Guatemalan workers farming tomatoes using tools provided by the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project.
Maria Lopez was thriving.
Her tomato farm in rural Guatemala was flourishing since a worker from the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (UVG) came in to show her climate-smart agricultural practices in her drought-stricken community.
“Thanks to their help, the redemption of the tomato in my greenhouse was successful,” Lopez said.
The worker was funded through a f Agency for International Development (USAID) program called the Feed the Future Initiative. Feed the Future has many programs, but the one Lopez benefited from was the Lab for Horticulture run by University of California, Davis (UC Davis). Specifically, the employee worked for a project called the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project to help farmers affected by climate change in the region.
This project helped Lopez and 3,000 other Guatemalan farmers revive their farms.
But recently, Lopez has found herself back at square one.
President Donald Trump in late February cut 90 percent of USAID foreign aid contracts, including the one helping Lopez’s farm.
USAID was established on Nov. 3, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order titled “Administration of Foreign Assistance and Related Functions.” Kennedy said USAID permits the U.S. to exert their influence to maintain freedom in countries under nondemocratic rule.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us,” Kennedy said in an address to the inaugural USAID Overseas Mission Directors.
President John F. Kennedy giving an address to Congress on May 25, 1961. | Permission for use granted via Creative Commons Licenses.
But the Trump administration undid Kennedy’s order by signing its own executive order, titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” on Jan. 20.
Trump has also remained skeptical on climate change, including calling it a hoax on many occasions. This contrasts the 97 percent of scientists who have concluded climate change is caused by humans.
“We don’t have a global warming problem,” Trump said at a campaign rally on Nov. 3, two days before the 2024 presidential election.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump also pledged an “America First” agenda, now posted on the White House website. The agenda states it will make America safe again, make America affordable and energy dominant again, bring back American values, and drain the swamp, or work to make the government more efficient.
Previously, the State Department and USAID worked together to support U.S. national interests through hard and soft power. But the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID has involved transferring some function to the State Department.
The State Department did not respond to a request to comment.
President Donald J. Trump signing an executive order on June 24, 2020. | Permission for use granted via Creative Commons Licenses.
Henry Lee is the Jassim M. Jaidah Family Director of the Environment and Natural Resources Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School. He said the cut of USAID programs will have long-term impacts on various institutions and services and that more people will be affected as time goes on.
“It’s going to have large implications on a lot of the programs that have to do with basic human rights,” Lee said, adding the cut will also have an effect on those affected by climate change.
Lee said he cannot get into Trump’s head but his decisions so far suggest climate change is a “non-issue” for his administration.
The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and, in many cases, antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.
Back in Guatemala, the project was previously run by Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez, a soil science professor at UVG.
Cifuentes Velásquez said he met with officials from UC Davis in 2022 to discuss the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. Eventually, he was given a grant of $750,000 to put his work on the ground, beginning in fall 2023.
With this money, Cifuentes Velásquez sends volunteers into the field to help people like Lopez revive their farms affected by climate change.
Flow chart of goals set by the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
Cifuentes Velásquez said one method workers use to help revive farms is to put agrotextile sheets, held up by bamboo pools, over crops like tomatoes. The goal of this method is to get rid of insects that might kill crops and to control the growing temperature.
Research from American University states Guatemala is disproportionately affected by climate change as the country sees more frequent and intense droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events.
These events affect the amount of food grown in Guatemala as droughts can cause problems like food insecurity and malnutrition in children.
With projects like Cifuentes Velásquez’s coming in to assist farmers affected by climate change around the country, crop production has increased.
Between 2019 and 2023, Guatemala saw only 2,668 thousand tons of food grown. This number has increased between 2024 and the predicted number for 2025 is 2,709 thousand tons of food.
“The profitability of the innovation is really high,” Cifuentes Velásquez said.
First Picture: The agrotextile and bamboo poles set up in the tent just as the tomatoes were planted. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez. Second Picture: Tomato plants beginning to grow. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez. Third Picture: Tomato plants almost fully grown in the agrotextile tent. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
He also added that another goal of the project was to give more economic opportunities to Guatemalans so they would stop migrating to countries like the U.S.
