction because I fear discomfort?

• Where am I tempted to wait rather than to act?

• Where am I avoiding hard conversations because they will cost me something?

Because Baldwin’s warning is clear: The greatest danger is not that injustice exists. The greatest danger is that people will adjust to it.

What We Must Do

Baldwin did not believe in false hope. He did not believe in easy solutions. But he believed in action. He believed in speaking truth when silence was easier. He believed in love—not as sentimentality, but as a force that demanded justice.

So what must we do?

• Tell the Truth Relentlessly – Baldwin knew that the hardest thing to do is to make people see themselves as they are. But truth, no matter how uncomfortable, is the first step toward change.

• Reject Complicity – Injustice does not need active support to thrive. It only needs people who look away. Do not be one of those people.

• Do Not Be Afraid of Conflict – Baldwin knew that real change does not come through comfort. It comes through struggle. If you are fighting for democracy, for truth, for justice—expect resistance. That is the cost of the work.

• Build Something New – Baldwin was skeptical of institutions that refused to change. He believed that sometimes, you have to build new structures rather than rehabilitate the old. If existing organizations and systems will not defend democracy, create alternatives.

Ask Yourself

• Where am I accepting a lie because it is easier than confronting the truth?

• How do I challenge apathy in my own community?

• What is one thing I can do this week to force a conversation that needs to be had?

Baldwin did not live to see America fully reckon with its past. But he forced the conversation. He left behind a body of work that still challenges us—still haunts us—because it demands that we answer the same question he asked:

"Do I really want to be changed?"

Because that is the real question. Do we want justice, or just the appearance of it? Do we want to save democracy, or just lament its decline? Do we actually want to do the hard work of reform, or do we just want to seem like we do?

This is our task. Not just to see the crisis, but to act.

Not just to witness the moment, but to change it.

Next Week: Howard Thurman and the Inner Strength to Resist

James Baldwin confronted America’s refusal to tell the truth. Howard Thurman spoke to the exhaustion that comes from fighting for justice in a world that resists it. Next week, we will explore Thurman’s vision of spiritual resistance—how we sustain our moral courage when the fight feels endless, and how we cultivate the inner strength to keep going.

Subscribe now

The President Assaulted Us With Lies

Tonight, we were given a performance when we needed a plan. Trump stoked division when we needed direction. We were given a partisan rally when we needed leadership.

This speech, wrapped in self-congratulation, was a betrayal of the moment. And it failed us in five undeniable ways.

First, it abandoned truth. From lies about the border to false promises of balancing the budget to fabrications about the price of basic goods, Trump made things up left and right. A leader does not twist numbers to fit a narrative—he faces them and fixes them.

Second, it was an assault on free speech. He spoke of restoring liberty, yet he has censored government agencies, crushed dissent, and silenced those who challenge him. A free nation does not need a leader who demands loyalty—it needs one who earns it.

Third, it was a rally of insults. A commander-in-chief should rise above petty slanders, yet Trump stood at the people's podium and diminished his predecessor, the opposition, and half the country. A true leader unites.

Fourth, it offered fear instead of solutions. We heard of enemies, of threats, of crisis—but not of the courage to meet them. A president should not stoke panic but build resolve.

Fifth, it treated the presidency as a stage, not a stewardship. The American people deserve leadership, not spectacle. They need vision, not vendettas. They seek stability, not chaos.

I’m not surprised by any of this. Who would expect anything different from our criminal president?

But how we respond to this matters.

History Will Judge Us by Our Response

The world will not remember every critique of this speech. It will not take much note of our frustration, our anger, or the way the opposition held up protest signs that did little to meet the weight of the moment.

But history will judge our response—not in the fleeting hours after the speech, but in the months and years ahead. It will not ask whether we heckled loudly enough. It will ask whether we rose to the occasion with integrity, with clarity, with resolve.

This is a dark time. It is a serious moment. And it demands serious people.

The work before us is not easy, nor is it glamorous. It is the work of showing stronger leadership when the institutions around us tremble. It is the work of speaking truth in the face of lies, even when it is drowned out by noise. It is the work of proposing real solutions when the president offers nothing but pittance and distraction.

Righteous indignation is not enough. We must be disciplined. We must be determined. We must organize and build, not just react and resist.

This moment is testing us. Will we match spectacle with spectacle? Or will we stand firm, with a vision greater than any one speech, any one leader, any one election?

Let’s dig in. Let’s do the work. And let’s show the world what real leadership looks like.

Subscribe now

What We Must Do

Looking for an action plan? Check out the playbook we published just last month.

Rising to the moment requires more than good intentions. Moderates need to organize, mobilize, and act with urgency. Here’s how we seize the moment:

1. Build Infrastructure

Extremists have spent decades creating networks of think tanks, advocacy groups, and media outlets. Moderates need to match this level of organization with institutions that amplify their voices and support their goals.

2. Mobilize Voters

The silent majority won’t stay silent forever. Moderates must engage these voters, turning frustration into action at the ballot box.

3. Recruit Leaders

Moderates can’t reclaim the middle without bold, principled leaders. It’s time to find, support, and elect candidates who reflect the values of collaboration and pragmatism.

4. Speak Loudly and Clearly

This is no time for timidity. Moderates must articulate a clear vision for the future—one that rejects extremism and embraces problem-solving.

Read more

The Moment We Face

I have really enjoyed writing this series on Moral Leadership. The two entries I’ve done so far have generated some of the most texts and emails I’ve received from readers. If I had to guess, it’s because moral leadership feels so absent right now. I didn’t write a piece for this series last week—partly because there has been a lot going on, but mostly because I needed to refresh myself on Barth.

I dove in pretty deep with Bonhoeffer. I loved re-reading his sermons and books. But for Barth, I confess, I had to dust off my seminary notebooks. I wanted to do this because of the reverence with which Bonhoeffer treated Barth. The more I revisited Barth, the more I felt confronted with how I was approaching my own attitude toward our current moment. So, with the delay of two weeks, I wanted to share some of what I found and why I felt tested.

I also want to make something clear: I know many who read this newsletter come from different faith traditions or have no faith at all. I welcome all of you. I’m not writing about these theologians to change anyone’s faith. I write about them because they have something urgent to tell us about the moment we are living in.

The greatest threats to democracy do not always come from violent coups or foreign adversaries. More often, they come from within—through slow erosion, through moral compromise, through the silence of those who should know better.

We have seen this before. We see it now. Institutions that once upheld the rule of law are bending. Leaders who once claimed to defend democracy now excuse its erosion. People who once spoke of principle now speak of realpolitik, choosing survival over truth.

There are those who tell us to be patient, to wait for a more opportune moment to speak. They say the stakes are too high, the costs of defiance too great. But history has already judged this excuse. When faced with rising authoritarianism, silence is not neutrality. It is surrender.

Karl Barth understood this. He saw how moral institutions—especially the church—could become complicit in the decay of democracy. He saw how people who should have been truth-tellers instead became justifiers, enablers, and rationalizers of evil. And he refused to be one of them.

Who Was Karl Barth?

Karl Barth was one of the most significant theologians of the 20th century, a Swiss pastor who rose to prominence in Germany during a moment of national and moral crisis—the rise of Adolf Hitler.

In 1933, when Hitler seized power, many German churches fell in line. They accepted Hitler’s claim that Nazism and Christianity were compatible. The so-called “German Christians” movement sought to merge faith with nationalist ideology, declaring loyalty to Hitler as a Christian duty.

Barth saw this for what it was: a betrayal.

In 1934, he became the chief author of the Barmen Declaration, the most significant theological resistance to the Nazi regime. The document rejected any allegiance to a political leader over God. It condemned the church’s capitulation and insisted that truth was not something to be reshaped to fit the needs of the powerful.

For this act of defiance, Barth was removed from his university position and forced into exile. He was told to swear an oath of loyalty to Hitler. He refused. And so he was expelled from Germany.

But the words of the Barmen Declaration lived on. They became a rallying cry for the Confessing Church, the underground movement of German Christians who refused to bow to Hitler.

Barth did not stop the Nazi rise to power. He did not prevent the war. But he named the truth. And in doing so, he proved that even when institutions fail, even when moral leaders crumble, it is still possible to stand.

The Crisis of His Time—and Ours

Barth has this great phrase: “to be a Christian is to be called to Christ with others.” Faith is not a solitary pursuit but a communal one. That has major implications for how we think about moral leadership today.

Truth comes first. Barth insists that we do not start with what we ought to do, but with what has already been done. For him, that truth was revealed through Jesus on the cross—but whether one shares his faith or not, the core idea remains powerful: we are called to act not in isolation, but in community, accountable to something greater than ourselves.

From that revelation, our response should be gratitude, not compromise. This is the concept that confronted me the most. Barth warns that we should not act out of a sense that we are the moral exemplars or leaders. Instead, we should always be careful to reflect the teachings of Jesus. We don’t stand up against Trumpism or the evils unleashed by modern authoritarianism because we think it’s wrong. We stand up because that’s what Jesus would have done. We must stay accountable to principles greater than ourselves—whether we understand that as God, justice, human dignity, or the shared moral foundation that binds us together.

At its core, Barth’s message is that moral leadership is about bearing witness to truth, even when it is inconvenient or dangerous. It is not about standing against something simply because we disagree with it—it is about standing for what is right, because it is right. For Barth, this was rooted in Christ. For others, it may be rooted in a different but no less urgent conviction. What matters is the commitment to something beyond ourselves—the belief that truth exists, that it must be named, and that we are responsible for living by it.

This is where Barth’s critique of the church in Nazi Germany hits hardest. He did not just condemn those who actively supported Hitler. He condemned those who remained silent—those who adapted themselves to survive rather than standing firm for the truth. This insight is painfully relevant today.

Barth also offers a profound theme of hope through resistance. Hope, for Barth, is not passive optimism. It is not the belief that things will work out. Hope is the willingness to keep fighting for the truth because it has been revealed—even when success seems impossible. This ties directly into Václav Havel’s definition of hope that I wrote about in An Archipelago of Hope:

"Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good."

This is perhaps my favorite insight from my seminary notes:

Barth’s Ethical Question: Who Are We Becoming?

Barth teaches that when engaging with others, we must always ask: Who am I becoming? And who is the person I engage with becoming? This idea challenges us to consider whether our compromises and pragmatism are making us better or leading us further from the truth.

What We Must Do

Barth’s example challenges us not just to hold convictions, but to name them. It is not enough to believe in democracy—we must defend it. It is not enough to see corruption—we must expose it. It is not enough to privately reject lies—we must publicly reject them.

So, what must we do?

• Refuse to Accept the Normalization of Lies – Do not let dishonesty become routine. Do not let propaganda go unchallenged. When leaders distort reality, correct them—loudly.

• Hold Institutions Accountable – If courts, churches, and public officials betray their own missions, call them to account. Silence is complicity.

• Speak the Truth Even When It Costs You – Many today fear the personal cost of speaking out—losing status, losing friends, losing influence. Barth reminds us that truth is worth the price.

Ask Yourself

Where am I tempted to compromise truth for the sake of comfort or acceptance?
How do I challenge lies and distortions in my own circles of influence?
What is one specific truth I must name this week, even if it is unpopular?

Barth did not prevent the rise of fascism in Germany. But he named it for what it was. And in doing so, he showed that even in the worst of times, there is power in refusing to surrender to lies.

This is our task today. Not just to resist authoritarianism, but to insist on reality.

Next Week: James Baldwin and the Reckoning America Avoids

Karl Barth confronted the church’s moral failure in Nazi Germany. James Baldwin confronted America’s refusal to reckon with its own history. Next week, we will examine how Baldwin’s searing clarity still speaks to the crises we face today—and why we must tell the full truth about our past if we are to have any hope for the future.

Subscribe now

On February 28, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House for a scheduled diplomatic meeting with President Donald Trump. The meeting was expected to focus on U.S. support for Ukraine and potential agreements regarding military aid and economic cooperation. However, the conversation quickly became confrontational.

President Trump, joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, accused Zelenskyy of not showing enough gratitude for U.S. assistance. Trump criticized Ukraine’s approach to the war with Russia, suggesting that Kyiv was escalating tensions rather than seeking peace. The discussion grew tense, with Trump and Vance raising their voices at Zelenskyy. At one point, Trump stated that Zelenskyy was "not in a place to negotiate."

Following the exchange, Trump abruptly ended the meeting. The scheduled working lunch was canceled, and Zelenskyy’s delegation was asked to leave the White House. Reports indicate that the Ukrainian delegation had intended to continue discussions but was not given the opportunity. Shortly after departing, Zelenskyy canceled his remaining public appearances in Washington, issuing a statement thanking the American people for their support.

European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, condemned the way the meeting was handled.

Why This Was So Dangerous (And So Wrong)

This was not a diplomatic misstep. It was a deliberate ambush. The scene that played out in the Oval Office was not an unfortunate accident, but a calculated display of cruelty meant to humiliate Ukraine’s leader and serve as a pretext for abandoning U.S. support for the country. Trump and Vance used Russian talking points, painting Ukraine as the problem in the war that Russia started. The goal was clear: create a justification for cutting off aid and leaving Ukraine at the mercy of Putin’s aggression.

This kind of behavior doesn’t just betray Ukraine—it weakens the United States. Instead of presenting a united front against authoritarian aggression, Trump sent a message to the world that America is unreliable and willing to turn its back on its allies at any moment. This isn’t strength. It’s appeasement. The U.S. has now aligned itself more closely with Putin’s interests than with those of our longstanding democratic allies. It’s disgraceful, and the long-term consequences will be severe.

Beyond the moral failure, Trump’s actions are also geopolitically reckless. Scolding Zelenskyy in front of the world and then forcing him to leave the White House is not strength—it is weakness. It shows Putin that the U.S. is willing to turn its back on Ukraine, which in turn diminishes our leverage in any future negotiations. A strong America stands firm with its allies. A weak America, led by a petulant leader, caves to bullies while alienating those who have stood by us.

Trump's humiliation of Ukraine is also historically shameful. Nearly four decades after President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," the modern Republican Party has chosen appeasement over courage. The Greatest Generation, which fought against tyranny in World War II, would weep at the spectacle of an American president publicly diminishing the leader of a nation resisting Russian aggression.

Why Ukraine’s Fight Matters (For Them and For Us)

Set aside Trump’s juvenile bullying for a second. Even if he had handled this like a professional (which, obviously, he didn’t), his entire position on Ukraine is just weak. Ukraine’s survival is directly tied to our security and the stability of Europe. If we turn our backs now, Putin wins. And if Putin wins, what’s stopping him from pushing further? What’s stopping China from taking Taiwan? What’s stopping every other dictator from thinking they can do whatever they want without consequences?

A strong Ukraine is in America’s best interest. But Trump doesn’t care about that. He just cares about looking "tough," even if that means looking like a fool in front of the whole world. And make no mistake—this backfired. People are pissed. I am pissed.

This was one of the lowest moments in modern American diplomacy. But if there’s one silver lining, it’s this: Trump has shown us what side he is on. I hope it wakes Americans the hell up.

Fact Sheet

I’ve recently gotten to know . I really trust and respect her. She’s been sharing a “Ukraine fact sheet” on social media that I wanted to circulate here. Please use it to stamp out any misinformation you might see online.

Quick Facts on Ukraine (For Anyone Who Needs Receipts)

• Zelenskyy is not on the verge of losing all of Ukraine.

• Most Ukrainian cities haven’t been destroyed.

• Ukrainian law prohibits holding elections in wartime (unlike the U.S. Constitution, which requires it).

• Ukraine hasn’t suffered millions of casualties.

• Europe provides almost as much direct aid to Ukraine as the U.S.

• European loans to Ukraine are backed by frozen Russian assets, not Ukrainian funds.

• Ukraine did not lose or misuse half of the aid the U.S. provided.

• Ukraine repeatedly invited Putin to negotiate in early 2022.

The Maverick Take: Quick Points

• It is impossible to understand why President Trump and Vice President Vance seem determined to pressure President Zelenskyy while they continue to coddle Vladimir Putin—the man who started this war in the first place.

• America has historically stood by its allies, especially those fighting for freedom. Turning our backs on Ukraine now weakens our credibility on the global stage and emboldens autocrats everywhere.

• This isn’t just shameful—it’s strategically foolish. Publicly berating Ukraine in front of the world doesn’t create leverage in negotiations; it signals to Putin that the U.S. is ready to fold.

• American leadership has always been defined by standing firm against aggression. This new era, where the Oval Office treats an ally like an adversary while giving soft treatment to a dictator, is a disgrace.

• The absence of principle in Trump’s foreign policy is astonishing. Instead of standing for democracy, he bends to the interests of an authoritarian regime that has committed war crimes, murdered civilians, and illegally occupied Ukrainian territory.

• This moment was bigger than just a bad meeting. It marked a shift—one where America’s moral and strategic leadership is being actively dismantled from within.

• The world took notice. European leaders immediately condemned Trump’s actions, and across the U.S., people recognized this for what it was: an abandonment of American values in favor of appeasement.

So yeah, anyone saying otherwise is either lying or parroting Kremlin propaganda. But after today, we know exactly whose side Trump is on. And it sure as hell isn’t America’s.

I just got back from the opening kickoff of the Principles First Summit, and my heart is full.

Walking into that room tonight, I saw a sea of familiar faces—friends I’ve been in the trenches with for years. People who have been fighting for democracy, for character in leadership, for the rule of law—not just in theory, but in the real, messy, daily work of shaping the future of this country.

I also met a ton of new people. And that’s what made it even more powerful.

When we started gathering six years ago, Principles First was just a handful of people meeting in mom-and-pop diners, looking for a place to belong in an era where it felt like our political home had lost its moral compass. We were small but determined. Now, we are over 1,000 strong, gathering in the heart of Washington, D.C.—just steps from the White House.

The ranks have grown. The fight has expanded. And the energy is contagious.

Why Are We So Joyful?

To the outside observer, it might be puzzling. After all, we fought with everything we had to defeat Donald Trump, and we lost. By conventional wisdom, this should be a time for finger-pointing, for second-guessing, for mourning what could have been.

But that’s not what tonight was.

We didn’t gather for a funeral. We didn’t come together to wallow in despair or bicker over what went wrong. We came together because, as frustrating as this moment is, the work isn’t over. It never was.

We gathered to learn. To challenge ourselves. To pick up the pieces, sharpen our focus, and prepare for what comes next. And yes—to laugh. To celebrate the bonds of friendship that have carried us through these fights. To remind ourselves that while our opponents want us exhausted and demoralized, joy is its own form of defiance.

Because here’s the truth: we aren’t just in this to stop something bad. We are in this to build something better.

Hope as an Orientation of the Heart

In moments like these, I think about hope—not as wishful thinking, but as something deeper and more enduring.

Václav Havel once wrote, “Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good.”

Hope, real hope, is not dependent on the odds being in our favor. It is not a mere prediction of success. It is not contingent on whether the fight is easy or whether victory is near. Hope is an orientation of the spirit, a decision to keep going even when the road is long and the path uncertain.

We are not gathering this weekend because everything is going well. We are gathering because what we are doing is good. Because this work matters. Because even when we lose, even when we struggle, we refuse to abandon the principles that guide us.

That is why there was joy in the room tonight. Not because the battle is over, but because we are still here.

An Archipelago of Hope

Some of us have been standing together in this fight for six years now. In that time, we’ve seen one another grow—new jobs, new homes, new families, new chapters of life unfolding. We’ve weathered losses, setbacks, and tough seasons. But we’re still here. And when we come together, the fire reignites, the hope swells, and the purpose strengthens.

It’s easy to feel isolated in this work. To believe that you’re shouting into the void. But nights like tonight remind me that we are not a lone island in an endless sea. We are an archipelago of hope.

Across this country, in ways large and small, people are doing the work. They’re speaking up in their communities. They’re pushing back against extremism. They’re building institutions of integrity. They’re running for office, writing, organizing, leading. And when we come together, we strengthen each other for the road ahead.

What We’re Fighting For

The Principles First movement is grounded in, well, principles. And tonight, I was reminded that these principles are not just a list of abstract ideals—they are the foundation for a vision of America that is worth fighting for.

• Integrity, character, and virtue matter. If we elect leaders without moral conviction, we erode the character of the country itself.

• Every person has dignity, equality, and worth. No American is more American than any other.

• Truth, honesty, rationality, and facts are non-negotiable. No one is entitled to their own facts—regardless of party.

• The Constitution and the rule of law must be defended. No leader is above it.

• Limited government, free markets, and equal opportunity empower people to thrive.

• Strong families, strong communities, and civic associations—not the state—should be the primary engines of culture.

• America’s role in the world is unique and important. We must wield our influence with wisdom and purpose.

But more than anything, what struck me tonight was that this movement is not about what we’re against. It’s about what we’re for.

We Believe In Something Positive

There is an energy that comes from fighting against something. It can sustain you for a while. But it is nothing compared to the energy that comes from fighting for something.

What unites us is not just opposition to authoritarianism, dishonesty, and corruption. It’s a belief in the alternative. A belief in a country that can be better than this moment. A belief in a democracy that is resilient and strong. A belief that leadership can be about service, not self-interest. A belief that freedom is best protected when people of good faith refuse to surrender to fear or cynicism.