“The rate of migration to the USA is really high,” Cifuentes Velásquez said.
Part of the Trump administration’s goals is to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, specifically to deport undocumented migrants in the country. A report from the BBC estimates that as of 2022, there are 675,000 undocumented Guatemalans in the U.S.
Since the volunteer who assisted Lopez in receiving her farm has left, she said her farm is not doing as well as before. Lopez also said she did not know it was the decision of the Trump administration to shut down the project but rather UVG.
Other farmers were more lucky. Miguel Santo Miculax, another farmer benefiting from the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project, said the worker who showed him agricultural techniques still comes to help him.
Although the worker is no longer being paid, he said the worker understands the importance of the project so he volunteers his time to the farmers who previously benefited from the program. Santo Miculax also said the worker informed him the project was shut down due to the Trump administration.
Santo Miculax added programs like the one helping him on his farm disincentives him and his family from migrating to places like the U.S. He also said migrating for Guatemalans is often very dangerous as people lose their lives while traveling.
"Every government has the right to look after its own interests. We can't blame them for that but rather be grateful for what they've already given us,” said Santo Miculax.
But USAID programs helping alleviate problems caused by climate change are not only happening in Guatemala but worldwide. A former USAID climate specialist said funding for climate projects were located in other places where extreme weather caused by climate change has affected agriculture.
The specialist said USAID mainly partnered with the country’s local or national governments to create projects catered to communities. But climate change is not only affecting agriculture as the climate specialist also said they worked on projects relating to combating climate change.
“Our agenda was really looking across all of our sectors, food security, water security, health education, across all of these issue sets, and ensuring that adaptation was built into those efforts,” the climate specialist said.
Even though the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project shut down, Cifuentes Velásquez said he is thankful for the work he accomplished with the help of the U.S. government but recognizes the country has their own interests they want to adhere to.
“We recognize the money that is used for foreign aid comes from the American people,” Cifuentes Velásquez said. “So we are really grateful for that.”
Tomatoes grown by Guatemalan farmers with help from the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
Editor’s Note: Interviews with Maria Lopez and Miguel Santo Miculax were translated from Spanish to English by Valeria Garaycoa.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
Maria Lopez was thriving.
Her tomato farm in rural Guatemala was flourishing since a worker from the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (UVG) came in to show her climate-smart agricultural practices in her drought-stricken community.
“Thanks to their help, the redemption of the tomato in my greenhouse was successful,” Lopez said.
The worker was funded through a f Agency for International Development (USAID) program called the Feed the Future Initiative. Feed the Future has many programs, but the one Lopez benefited from was the Lab for Horticulture run by University of California, Davis (UC Davis). Specifically, the employee worked for a project called the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project to help farmers affected by climate change in the region.
This project helped Lopez and 3,000 other Guatemalan farmers revive their farms.
But recently, Lopez has found herself back at square one.
President Donald Trump in late February cut 90 percent of USAID foreign aid contracts, including the one helping Lopez’s farm.
USAID was established on Nov. 3, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order titled “Administration of Foreign Assistance and Related Functions.” Kennedy said USAID permits the U.S. to exert their influence to maintain freedom in countries under nondemocratic rule.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us,” Kennedy said in an address to the inaugural USAID Overseas Mission Directors.
President John F. Kennedy giving an address to Congress on May 25, 1961. | Permission for use granted via Creative Commons Licenses.
But the Trump administration undid Kennedy’s order by signing its own executive order, titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” on Jan. 20.
Trump has also remained skeptical on climate change, including calling it a hoax on many occasions. This contrasts the 97 percent of scientists who have concluded climate change is caused by humans.
“We don’t have a global warming problem,” Trump said at a campaign rally on Nov. 3, two days before the 2024 presidential election.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump also pledged an “America First” agenda, now posted on the White House website. The agenda states it will make America safe again, make America affordable and energy dominant again, bring back American values, and drain the swamp, or work to make the government more efficient.
Previously, the State Department and USAID worked together to support U.S. national interests through hard and soft power. But the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID has involved transferring some function to the State Department.
The State Department did not respond to a request to comment.
President Donald J. Trump signing an executive order on June 24, 2020. | Permission for use granted via Creative Commons Licenses.