That is why, despite everything, I walked out of that room tonight feeling lighter than when I walked in. Because hope isn’t passive. Hope isn’t naïve. Hope is a choice. And tonight, I saw people choosing it.

We have work to do. But we are not alone. And we are not done.

This is just the beginning.

Subscribe now

There are moments in history when the stakes are clear, when the moral ground shifts beneath our feet, and when those who hesitate, waiting for the storm to pass, find themselves complicit in its destruction.

I first encountered Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a seminary student at Candler School of Theology at Emory University. I spent three years studying theology in Atlanta, encountering the Gospel in a new and powerful way. But it was not just scripture that shaped me—it was the study of those who had wrestled with faith in times of crisis. My coursework on the Civil Rights Movement introduced me to the moral and intellectual lineage of leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and Fannie Lou Hamer. Many of them found inspiration in Bonhoeffer’s life and work, particularly his resistance to Nazism and his critique of a church that had lost its moral compass.

Bonhoeffer’s story felt deeply relevant even then. I was in seminary during the first Trump administration, a time when I watched my beloved Republican Party descend into madness. As the early resistance to Trump gave way to tacit complicity, I saw echoes of the German church’s failure in the 1930s—a failure not just of institutions, but of courage. My studies were shaped not just by the chaos of the Trump presidency but also by the coronavirus pandemic and the nationwide racial justice uprisings following the murder of George Floyd.

Bonhoeffer’s experience resonated with me in another way as well. As a young man, he traveled to Harlem, where he encountered the Black church and the theology of suffering and resistance that would transform his faith. In my own life, I was an intern at Central United Methodist Church, the fourth-oldest historically Black church in Atlanta and a home to many Civil Rights leaders. Much like Bonhoeffer, I found my theology jolted awake by an experience of faith far different from my own—a faith rooted in justice, community, and the enduring struggle for dignity.

And now, in the second Trump administration, I find myself returning to Bonhoeffer once again. In many ways, things seem darker now than they did then. Trump’s rhetoric is more openly authoritarian. His purge of civil servants and prosecutors is a brazen attack on the rule of law. His recent proclamation—"He who saves his country does not violate any law"—carries chilling echoes of the Führerprinzip, the Nazi belief that the leader’s will was the highest authority. The collapse of moral witness within the American church, as many religious leaders bow to power rather than challenge it, feels eerily familiar.

So today, I want to revisit Bonhoeffer—not just as a theologian, but as a man who understood the cost of resistance.

Who Was Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor, theologian, and ultimately, a martyr. He was one of the earliest voices in Germany to speak out against Adolf Hitler. When the Nazi regime sought to co-opt the church, Bonhoeffer helped found the Confessing Church, a movement that rejected the idea that faith could be bent to serve the state. He later became involved in an underground resistance movement, and when he saw that words alone were not enough, he took the ultimate step—joining a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler. For this, he was arrested in 1943 and executed in 1945, just weeks before the end of the war.

Bonhoeffer’s story is one of moral clarity and courage, but it did not begin with dramatic acts of resistance. It began with something simpler: a refusal to be afraid.

Overcoming Fear: Bonhoeffer’s 1933 Sermon

One of Bonhoeffer’s most famous sermons, Overcoming Fear, was delivered in January 1933, just as Hitler was rising to power. At the time, Germany was gripped by economic despair, political instability, and growing violence in the streets. Fear was everywhere.

Bonhoeffer stood in the pulpit of a Berlin church and addressed his congregation with these words:

“The Bible, the Gospel, Christ, the church, the faith—all are one great battle cry against fear in the lives of human beings… Fear is, somehow or other, the arch-enemy itself. It crouches in people’s hearts. It hollows out their insides, gnaws at their strength and weakens their resolve and their spirit.”

He warned against the way fear paralyzes and distorts. He described how fear leads people to surrender their convictions in exchange for security. And he declared that the Christian faith is, at its core, an antidote to fear—not because it ignores danger, but because it refuses to be ruled by it.

Bonhoeffer’s sermon landed with force. Within days, Hitler had assumed the chancellorship, and Germany would never be the same. Bonhoeffer saw what was coming, and he knew that the greatest threat to resistance was not just external—it was the fear inside people’s hearts.

The Crisis of His Time—and Ours

What Bonhoeffer understood in 1933 remains true today: fear is the currency of authoritarianism.

• When people fear instability, they trade democracy for strongmen.

• When institutions fear retribution, they accommodate power rather than resist it.

• When religious leaders fear losing influence, they justify their silence rather than speak the truth.

We see this happening now.

• Fear of political retribution has led prosecutors and public officials to temper their responses to blatant corruption.

• Fear of losing elections has turned Republican leaders into apologists for authoritarianism.

• Fear of cultural change has driven many churches to align themselves with power rather than justice.

Bonhoeffer’s insight was that fear does not just lead to bad decisions—it hollows out the soul of a nation.

The Moral Question Before Us

Bonhoeffer was shaped by the great moral and intellectual struggles of his time. He studied under Karl Barth, who insisted that faith must resist nationalism. He was deeply influenced by the Harlem Renaissance and the theology of suffering. And he wrestled with the teachings of Jesus, who repeatedly commanded: “Do not be afraid.”

His question for us was this:

• Will we allow fear to dictate our choices?

• Will we let fear silence us?

• Or will we stand firm, even when the cost is high?

Bonhoeffer’s answer was clear. In one of his final writings, composed in prison, he wrote:

“The ultimate question for a responsible person to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation is to live.”

He was not concerned with self-preservation. He was concerned with the future.

What We Must Do

Bonhoeffer’s story is not just about faith—it is about action. And it offers us a challenge today.

1. Recognize Fear for What It Is – A weapon of control. The more fear dominates our public life, the easier it is for authoritarianism to take hold.

2. Find the Courage to Speak the Truth – Even when it is unpopular. Even when it costs something.

3. Resist the Temptation to Wait for a Better Moment – There will never be a perfect time to act. Waiting only makes resistance harder.

Ask Yourself

• Where do I see fear shaping my own decisions?

• How do I challenge fear in my community and workplace?

• What truth do I need to speak this week—despite the risk?

Bonhoeffer’s legacy is not just one of sacrifice—it is a warning.

He lived in a time when democracy crumbled because too many good people were afraid to resist. We live in a time when those same forces are at work.

The question before us is simple: Will we let fear rule us? Or will we stand?

Next Week: Karl Barth and the Courage to Name the Truth

Bonhoeffer called us to resist fear. Karl Barth called us to reject false authority. Next week, we will explore how Barth’s example can be a guide for us today.

Charlie Kirk is often heralded as a leading figure among young conservatives.

Turning Point USA, the organization he founded at 18, may have started with the intent to engage young conservatives on issues like government overreach and economic responsibility, but today it is hollow at its core.

When I look at Kirk, I don’t see a leader—I see a follower.

When I was a freshman at Georgetown, TPUSA’s first chapter arrived on campus. As a young conservative, I was intrigued. I believed in limited government. I saw the federal debt as a disaster waiting to happen. But fast-forward a few years, and TPUSA has traded policy discussions for political cosplay, transforming into a Trumpist hype squad. The shift was not subtle, nor was it ideological. It was pure opportunism.

This “strategic alignment” has been turbocharged by a bottomless well of donor cash, allowing Kirk to throw extravagant events that look like a youth movement but are really just highly produced, very expensive pep rallies.

He has not so much built a movement as he has hoovered up the energy surrounding Donald Trump and converted it into personal influence and financial gain.

These flashy productions aren’t about conservatism—they’re about Kirk. And Trump. And power. TPUSA is just another cog in the MAGA machine. Kirk’s rise proves two things: 1) There is no shortage of rich conservatives looking for a young, media-savvy frontman to prop up, and 2) grievance politics is an unstoppable force in today’s GOP.

Kirk is not a visionary, but a chameleon who simply follows where the most attention (and donor money) leads him.

But we need to learn from this story because his twisted ideology is warping a generation of young conservatives.

The Machine Behind Kirk

A recent New York Times profile by Robert Draper lays bare the true nature of Kirk’s rise. I encourage you to read it in full.

About an hour before Donald J. Trump took the oath of office, Charlie Kirk was sitting in the Capitol Rotunda when he glanced down at his iPhone. What the 31-year-old conservative activist and media personality saw caused him to swallow laughter. A reporter for The Daily Beast had posted on X: “‘Charlie Kirk has better seats than every member of Congress. Tells you how little Trump thinks of Congress,’ one GOP lawmaker tells me.” Twenty minutes later, Kirk saw that a Republican senator from Indiana, Jim Banks, had posted a rebuttal of sorts: “Charlie Kirk has done more than most members of Congress combined to get us to this point today.”

Kirk’s proximity to Trump is not due to deep intellectual contributions or political acumen, but rather his ability to ingratiate himself with power players and funders who see him as a useful tool. And, as a tool, he is useful.

Kirk’s proximity to Trump is especially notable when you consider that he has never held office, worked in the White House or held a campaign staff position. He draws his value elsewhere. Kirk is the head of Turning Point USA, the nation’s pre-eminent conservative youth organization, which he started when he was 18. It has chapters at more than 850 colleges that register students to vote, bring conservative speakers to campus and organize a nationwide network of right-wing student-government leaders.

As the Times reports, Turning Point’s revenue exploded from $4.3 million in 2016 to $92.4 million in 2023. This is not the result of grassroots enthusiasm but of strategic donor courting. Kirk's ability to attract the wealthy and powerful has paid off—literally.

Through his podcast, his many speaking appearances and the books he has written, such as the 2020 best seller “The MAGA Doctrine,” Kirk has become a millionaire.

One of the most striking revelations from the article is the overlap between Turning Point donors and Trumpworld’s power brokers. At a high-profile donor event, Kirk’s biggest benefactors included Houston entrepreneur Mike Rydin, Florida philanthropist Rebecca Dunn, and Stacey Feinberg, a wealthy inheritor of sports agent Bob Woolf’s fortune. Not long after these donors helped fund Turning Point, Trump’s transition team announced that Feinberg would be nominated as the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.

This revolving door of influence underscores a deeper reality: Kirk is not a leader of young conservatives so much as a well-paid middleman between Trump’s movement and the billionaire class that funds it. He offers them influence over the next generation while ensuring young conservatives remain tethered to Trump, not any coherent philosophy or set of ideas.

The recent Times piece reminded me to go back and re-read a POLITICO article from 2022 about Kirk. It has vivid tidbits like this:

Even rare friends like Maria Krutikova, then a conservative and one of Kirk’s earliest political allies, says Kirk could be arrogant during these early years. And he didn’t always act in ethical ways, she says.

Their senior year, when they were building SOS Liberty, the conservative youth group that would precede Turning Point USA, she says Kirk used her Facebook password and started joining conservative women’s Facebook groups around the country, posing as her so he could then invite them to SOS Liberty’s page and publicize the group. At the time, she shrugged it off, chalking it up to his passion for the cause. But in retrospect, she thinks it was weird. She recalls that, toward the end of senior year, he advised her to throw some classmates under the bus when she got in trouble for posting a silly lewd comment on a classroom chat board. She did not take the advice and was surprised by it, particularly since Kirk was already a self-proclaimed Christian. That’s not very Christian of you, she recalls thinking.

The author of this piece in POLITICO, Kyle Spencer, wrote a whole book on the youth GOP movement. And regarding Kirk, he found similar overarching themes as Draper. Namely, that Kirk finds his tribe among wealthy GOP donors.

Kirk likes to tell the story of his first encounter with Foster Friess, the politically incorrect born-again Christian who once told a TV reporter that women could avoid getting pregnant by holding aspirin between their knees, thus keeping their legs closed. Before arriving at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Florida where he met Friess, Kirk memorized the names and faces of the nation’s top far-right backers. He was a guy who was now doing his homework. He would bump into Friess in a stairwell and Friess would eventually cut Kirk his first big check. But there were a lot of others.

I can’t stop thinking about the money… the MEGA money… that pumps through Turning Point.

Between 2016 and 2017, TPUSA raked in over $8.2 million, with big-name donors like Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, and shipping supply billionaire Richard Uihlein keeping the operation afloat. The money allowed Kirk to set up shop on college campuses across the country, manufacturing an image of grassroots conservatism that, in reality, was more like a well-funded franchise.

While Kirk enjoys his status as the MAGA movement’s resident youth whisperer, the reality is, his influence is built on borrowed power.

Path Dependence, the Resignation Problem, and What We Must Do

This is not just a story about Charlie Kirk. It is a warning about the future of conservatism—and America. We cannot afford to lose an entire generation of young men to MAGA authoritarianism. As the Times article highlights, Kirk’s cultural influence is growing, particularly among young men who are increasingly radicalized by his brand of populism. If we do nothing, the next decade of American politics will be shaped by the ideological void Kirk has filled with Trumpism.

A key concept in sociology and political science helps explain how we got here: path dependence.

Path dependence is the idea that once a particular trajectory is set in motion, it becomes self-reinforcing and difficult to change, even if better alternatives exist. Originally developed in economics and later applied to social sciences, this theory was notably advanced by Paul David and W. Brian Arthur, who used it to explain why inefficient technologies (like the QWERTY keyboard) persist despite superior alternatives. The same logic applies to institutions, political movements, and even ideological shifts—once a system starts down a certain path, it develops reinforcing mechanisms that make deviation increasingly difficult.

Charlie Kirk’s success is a perfect case study in path dependence. TPUSA wasn’t an organic, student-driven movement—it was astroturfed into existence with massive donor dollars. That initial donor infusion created the infrastructure: the campus chapters, the media ecosystem, the speaking tours. Over time, that artificial scaffolding generated enough cultural magnetism that young people started joining—not because they were drawn to serious conservative principles, but because it felt like something big and exciting was happening. The more students got involved, the more it legitimized itself, making it appear like a genuine youth movement rather than what it actually was: a carefully manufactured political operation designed to boost Trump-style populism.

But here’s where path dependence really matters: this is not an inevitability.

It didn’t have to be Kirk’s version of conservatism that dominated young political engagement, and it doesn’t have to remain this way. The biggest problem isn’t that young men are irrevocably drawn to grievance politics—it’s that the principled, center-right movement essentially resigned from the fight. There was a moment when an alternative to Kirk’s model could have been built—a youth-driven movement focused on real conservatism, governance, and leadership. But too many of those who could have provided that alternative opted out. They assumed the battle was already lost. They ceded the ground.

The result? A vacuum that Kirk and his donors were more than happy to fill. And because they filled it early and aggressively, they locked in a path-dependent cycle where now, even if we recognize the shallowness of what TPUSA has built, it feels difficult to counteract. But just because the path seems set doesn’t mean it’s unbreakable.

If we shake off the resignation, we can actually do something about it.

Action Plan:

1. Establish Alternative Platforms: We need center right spaces that actually engage with policy and values, not just vibes and victimhood. It’s time to build forums where young people can grapple with real issues like economic policy, governance, and civil liberties—without being force-fed a Trump-centric narrative.

2. Educational Initiatives: Critical thinking is our best weapon against performative politics. Let’s equip young students with historical knowledge, economic literacy, and the ability to debate without melting into a puddle of culture-war grievances.

3. Mentorship Networks: The future of conservatism shouldn’t be left to the loudest voices on TikTok. Let’s build mentorship networks that connect young leaders with experienced conservatives who actually know how to govern.

4. Engage in Constructive Dialogue: The current ecosystem rewards echo chambers. We need to disrupt that by creating spaces where young conservatives engage with a variety of perspectives, even—dare I say it—liberal ones.

5. Leverage Digital Media (Better Than Kirk Does): Kirk has mastered the online rage machine. It’s time we counterprogram with content that actually educates and persuades instead of just stoking division.

That’s what we’re trying to do at Maverick. Follow us on twitter if you haven’t already. We’re hoping to launch on more platforms within the year.

Path dependence works both ways. If we continue to sit out, Kirk’s brand of performative conservatism will cement itself as the default. But if we intervene now—if we disrupt the cycle, build alternatives, and make engagement with serious ideas attractive—we can chart a different course.

Because honestly, the future of conservatism—and the country—depends on it.

Subscribe now

Moral leadership is not a luxury in times of crisis—it is a necessity. When democracy is tested, when justice is at stake, and when power is wielded without conscience, it is moral leaders who shape the course of history. They are not always the loudest, nor do they always hold official positions of power, but they are the ones who refuse to accept injustice as inevitable.

Over the next six weeks, this series will explore the lives and words of those who embodied moral leadership in their time—figures who did not wait for history to move in the right direction but took responsibility for shaping it. By studying their convictions, their courage, and the choices they made in moments of peril, we gain not only wisdom but a call to action. Their example reminds us that democracy is not defended by bystanders. It is upheld by those who step forward, even when the cost is high, and insist that justice is worth the fight.

The Moment We Face

We live in an era where power is wielded without shame, where deception is not seen as a liability but an asset. It is tempting, in such a time, to believe that reason alone will prevail, that facts will win the day, that people—if only they see clearly—will choose justice. But history tells us otherwise.

At this moment, many feel unmoored. A convicted criminal holds the highest office in the land. Those who once defended the rule of law are cast aside as enemies of the state. Institutions meant to serve the people are hollowed out and wielded as weapons. Some comfort themselves with the idea that democracy will self-correct. But others—those who have studied the rise of authoritarianism—warn that without deliberate action, the descent will not stop on its own.

And so, we are left with a question that Niebuhr himself wrestled with: Is democracy strong enough to withstand those who would destroy it? Or will its own virtues—its openness, its trust, its slow deliberation—become the means of its undoing?

Who Was Reinhold Niebuhr?

Reinhold Niebuhr lived through some of the greatest crises of the 20th century—World War I, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and the Cold War. A theologian and public intellectual, he was not content to keep his faith in the abstract; he demanded that it confront the realities of power and politics.

By the 1930s, as fascist movements swept across Europe, Niebuhr rejected the naïve optimism of his liberal peers who believed that reason and moral persuasion alone could defeat tyranny. He saw how good people, afraid of conflict, failed to act until it was too late. He criticized those who, clinging to the idea that all perspectives deserved equal weight, treated authoritarianism as just another ideology rather than an existential threat.

In Moral Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr argued that while individuals may act out of conscience, nations and political movements are driven by power. Evil is not defeated by moral appeals alone—it must be actively opposed.

"All through history one may observe the tendency of power to destroy its very raison d'être. It is suffered because it achieves internal unity and creates external defenses for the nation. But it grows to such proportions that it destroys the social peace of the state by the animosities which its exactions arouse..."

As the world edged closer to war, he became one of the most forceful voices warning against the perils of passivity. His central insight was stark: Democracies do not die from the strength of their enemies, but from the weakness of their own resolve.

The Crisis of His Time—and Ours

Niebuhr wrote in the 1930s, but his warnings ring as true today as they did then. He saw how respectable society, unwilling to recognize the depths of the crisis, treated extremists as rational actors who could be accommodated rather than confronted. He understood how democracies, in their pursuit of fairness, could allow themselves to be manipulated by those who had no interest in playing fair.

We see this today.

• We see it in those who believe that civility, rather than justice, is the highest goal of democracy.

• We see it in those who think we can “move past” the crimes of insurrectionists and political strongmen, as if ignoring a threat makes it disappear.

• We see it in those who believe that because America has endured before, it will inevitably endure again, as if survival were guaranteed rather than something to be fought for.

But Niebuhr knew better. He knew that the greatest danger to democracy is not its enemies, but the complacency of those who believe democracy will save itself.

The Moral Question Before Us

Niebuhr was shaped by the great crises of his time. He read Nietzsche’s critiques of morality, Karl Marx’s critiques of power, and Augustine’s writings on human nature. He grappled with the fundamental question of whether democracy could confront power without losing its soul.

Today, we face the same question:

• Can a democracy survive if it refuses to defend itself against those who seek to destroy it?

• How do we balance justice with pragmatism, ensuring that our response to threats does not erode the very values we seek to protect?

• What does it mean to act with wisdom and moral clarity in a time when compromise feels like surrender and purity feels like isolation?

What We Must Do

Niebuhr did not believe in despair. He did not believe that because a situation was dire, it was unwinnable. He believed in action—specifically, in the duty of those who see the crisis clearly to refuse the temptation of passivity.

We are not helpless in the face of what is happening. There are concrete steps we can take:

1. Confront the Danger with Clarity – Name the threat for what it is. Do not soften reality for the sake of comfort. Recognize that those who attack democracy do not do so in good faith.

2. Abandon the Illusion of Neutrality – Democracy is not served by pretending both sides share the same commitment to its survival. There is a difference between disagreement and destruction.

3. Refuse to be Paralyzed by Cynicism – The worst mistake we can make is to assume that because the struggle is difficult, it is not worth waging. The outcome is not predetermined; it is shaped by those who choose to fight for it.

Ask Hard Questions

• Where do we see complacency in our political moment?

• How do we personally fall into the trap of believing democracy will self-correct?

• What is one way we can actively strengthen the democratic institutions in our communities?

Niebuhr did not live to see how our story would unfold, but he left us with a warning and a challenge: Evil does not prevail because it is strong. It prevails because those who oppose it convince themselves that their efforts do not matter.