Henry Lee is the Jassim M. Jaidah Family Director of the Environment and Natural Resources Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School. He said the cut of USAID programs will have long-term impacts on various institutions and services and that more people will be affected as time goes on.
“It’s going to have large implications on a lot of the programs that have to do with basic human rights,” Lee said, adding the cut will also have an effect on those affected by climate change.
Lee said he cannot get into Trump’s head but his decisions so far suggest climate change is a “non-issue” for his administration.
The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and, in many cases, antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.
Back in Guatemala, the project was previously run by Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez, a soil science professor at UVG.
Cifuentes Velásquez said he met with officials from UC Davis in 2022 to discuss the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. Eventually, he was given a grant of $750,000 to put his work on the ground, beginning in fall 2023.
With this money, Cifuentes Velásquez sends volunteers into the field to help people like Lopez revive their farms affected by climate change.
Flow chart of goals set by the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
Cifuentes Velásquez said one method workers use to help revive farms is to put agrotextile sheets, held up by bamboo pools, over crops like tomatoes. The goal of this method is to get rid of insects that might kill crops and to control the growing temperature.
Research from American University states Guatemala is disproportionately affected by climate change as the country sees more frequent and intense droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events.
These events affect the amount of food grown in Guatemala as droughts can cause problems like food insecurity and malnutrition in children.
With projects like Cifuentes Velásquez’s coming in to assist farmers affected by climate change around the country, crop production has increased.
Between 2019 and 2023, Guatemala saw only 2,668 thousand tons of food grown. This number has increased between 2024 and the predicted number for 2025 is 2,709 thousand tons of food.
“The profitability of the innovation is really high,” Cifuentes Velásquez said.
First Picture: The agrotextile and bamboo poles set up in the tent just as the tomatoes were planted. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez. Second Picture: Tomato plants beginning to grow. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez. Third Picture: Tomato plants almost fully grown in the agrotextile tent. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
He also added that another goal of the project was to give more economic opportunities to Guatemalans so they would stop migrating to countries like the U.S.
“The rate of migration to the USA is really high,” Cifuentes Velásquez said.
Part of the Trump administration’s goals is to overhaul the U.S. immigration system, specifically to deport undocumented migrants in the country. A report from the BBC estimates that as of 2022, there are 675,000 undocumented Guatemalans in the U.S.
Since the volunteer who assisted Lopez in receiving her farm has left, she said her farm is not doing as well as before. Lopez also said she did not know it was the decision of the Trump administration to shut down the project but rather UVG.
Other farmers were more lucky. Miguel Santo Miculax, another farmer benefiting from the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project, said the worker who showed him agricultural techniques still comes to help him.
Although the worker is no longer being paid, he said the worker understands the importance of the project so he volunteers his time to the farmers who previously benefited from the program. Santo Miculax also said the worker informed him the project was shut down due to the Trump administration.
Santo Miculax added programs like the one helping him on his farm disincentives him and his family from migrating to places like the U.S. He also said migrating for Guatemalans is often very dangerous as people lose their lives while traveling.
"Every government has the right to look after its own interests. We can't blame them for that but rather be grateful for what they've already given us,” said Santo Miculax.
But USAID programs helping alleviate problems caused by climate change are not only happening in Guatemala but worldwide. A former USAID climate specialist said funding for climate projects were located in other places where extreme weather caused by climate change has affected agriculture.
The specialist said USAID mainly partnered with the country’s local or national governments to create projects catered to communities. But climate change is not only affecting agriculture as the climate specialist also said they worked on projects relating to combating climate change.
“Our agenda was really looking across all of our sectors, food security, water security, health education, across all of these issue sets, and ensuring that adaptation was built into those efforts,” the climate specialist said.
Even though the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project shut down, Cifuentes Velásquez said he is thankful for the work he accomplished with the help of the U.S. government but recognizes the country has their own interests they want to adhere to.
“We recognize the money that is used for foreign aid comes from the American people,” Cifuentes Velásquez said. “So we are really grateful for that.”
Tomatoes grown by Guatemalan farmers with help from the UVG Climate Smart Agriculture Project. | Courtesy of Rolando Cifuentes Velásquez.