Let us reject that lie. Let us reject the belief that this moment is beyond saving. Let us recognize the stakes—and act accordingly.

Next Week: Bonhoeffer and the Cost of Resistance

Reinhold Niebuhr warned of passivity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer lived the cost of resistance. Next week, we will explore how Bonhoeffer’s moral clarity led him not just to words, but to action—and what that means for us today.

A solemn duty now rests upon our shoulders, as citizens of the greatest nation on earth, to do everything we can to support and defend our Constitution, preserve the rule of law, and ensure that our institutions hold. The peril before us is real, and the duty to confront it is absolute.

Now is the time to summon our better angels.

Already, we have seen the heavy hand of tyranny move swiftly. Within hours of taking the oath of office, the President once again desecrated the most sacred tradition of free people—the peaceful transition of power—by pardoning those who sought to overturn it. They stormed the heart of our democracy at his urging, and now they walk free, emboldened, triumphant.

But his work of villainy did not stop there. The administration has announced plans to expand detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay—not for terrorists, but for migrants seeking asylum. Up to 30,000 people, including families and children, will be held in the very same facility that once stood as a global symbol of indefinite detention and torture. When pressed on whether women and children would be imprisoned there, the President’s advisers refused to answer. A prison camp, a stain upon our conscience, is now being resurrected—not in the name of security, but in the service of cruelty.

The innocent are cast aside, the vulnerable are condemned. A president, armed with the instruments of state, now wields them against the weary and the poor, against the huddled masses who seek nothing but the dignity of honest work and the right to live without fear. He would strip them of the dignity they are bestowed by God. If this is not evil, what is?

As he strikes at the weak, he also punishes the just. Men and women of law, servants of the public good, defenders of order—they have been cast out, dismissed, purged for their courage in upholding the Constitution. Federal prosecutors who led the most consequential criminal cases against January 6th rioters have been dismissed. The lead U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., overseeing hundreds of convictions, was fired without warning. FBI agents investigating domestic extremism have been forced out in a single act of retribution. The message is clear: loyalty to the Constitution is no longer enough—you must serve him.

We stand, therefore, upon the precipice. This is the hour we feared, the crisis we foresaw. The abyss of corruption and lawlessness stretches before us. And yet, my friends—despair is not our lot.

We do not shrink from this fight. We do not cower before the storm. The forces arrayed against us would have us yield, would have us submit, would have us bow our heads and accept, with weary resignation, the slow decay of our republic. But that is not our way.

No, we will not retreat. We will not falter. Let this moment, grim though it is, serve as the anvil upon which our resolve is forged anew. We have entered a time of struggle, and struggle we shall. The opening salvo of the first hundred days of this presidency have been a whirlwind of destruction—but we will endure them. The years ahead will test us, but we will outlast them.

For we are the inheritors of a noble tradition. The flame of democracy has burned in this land for generations, tended by the hands of patriots, strengthened by the toil of free men and women who knew that liberty, once surrendered, is seldom reclaimed. We will not be the generation that allows that flame to gutter and die.

And so, we shall fight on. In the halls of government, in the courts of law, in the public square, and in the hearts of our people, we will make our stand. We will speak the truth when lies abound. We will defend the Constitution when others defile it. We will preserve the rule of law when those in power seek to unravel it.

Our purpose is clear: to be the leaders our democracy requires. To rally those who believe, as we do, that America’s finest days are still before her—not behind.

For leadership is not merely the preserve of the powerful. It is the calling of all who see further than themselves, who look beyond the moment, beyond the confines of today, to the great work of shaping tomorrow. We live in an age where too many with power lack vision, and too many with vision lack power. It is time to change that.

Each generation faces its test. Ours is upon us now. We did not choose it, but it has chosen us. We may wish for easier days, for lighter burdens—but history grants such wishes to no one. Instead, it calls upon the willing, the determined, the steadfast.

So let us answer that call. Let us not waste our energy mourning what has passed but rather commit ourselves wholly to what is yet to come. If our adversaries would seek to strip us of hope, let them be confounded. If they believe they have vanquished the spirit of the free, let them be proven wrong.

For we are not naïve. We do not underestimate the magnitude of the challenge before us. But neither do we surrender. We are fortified not by anger, but by hope—unyielding, unbreakable, and unbowed.

And if there are those who doubt the resilience of the American spirit, let them recall these words, spoken in the darkest days of another test for civilization, by President Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William Seward:

"There was always just enough virtue in this republic to save it; sometimes none to spare, but still enough to meet the emergency."

May we be that virtue. May we be that strength. And may we be that salvation.

For the fight is not yet done. The future is not yet written. And we will prevail.

Subscribe now

Few images capture the American spirit like The Bronco Buster, Frederic Remington’s iconic sculpture of the West, embodying the raw energy, resilience, and untamed freedom that define our nation’s frontier ethos. A tribute to those who refuse to be broken, it was embraced by leaders like Theodore Roosevelt as a symbol of individual grit and defiance.

Like the bronco buster battling for control, Mavericks rise to meet today’s challenges—facing down authoritarianism, corruption, and civic decay with unyielding courage.

I invite you to join this community of people who know the struggle is never easy, but those who embrace it shape the future.

Subscribe now

A personal note

I am grateful for the opportunity to join the Karsh Institute of Democracy at the University of Virginia as a Democracy Practitioner Fellow. My mission is clear: to study, to strengthen, and to uphold the leadership our democracy needs in this pivotal moment. I look forward to working alongside those who share the conviction that our country’s future is still ours to shape—and that the promise of America is not something of the past, but something we must continue to build.

I woke up yesterday feeling uneasy, exhausted, and bracing for what I knew was coming. Trump’s inauguration—a moment meant to honor the peaceful transfer of power—felt more like a campaign rally than a unifying moment for the nation. His speech was as divisive and combative as expected, filled with grievance and self-interest rather than any real effort to heal the country.

It was frustrating to watch Biden uphold the traditions of civility with a gracious welcome in the morning, only for Trump to turn around and use the moment to publicly trash him during the inaugural address.

By the end of the day, though, it wasn’t the speech that stayed with me—it was the news of the pardons. Trump pardoned thousands of January 6th rioters, including violent criminals who attacked police officers and stormed the Capitol. These were people who sought to overturn democracy itself, now absolved not because justice demanded it but because of their loyalty to Trump.

The exhaustion deepened. After everything we fought for in 2024—every call, every knock on a door, every sleepless night—how could this be the reality we now face?

We Need Resolve

I know I’m not alone in feeling this way. Many of us poured everything into the fight last year to keep Trump out of office. We rallied, we organized, and we left it all on the field. Yet he still won. This is who America chose. The weight of that loss, combined with the blatant injustice of these pardons, makes it hard not to feel defeated.

And yet, giving in to exhaustion isn’t an option. Rest is necessary, but we cannot surrender the fight. Different people can carry the torch on different days, but the fight itself must continue.

History doesn’t change because of loud voices; it changes because of steady hands.

Our task is not to fight fire with fire but to bear witness to a better way. The answers won’t come from shouting over one another but from lives rooted in integrity, humility, service, courage, and justice.

This is a call to build something lasting—to turn the frustration and heartbreak of this era into momentum for a better one.

The Consequences of January 6th Pardons

These pardons are not just an insult to justice—they are a threat to the rule of law and a chilling precedent for the future. By absolving individuals who engaged in political violence, Trump sends a clear message: loyalty to him excuses even the gravest acts of insurrection.

This isn’t just about rewriting the history of January 6th; it’s about normalizing violence as a political tool. Pardoning these criminals emboldens others who might consider similar actions. It undermines accountability, weakens democracy, and signals that the rule of law is conditional at best.

Polling from Protect Democracy shows that 73% of Americans—including 54% of Republicans—oppose pardons for those convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers. We have the numbers on our side. The American people see this for what it is: a dangerous abuse of power.

We should push this issue and make sure every voter knows how Trump spent his first day back in office.

Fighting Smarter: A Step-by-Step Checklist

It’s going to be a long four years. To fight smarter, we need a focused, strategic framework that prioritizes what matters and avoids burnout. Here’s how we can stay effective:

1. Pick Fights That Matter: Focus on issues where public opinion is already on our side, like the January 6th pardons. Highlight how Trump’s worst actions undermine democracy and public safety. We must prioritize our battles, not swing at every passing headline.

2. Ignore the Distractions: Don’t waste energy reacting to every outrageous statement or symbolic gesture. Freaking out about Greenland or similar distractions only drains our focus and alienates persuadable voters.

3. Keep the Message Simple: Emphasize clear, relatable narratives. For instance, “Today, Trump pardoned criminals and did nothing to lower your cost of living” is a message that resonates broadly. Avoid overly complex arguments that dilute the impact.

4. Mobilize Strategically: Use polling data to target key demographics and swing areas. Invest in states and districts where we can make a real difference. Know where the fight is winnable.

5. Take Turns: Burnout is real. Create systems where different groups or individuals can step up at different times. Build a network of “tag teams” to ensure the fight continues even when some need to rest.*

6. Build Coalitions: Moderates and centrists must unify and find common ground with other pro-democracy groups. Work together on shared goals and leave smaller ideological differences for another day.

7. Stay Rooted in Integrity: Don’t stoop to Trump’s level of chaos and dishonesty. Be better. Speak the truth and act with conviction. People are drawn to leaders who embody the values they champion.

8. Push for Accountability: Keep the focus on Trump’s abuse of power, the corruption of his government, and its impact on ordinary Americans. Anti-corruption is the name of the game.

9. Celebrate Wins: Recognize progress when it happens, no matter how small. Momentum builds when people see their efforts making a difference.

10. Plan for the Long Game: Democracy isn’t saved overnight. Commit to a sustained effort, knowing the fight for accountability and justice will take time.

A Call to Action

I’m still tired. You probably are too. But exhaustion can’t be the end of this story. We must find ways to channel that fatigue into action. Different people can take on the fight at different times, but the fight itself cannot pause.

The January 6th pardons are a wake-up call. They remind us that democracy doesn’t protect itself—we must protect it. Day by day, action by action, word by word, we can push back. We can insist on accountability, demand justice, and fight for a democracy that upholds the rule of law.

Because if we don’t, who will?

Let’s Meet IRL

*One thing you can do today: my buddy Heath is hosting the Principles First Summit in a month. It’s the best political event in America… no joke. I can’t wait to be fired up by the incredible speakers and attendees. I hope you join us.

Every few years, disillusioned voters start dreaming of a third-party savior—an alternative to the dysfunction and division of America’s two-party system. The idea is intoxicating: a new party that sweeps aside the old guard, rises above the partisan fray, and restores sanity to our politics.

It’s a beautiful dream. But it’s also a dangerous distraction.

Here’s the hard truth: America’s political system is not designed to support third parties. In fact, it actively works against them. If you’re serious about fixing our politics, then you have to confront this reality—not with cynicism, but with determination to make change from within.

As Mavericks, we reject the fantasy of a third party—not because we don’t want alternatives, but because we know there’s a better way to fight for democracy.

Why Third Parties Fail

The barriers to third-party success in America are not a matter of opinion—they’re structural.

1. Winner-Take-All Elections

In most U.S. elections, the candidate with the most votes wins everything. This “first-past-the-post” system makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. Even if a third-party candidate garners a significant share of the vote, they often end up splitting the vote with one of the major parties, handing victory to the opposition.

2. Duverger’s Law

Political scientists call it Duverger’s Law: in systems like ours, two dominant parties are inevitable. Voters tend to abandon third parties because they don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning.

3. Lack of Infrastructure

Major parties have built massive ecosystems to support their candidates, from fundraising networks to volunteer bases. Third parties simply can’t match this level of organization, especially at the national scale.

4. The Perils of Geography

For third parties to succeed, they need geographically concentrated support. Without it, even a strong showing in the popular vote doesn’t translate into seats in Congress or state legislatures.

The result? Third-party candidates may inspire passionate supporters, but they rarely win—and when they do, it’s often in symbolic or isolated victories, not systemic change.

The False Hope of Third Parties

Despite these obstacles, the allure of a third party persists. But the truth is, third parties often do more harm than good:

• They Split the Vote: Third parties typically pull votes from one of the major parties, often handing victory to the side they oppose.

• They Dilute Momentum: Resources that could strengthen pro-democracy efforts within the two-party system are instead siphoned off into third-party campaigns.

• They Fail to Build Coalitions: Third parties often cater to niche interests, making it harder to unite diverse groups around common goals.

Instead of challenging the status quo, third parties often reinforce it by fragmenting the opposition to extremism.

Subscribe now

Why Mavericks Choose a Different Path

Mavericks don’t waste time chasing the mirage of a third party. We know that real change happens within the system we have—not the system we wish we had.

1. We Work Within the Two-Party System

America’s two-party structure is deeply entrenched. Instead of fighting it, we use it to our advantage. By organizing factions within the Democratic and Republican parties, Mavericks can influence their platforms, push for pro-democracy reforms, and amplify moderate voices.

2. We Build Coalitions

The two-party system isn’t going anywhere, but that doesn’t mean it’s monolithic. Mavericks unite center-right and center-left Americans to form coalitions that transcend party lines. These coalitions have the power to shape policy and restore balance to our politics.

3. We Play the Long Game

Change doesn’t happen overnight. Mavericks focus on the slow, steady work of building grassroots infrastructure, electing pro-democracy candidates, and creating space for collaboration within the existing system.

What About Reforming the System?

Some argue that we should fix the system itself—by introducing ranked-choice voting, multi-member districts, or proportional representation. These reforms could indeed create more room for third parties and reduce the toxicity of polarization.

But here’s the reality: these changes are a long way off. Achieving them requires working through the very two-party system they’re meant to disrupt.

Mavericks support reforms that strengthen democracy, but we don’t wait for the perfect system to take action. We fight for progress here and now, using the tools we have.

What Mavericks Stand For

The dream of a third party is rooted in frustration, and we get it. The two-party system often feels broken. But abandoning it won’t fix the problem.

Mavericks believe in a different approach:

• Work Smarter: Use the existing system to push for change from within.

• Unite Broadly: Build coalitions that reflect the true diversity of American values.

• Act Boldly: Don’t wait for perfect conditions—organize, mobilize, and lead.

The fight for democracy isn’t about starting over. It’s about reclaiming the system and making it work for the people.

Join the Fight

If you’re tired of the extremes, if you’re done with the chaos, and if you’re ready to fight for real change, then it’s time to join the Mavericks.

Together, we can reject the fantasy of a third party and embrace the hard, necessary work of reclaiming democracy. Let’s get to it.

Be a Maverick

American politics is at a tipping point. Extremism dominates the conversation, public trust in institutions is eroding, and democracy itself feels fragile. It’s easy to feel like the center is lost—that moderates have no place in a world of screaming extremist partisans.

But here’s the truth: this is our moment.

Now is the time for moderates to rise—not in whispers, but in action. Extremism may be loud, but it doesn’t represent the majority. Most Americans reject the chaos of the far-left and far-right. They’re hungry for leaders who listen, collaborate, and fight for solutions instead of soundbites.

Moderates have the numbers. What we need now is the courage to act.

Why Moderates Matter More Than Ever

Moderates have always been the backbone of American democracy. They’ve built coalitions, bridged divides, and kept the country moving forward. But in recent decades, the middle has been hollowed out by polarization and negative partisanship.

This erosion isn’t just bad for politics—it’s dangerous for democracy. Here’s why moderates are essential right now:

1. Extremism Is Eroding Trust

From election denial to defund-the-police rhetoric, the extremes are pushing narratives that alienate voters and undermine public trust. Moderates have the unique ability to rebuild that trust by standing for accountability, honesty, and pragmatism.

2. Collaboration Is the Only Path Forward

No single party or ideology can solve the challenges we face—from climate change to economic inequality. Moderates are the bridge-builders who can unite Americans around shared solutions.

3. The Silent Majority Is Ready to Speak

Poll after poll shows that most Americans want leaders who focus on results, not partisan warfare. Moderates are perfectly positioned to channel this desire into meaningful action.

The Risks of Waiting

The window for action won’t stay open forever. If moderates don’t step up now, the extremes will continue to dominate, and the damage could become irreversible.

Here’s what’s at stake:

• Democratic Norms: Extremists thrive on chaos, eroding the norms and institutions that protect our freedoms.

• Policy Stagnation: Without moderates to broker compromises, we’ll remain trapped in gridlock, unable to tackle pressing issues.

• Voter Disengagement: When the center doesn’t show up, voters lose faith in the system and tune out entirely—making it easier for the extremes to consolidate power.

The longer moderates wait, the harder it will be to reclaim the middle ground.

Subscribe now

Why Now Is Different

Despite the risks, this moment is also full of opportunity. Here’s why moderates have an unprecedented chance to make a difference:

1. Polarization Has Hit a Breaking Point

Americans are exhausted by the constant conflict. The incoming authoritarian era will make it worse. This frustration creates an opening for moderates to offer a compelling alternative.

2. Grassroots Momentum Is Building

Country Over Party movements and cross-partisan coalitions are gaining traction, showing that Americans are ready to organize around shared values.

3. Leadership Gaps Are Emerging

The extremes are loud, but they lack broad appeal. This leaves a leadership vacuum that moderates can—and must—fill.

What Moderates Must Do

Rising to the moment requires more than good intentions. Moderates need to organize, mobilize, and act with urgency. Here’s how we seize the moment:

1. Build Infrastructure

Extremists have spent decades creating networks of think tanks, advocacy groups, and media outlets. Moderates need to match this level of organization with institutions that amplify their voices and support their goals.

2. Mobilize Voters

The silent majority won’t stay silent forever. Moderates must engage these voters, turning frustration into action at the ballot box.

3. Recruit Leaders

Moderates can’t reclaim the middle without bold, principled leaders. It’s time to find, support, and elect candidates who reflect the values of collaboration and pragmatism.

4. Speak Loudly and Clearly

This is no time for timidity. Moderates must articulate a clear vision for the future—one that rejects extremism and embraces problem-solving.

The Stakes Are Too High to Stay Silent

Democracy doesn’t protect itself. It requires people who are willing to stand up, speak out, and fight for its survival. Moderates have the power to lead this fight, but only if we act now.

History doesn’t remember those who stood on the sidelines. It remembers those who seized the moment and made it count.

This is our moment. Let’s rise to meet it.

Join the Movement

If you’re ready to reject the extremes and fight for a better future, the time to act is now. Together, we can build a coalition of courageous, pragmatic Americans who refuse to let the middle be hollowed out.

The moment is here. Let’s not waste it.

Join Maverick

Congress isn’t working—not for the people, not for democracy, and certainly not as the Founders intended. Over the last few decades, it’s become a place of gridlock and grandstanding, where leadership consolidates power, and partisanship dictates every move.

But it wasn’t always this way. And it doesn’t have to stay this way.

For much of American history, factions within parties helped balance power, foster creativity, and force meaningful negotiation. These coalitions weren’t perfect, but they provided a structure that allowed Congress to reflect the diversity of thought within the American public.

Reviving factional governance could be the key to unlocking a more balanced, functional Congress—one that values collaboration over conflict and progress over performance.

The Problem with Polarized Congress

Today’s Congress is dominated by strong party leadership and ideologically homogeneous caucuses (although we’ve seen this crack with groups like The Squad and the Freedom Caucus). This concentration of power creates a toxic dynamic:

• Rigid Partisanship: Members are discouraged from crossing party lines, even on issues where there’s common ground.

• Stifled Creativity: Leadership controls the agenda, leaving little room for individual members to innovate or propose new ideas.

• Negative Partisanship: Members are driven more by opposing the other party than by advancing their own solutions.

The result? Legislative gridlock, public distrust, and a Congress that feels increasingly disconnected from the diverse views of the American people.

What Is Factional Governance?

Factional governance occurs when smaller, organized coalitions within parties wield influence, negotiate across divides, and drive legislative innovation. Factions can reflect regional, ideological, or issue-based interests, creating a more nuanced and flexible system of governance.

Instead of a rigid two-party dichotomy, factional governance introduces more voices, more ideas, and more opportunities for consensus.

How Factions Could Rebalance Congress

A more factional Congress would bring several key benefits to our democracy:

1. Diverse Representation

Factions allow Congress to reflect the true diversity of the American electorate. Not every Democrat is a progressive, and not every Republican is a populist. Factions give moderates, independents, and issue-specific coalitions a voice.

2. Increased Collaboration

Factions within parties can act as bridges, fostering cross-party coalitions. For example, a market-oriented environmental faction could find common ground with a climate-conscious conservative faction, advancing policies that address climate change without alienating core constituencies.

3. Decentralized Power

Factional governance decentralizes power from party leadership, empowering rank-and-file members to take a more active role in shaping policy. This encourages innovation and legislative entrepreneurship.

4. Reduced Gridlock

With multiple factions at the table, there’s less reliance on rigid party-line votes. Members are freer to work with colleagues across the aisle, making it easier to pass legislation that addresses the country’s most pressing challenges.

What a More Balanced Congress Could Look Like

Imagine a Congress where factional governance is the norm:

• Negotiation Becomes Standard: Leadership doesn’t dictate every vote. Instead, factions negotiate to build coalitions on a case-by-case basis, ensuring more voices are heard in the process.

• Creativity Flourishes: Members aren’t just followers of party leadership; they’re entrepreneurs of ideas, proposing bold solutions to complex problems.

• Trust Rebuilds: Voters see Congress as a place where things get done—not just a nursing home of conflict. When representatives work together across divides, public faith in the institution grows.

For example, a bipartisan faction dedicated to mental health reform could bring together lawmakers from both sides—conservative leaders focused on supporting veterans and law enforcement, and progressive champions advocating for community health access. Together, they could craft legislation to expand mental health services in schools, improve crisis response programs, and increase funding for telehealth initiatives in underserved areas, proving that collaboration can address one of the nation’s most urgent challenges.

Subscribe now

The Role of Mavericks in Factional Governance

Mavericks thrive in a factional Congress. They are the bridge-builders, the negotiators, and the innovators who refuse to accept the status quo of polarization.

As members of factions, Mavericks could:

• Build coalitions across party lines on specific issues.

• Push back against extremist voices within their own parties.

• Amplify the voices of moderate voters who feel ignored by today’s system.

Mavericks aren’t afraid to challenge their party leadership. In a factional system, that courage isn’t a liability—it’s an asset.

How We Get There

Reviving factional governance won’t happen overnight. It requires both structural changes and cultural shifts:

• Elect Pro-Democracy Candidates: Support leaders who value collaboration and independence over party loyalty by showing up to vote in primaries.

• Encourage Legislative Entrepreneurship: Empower members of Congress to take ownership of the policymaking process.

• Build Factional Ecosystems: Create the think tanks, advocacy groups, and grassroots networks needed to support factional efforts.

Above all, it requires voters who are willing to reward courage, creativity, and compromise. Mavericks will build the muscle behind these voters by creating organizations at the local level to mobilize volunteers.

Why Factional Governance Matters

Factional governance isn’t a nostalgic throwback to a different era of politics—it’s a blueprint for the future. It’s a way to make Congress more responsive, more balanced, and more effective.

In a divided nation, we need a Congress that can rise above partisanship and deliver real solutions. Factions can provide the flexibility and collaboration our democracy so desperately needs.

Join the Fight for a Better Congress

If you believe Congress can do better—if you’re ready to reject polarization and fight for balance—then it’s time to act.

Support candidates who champion collaboration. Organize for leaders who refuse to bow to the extremes. And above all, stay engaged in the fight for a more functional democracy.

The future of Congress is factional. Let’s build it together.

Build With Us

Intrigued by this idea? Want to read the longer, more technical version? Check out this great article by political scientists Steven Teles and Robert Saldin.

It’s easy to feel small in the face of today’s political chaos. Extremes dominate the headlines, shouting matches replace dialogue, and consensus feels like a relic of a bygone era. For those of us who believe in moderation, unity, and problem solving, it can feel like we’re fighting an uphill battle with no end in sight.

But here’s the thing about being an underdog: it doesn’t mean you’re weak. It means you’re underestimated.

History proves that the most transformative moments often come from those who refuse to back down when the odds are against them. Courage isn’t the absence of fear—it’s the determination to act in spite of it. And right now, courage is what our republic needs most.

If you’ve ever wondered how one person can make a difference in divided times, this guide is for you.

What Courage Looks Like Today

Courage isn’t always loud. It doesn’t always come with applause or recognition. In today’s polarized world, courage looks like:

• Speaking Truth to Extremism: Calling out lies and disinformation, even when it’s unpopular or uncomfortable.

• Choosing Principle Over Party: Putting the country’s well-being above partisan loyalty, even if it costs you friends, status, or opportunities.

• Engaging Instead of Retreating: Showing up to the conversations and spaces that matter, even when you’d rather tune it all out.

Courage is a quiet rebellion against the forces trying to divide us.

Lessons From the Underdogs Who Came Before Us

Throughout history, the most meaningful change has come from people who stood firm when it mattered most. Here are a few lessons from underdogs who changed the world:

1. Ella Baker: Give Light and People Will Find a Way

Ella Baker believed in the power of grassroots movements and ordinary people to create extraordinary change. As one of the most influential leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, she empowered communities to take the lead in their own fight for justice. Her mantra, "Give light and people will find a way," reminds us that courage isn’t about commanding attention—it’s about illuminating the path forward and trusting others to rise to the occasion.

2. John McCain: Stand Tall, Even When It’s Hard

In a political era rife with partisanship, Senator John McCain reminded us that putting country over party isn’t just courageous—it’s essential. His maverick spirit showed that standing for your values often means standing alone.

3. Malala Yousafzai: Believe in the Power of One Voice

Shot by the Taliban for advocating girls’ education, Malala’s courage sparked a global movement. She’s proof that one voice, when used with conviction, can change the world.

These underdogs faced incredible odds, yet their courage made them unstoppable. Their stories remind us that courage isn’t about being fearless—it’s about acting despite the fear.

Subscribe now

How to Be Courageous in Divided Times

Courage might look different for each of us, but the principles remain the same. Here’s how to find your courage and make it count:

1. Start Small, but Start

You don’t need a national platform or a megaphone to make an impact. Start with conversations in your community, at your workplace, or around your dinner table. Courage is contagious—your small acts inspire others to take their own steps.

2. Stay Rooted in Your Values

The noise of extremism can drown out what matters most. Take time to reflect on your core values—the principles you’re willing to fight for—and let them guide your actions.

3. Find Your Tribe

Courage is easier when you’re not alone. Seek out others who share your commitment to democracy, unity, and solving problems. Together, you can amplify your voices and support one another when the fight gets tough.

4. Embrace the Power of Persistence

Change rarely happens overnight. The courage to keep going—especially when progress feels slow—is what separates the underdogs who succeed from those who give up.

Why Courage Matters Now More Than Ever

We’re living in a time when fear, division, and cynicism threaten to overwhelm us. But the antidote to fear is courage, and the antidote to division is unity.

Courage matters because democracy is fragile. It requires people who are willing to stand up for what’s right, even when it’s hard. It requires people who reject the extremes, speak the truth, and fight for the future.

In divided times, courage isn’t just a virtue—it’s a necessity.

Your Call to Courage

If you’ve ever felt like the world is too broken to fix, remember this: change starts with people like you. It starts with the underdogs—the underestimated, the overlooked, the determined.

Your courage, no matter how small it seems, matters. When you speak up, show up, and stand firm, you inspire others to do the same.

So take heart. The fight for our republic is a fight worth having. And in this fight, the underdogs will win.

Start Taking Action

In an era where political extremes dominate the headlines and set the agenda, centrism has become a radical act. It shouldn’t be. The middle is the beating heart of democracy—the place where consensus is forged, problems are solved, and the messy work of governing gets done.

Yet, for too long, those of us who believe in moderation have allowed the extremes to take over. Why? Because extremism doesn’t sleep. It shows up, organizes, and outworks the center at every turn.

Moderates, on the other hand, often rest on a dangerous assumption: that reason and common sense will win by default. They won’t. If we want to reclaim the middle, we need to fight for it—not just in elections, but in the trenches of party politics, grassroots organizing, and cultural conversations.

The battle for moderation is gritty, slow, and unglamorous. But it’s a fight we must take on.

Why Moderates Are Losing

Extremism thrives because it’s disciplined, relentless, and unapologetically organized. Far-left and far-right factions have spent years building the infrastructure to dominate their parties and the national conversation.

They’ve created:

• Think Tanks: To craft ideologically pure policies.

• Media Ecosystems: To amplify their messages and frame debates.

• Grassroots Networks: To recruit candidates, mobilize voters, and enforce loyalty.

And what has the moderate center done in response? Far too often, it has ceded ground, assuming the silent majority will speak up on its own. But silence doesn’t win elections. Organizing does.

The Myth of “Common Sense” Politics

Moderates often cling to the idea that their positions are inherently reasonable and thus destined to prevail. But democracy isn’t won by logic alone; it’s won by participation, passion, and persistence.

Extremists don’t win because their ideas are better—they win because they show up. They flood town halls, dominate primary elections, and pour their energy into the unglamorous, day-to-day grind of politics.

If we want centrism to thrive, we need to abandon the myth that it will happen naturally. We need to get in the trenches.

Subscribe now

What Trench Warfare Looks Like

Reclaiming the center won’t happen overnight. It requires patience, strategy, and a willingness to engage in the hard, messy work of political organizing. Here’s how we fight:

1. Build Grassroots Infrastructure

Moderation needs a backbone. That means creating networks of local leaders who can organize their communities, advocate for shared values, and counteract the influence of extremism.

2. Show Up in Primaries

Extremists dominate primaries because moderates stay home. This has to change. We need to mobilize the middle to vote, volunteer, and campaign in these critical early stages.

3. Support Pro-Democracy Candidates

Centrism isn’t just about rejecting extremism; it’s about electing leaders who value integrity, collaboration, and problem-solving. We must actively recruit, fund, and support candidates who share these principles.

4. Create a Moderate Media Ecosystem

Far-left and far-right factions dominate the conversation because they’ve built their own media outlets to amplify their views. We need to do the same—creating platforms that elevate centrist voices and foster thoughtful debate.

5. Organize, Don’t Just Debate

Winning the battle for American democracy isn’t about being right—it’s about being organized. We need to stop arguing online and start mobilizing on the ground.

Why the Fight Is Worth It

Extremism has led us to a place where every issue is a zero-sum game, and every disagreement is treated as a personal attack. This isn’t sustainable. Democracy depends on the ability to find common ground, usher consensus, and move forward together.

Invigorating moderate America isn’t just about politics—it’s about preserving the values that make democracy possible: mutual respect, shared purpose, and the belief that we’re stronger together than we are apart.

The fight for the center is a fight for the soul of our country.

Join the Trenches

This is the hard part. Reclaiming the vital center isn’t glamorous. It doesn’t happen on cable news or in viral tweets. It happens in school board meetings, canvassing drives, and campaign offices.

But this is where change begins.

If you believe in the power of moderation—if you’re ready to fight for a future where democracy thrives over division—then it’s time to roll up your sleeves and get in the trenches.

The work is hard, but the stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines.

Let’s reclaim the middle. Let’s fight for the future. Let’s win.

Join Maverick

American democracy wasn’t built for uniformity. It thrives on debate, negotiation, and consensus. Yet today, our political system feels more like a battleground than a marketplace of ideas. The center is under siege, while the extremes seem louder—and more organized—than ever.

If you’re like most Americans, you’re tired of it. You don’t see yourself in the chaos of far-right populism or far-left purity tests. You just want leaders who solve problems, not amplify divisions. You want a government that works for the people, not for its loudest special interests.

Here’s the truth: Extremism wins because it’s organized. If we want to take back the middle ground, we need to get organized, too. The future of American democracy depends on factions—not the kind that tear us apart, but the kind that brings us together from the center outward.

What Are Factions, and Why Do They Matter?

In today’s hyper-polarized landscape, political parties have become more rigid and ideological than ever. For decades, they’ve pushed out moderates, discouraged consensus, and narrowed their platforms to serve the extremes.

But there’s a hidden strength in America’s two-party system: factions.

Factions are coalitions within coalitions. They’re groups of like-minded people who organize to shape their party’s agenda and drive real change. Historically, factions have been essential to balancing power and fostering collaboration across divides.

In the 20th century, bipartisan factions passed civil rights legislation, reformed welfare, and advanced foreign policy initiatives. These coalitions weren’t perfect, but they proved that factions within parties can bridge divides and get things done.

Today, we need factions more than ever.

The Extremes Have Mastered Factions—It’s Time for the Center to Fight Back

Look at the far-left and far-right factions in American politics. They’ve built powerful ecosystems to amplify their voices and influence. From think tanks to advocacy groups, media outlets to grassroots organizations, they’ve created infrastructure that outpaces the mainstream.

These factions know how to organize. They recruit candidates, mobilize voters, and push their agendas relentlessly. That’s why their influence often feels outsized, even when their ideas don’t represent the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, the center—the vast majority of Americans who reject extremism—has fallen behind. Moderates have stepped back, hoping that reason and common sense will prevail on their own.

But reason isn’t enough. The center won’t win just because it’s sensible; it will win only if it gets organized.

Subscribe now

The Power of Pro-Democracy Factions

Imagine powerful pro-democracy factions inside each party that are unafraid to transcend traditional party lines when necessary. A coalition of center-right and center-left Americans who frequently work together because they refuse to let the extremes dominate our politics.

These factions would have the strength to:

• Shape Party Agendas: By organizing within the existing two-party system, they could influence platforms and policies from the inside.

• Support Pro-Democracy Candidates: They could mobilize resources to elect leaders who prioritize integrity, accountability, and collaboration.

• Rebuild Trust: By fostering bipartisan coalitions, they could show Americans that consensus isn’t a weakness—it’s a strength.

Pro-democracy factions wouldn’t just balance the extremes; they’d create space for the kind of governance America desperately needs. They’d restore faith in institutions and offer a blueprint for collaboration in an era of division.

Why Factions Are the Future

Some dream of a third party to challenge the two-party system, but history shows that third parties rarely succeed in America’s political framework. Factions, on the other hand, have juice.

Factions don’t try to blow up the system—they work within it. They’re nimble, pragmatic, and effective. They can influence policy, build coalitions, and amplify the voices of ordinary citizens who reject the chaos of extremism.

The future of American politics isn’t about replacing the two-party system; it’s about reinvigorating it from within. It’s about building factions that unite the silent majority and drive real change. Intrigued? Read more.

How Mavericks Lead the Way

We’re not here to burn it all down. We’re here to organize, mobilize, and fight for the future.

Our goal is simple: build a powerful pro-democracy faction that brings together center-right and center-left Americans who love this country and refuse to let it fall to the extremes.

We’re building from the center outward—recruiting leaders, supporting candidates, and creating a movement that doesn’t just talk about change but makes it happen.

Join the Fight

You are America’s best hope. Factions are a great tool to build the future we envision. But they don’t form on their own. They need people like you—Mavericks who believe in the promise of this country and are ready to fight for it.

The future belongs to those who organize. Let’s build it together.

Join Maverick

I grew up in a family where dinnertime was a full contact sport. With six people in my immediate family and 21 cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents living in our neighborhood, our meals were more like controlled chaos. Every Tuesday night, we’d pile into Grandma’s house for her famous spaghetti, argue over who sang it better on American Idol, and sit on the porch swapping stories long into the night.

One of my earliest memories is of my uncle holding a ketchup bottle like a squirt gun, ready to “instill discipline” on anyone who coughed or sneezed at the table. It didn’t work, of course—it just made us dodge faster and laugh harder. My mom once convinced everyone that eating raw garlic was the cure for what ailed us. My grandfather, ever the showman, gagged on his clove, ran to the sink to dramatically rinse his mouth out, and returned only to sip vinegar disguised as wine (a prank courtesy of my cousin).

No one would ever accuse us of being fancy.

These weren’t refined dinners, but they were full of love, good mischief, and the kind of peace that comes from being there for each other, no matter what. We weather life’s chaos together.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the chaos we’re facing as a country. It’s overwhelming, and if I’m honest, I’m still trying to make sense of how we got here.

I love America and Americans. I think most Americans love this country, too. I think most of us are decent, optimistic people trying to make sense of a world that feels like it’s spinning out of control. But I also think a lot of us are disillusioned—bewildered, even—by how we got here. We live in a country where our neighbors re-elected an insurrectionist. We’re trapped between two major parties that seem more interested in fighting each other than representing us. And it’s not clear how to move forward.

That’s why I’m launching Maverick.

Centrists need more than just a space to read and listen—we need a place to connect and figure out how to take action. Over the past 10 years (wow!), I’ve had the chance to meet amazing people who care deeply about fighting political extremism, and my favorite part has always been the conversations—whether in-person or virtual.

You’ve told me (and I agree!) that it’s not enough to read articles or follow accounts. We want to do something in our communities. That’s the heart of what I hope Maverick can spark.

Our first series, The Centrist Playbook, explores what it means to step up in this moment and how we can work together. But I also want this Substack to be about conversation—where the comments are as thought-provoking as the posts. And where readers can actually connect.

This isn’t just about resisting chaos; it’s about rebuilding purpose. The old ways of fighting MAGA extremism didn’t work. We need to adapt and evolve. I believe we can figure this out. And more than that, I believe in us—the ones who refuse to give up, who see the spark of something better and want to fan it into a flame.

If that’s you, this playbook is for you. It’s for anyone bewildered by where we are and ready to fight for where we go next.

So, pull up a chair. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get messy, together.

About The Centrist Playbook

The next four years are going to test us. Policies will come down that divide us, frustrate us, and make life harder for millions of Americans. It’s going to be tempting to throw our hands up, tune it all out, and let the shouting match rage on without us. But that’s not how Mavericks roll.

We know the stakes. We know the fight isn’t just about this presidency—it’s about building something better. The 2026 elections are right around the corner, and we have a shot to take Congress back from the extremists. But we have to start now. We need a plan, a purpose, and a community that believes in fighting smart and building for the long haul.

Over the next two weeks, I’ll publish pieces right here on Substack to explore what comes next. In the coming months, others will join me and publish here as well. Maybe even you!

Here’s what The Centrist Playbook is all about:

• Why We Fight: Posts like The Maverick Manifesto and Seize the Moment lay out what’s at stake and why the fight for the center matters more than ever.

• How We Win: Pieces like Trench Warfare: How Moderates Can Win the Battle for America’s Future and The Myth of the Third Party will break down how to build grassroots power, show up in primaries, and support pro-democracy candidates.

• Courage and Leadership: From The Center Outward to The Underdog’s Guide to Courage in Divided Times, we’ll talk about what it takes to lead when the odds are against you.

• The Future We’re Fighting For: We’ll explore big ideas like Factional Governance, On American Patriotism, and How Centrists Will Make Your Life Better to paint a picture of what’s possible when we work together.

These posts aren’t just words—they’re a roadmap. They’re a call to action for anyone who’s tired of the chaos and ready to fight for something better. If you’ve ever wondered, What can I do? or Where do we go from here?—this is your moment to jump in.

Subscribe now

Why It Matters

If we don’t show up now, the extremes will keep winning. They’ll keep making decisions for us, taking us further down a path of division, dysfunction, and distrust. But we can change that. We can build something real—a movement of Mavericks who reject the noise, focus on the work, and deliver results.

This isn’t just about politics; it’s about reclaiming the soul of our republic. It’s about proving that common sense, courage, and collaboration still have a place in America.

So, let’s dig in. Let’s debate the big ideas, argue about the best paths forward, and commit to making 2025 the year we start winning back our country. These essays are just the beginning of the conversation.

Join us. Read, share, and engage. Together, we’ll fight smart, build strong, and show the world that the Mavericks are here to stay.

Join Maverick

So, Are You In?

In my family, chaos was just part of the deal—but so was showing up, pitching in, and figuring it out together. That’s the vision I have for the community I hope we can build as fellow Mavericks.

So now, I want to hear from you: What’s one step you’re committed to taking to fight for this country in 2025? I can’t wait to read your comments below.

Leave a comment

As Trump plots to weaponize the DOJ, Biden’s pardon of Hunter undermines trust in impartial justice. It’s a huge mistake.

The presidential pardon is a constitutional prerogative, but it is not without moral and institutional consequences. The framers of the Constitution understood the need for such an instrument to temper justice with mercy. Yet, they also presumed the officeholder wielding this power would do so with an acute awareness of its weighty implications—not only for justice but for the integrity of the republic.

Public trust in institutions is already alarmingly low. Biden’s pardon takes it lower. A president’s first duty is to the institution of the presidency and the preservation of public trust, not familial redemption.

To state it plainly, President Biden’s use of the pardon in this instance diminishes the office and the principle of equal justice under the law. The president’s actions, however well-intentioned, sets a troubling precedent. If one president can pardon a relative under the guise of mercy or perceived prosecutorial overreach, what stops others from doing so for less noble reasons? The pardon power, unconstrained by formal checks, depends entirely on the wisdom and restraint of the individual president. History teaches us that power, unmoored from prudence, invites misuse.

I was proud to support Joe Biden in 2020 and to work to get him elected. But I can’t lie—I’m deeply disappointed in President Biden’s decision to pardon his son. It’s a Trumpian act. This isn’t about politics or partisanship for me; it’s about the rule of law. One of the biggest reasons I backed Biden was because I believed he would restore trust in our institutions, especially after the years of chaos and norm-breaking under Trump. Pardoning Hunter undercuts that message in a way that’s impossible to ignore.

The pardon power should be exercised sparingly, with an eye not just to the immediate human impact but also to the enduring principles of good governance.

I understand that this must have been an incredibly personal decision for the president. But when you’re in public office—especially the presidency—you don’t get to make decisions that only serve your family. Your first obligation is to the country and to upholding the principles you were elected to defend. To me, this feels like a step backward.

I know some will defend Biden’s decision, but it’s hard to reconcile with the promise he made to restore integrity to the office. I’ll always be proud of working to elect leaders who stand against Trumpism, but moments like this are a reminder of how important it is to hold all our leaders accountable—no exceptions, no excuses.

The rule of law is not merely a principle but the foundation of our republic. To preserve the dignity of the office and the trust of the people, restraint, not pardon, would have been the wiser choice.

Leave a comment