Editor’s Note: Interviews with Maria Lopez and Miguel Santo Miculax were translated from Spanish to English by Valeria Garaycoa.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
View over Harvard Yard of Harvard University.
The great American historian, Richard Hofstadter, author of the prophetic, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” (1964) wrote, “A university's essential character is that of being a center of free inquiry and criticism—a thing not to be sacrificed for anything else." Unfortunately, up until now, no great university has heeded these words when it came to challenging the Trump administration’s war on higher education and other key social institutions.
Harvard is finally standing its ground. As Trump escalates his campaign against higher education, President Alan Garber’s rejection of the White House’s outrageous demands is both overdue and essential. His defiance could mark the beginning of broader resistance to an agenda determined to reshape—or dismantle—America’s leading universities. This bold move could inspire other institutions to defend their autonomy and uphold the principles of academic freedom. But one question remains: why didn’t Columbia, or powerful institutions like the Paul Weiss law firm, take a similar stand?
A Dangerous Escalation
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard, just hours after Garber’s statement, represents a sharp escalation in its efforts to intimidate and control elite academic institutions in hopes of bringing the rest of higher education into line. The demands are staggering in scope: faculty purges, ideological audits, the dismantling of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, and the punishment of student protesters. These aren’t legitimate reforms—they’re political purges cloaked in bureaucratic language. The administration doesn’t view universities as spaces for open inquiry but as ideological battlegrounds to be conquered.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Harvard, finally, said no.
Columbia, by contrast, caved in. Facing similar pressure, its leadership restructured departments, modified disciplinary policies, and allowed increased government oversight of its academic operations. None of it worked—Columbia’s federal funding remains frozen and it may soon be placed under court-ordered supervision. The lesson is clear: appeasement doesn’t pay. Only principled resistance offers a chance to preserve institutional integrity in the Trump era.
Just as disappointing was the silence—or complicity—of powerful legal institutions to Trump's power grab. Take Paul Weiss, the high-powered law firm previously known for its work with liberal causes. Like Columbia, it caved, letting the Trump administration use it like a doormat. When Trump threatened similar sanctions, Paul Weiss didn’t protest. Instead, the firm took the easy way out by agreeing to pro bono work for Trump's causes, despite knowing the administration's actions were illegal. With its vast influence, the firm could have coordinated legal pushback. Instead, it remained silent, signaling deference or fear. When the legal profession fails to defend itself, the threat to democratic norms deepens for us all.
Breaking the Cycle
Harvard’s refusal matters because it disrupts a pattern of institutional surrender. Garber’s statement, reinforced by a legal letter describing the administration’s demands as “unmoored from the law,” was not just a rejection—it was a model for how universities can respond with clarity and resolve. Harvard recognizes that the battle must be fought on multiple fronts, including public relations; it even redesigned its homepage to emphasize the life-changing research supported by federal grants, from new cancer therapies to assistive technologies. All of which could be taken away, simply because Trump’s political agenda demands that elite institutions like Harvard bend down before him.
But Harvard cannot stand alone. Other institutions must recognize that this is not an isolated dispute—it is part of a larger effort to erode freedom and gain political control over major institutions. If the most powerful universities fail to push back, who will? Harming higher education will weaken America by stifling innovation, critical thinking, and the development of future leaders. The erosion of academic freedom undermines the very foundation of a democratic society—a key part of the authoritarian playbook, making it crucial for all educational institutions to unite in defense of their independence and integrity.
Some resistance is emerging. Princeton has made public statements of concern, and several universities are joining lawsuits against the administration’s actions. But many remain silent, perhaps hoping to avoid notice. Columbia’s fate shows that silence is no shield. This administration is not offering compromise—it demands submission.
What’s Really at Stake
This is not just a fight over campus politics. It is a battle over the future of democratic governance—over who defines truth, who controls knowledge, and who prepares the next generation of civic leaders. When universities and other key institutions are reduced to instruments of political control, democracy starts to rot from within. Authoritarian regimes don’t just silence dissent—they rewrite the curriculum.
Harvard’s stance must become a rallying cry. This is not a moment for celebration but for solidarity. Resistance will be costly—legally, politically, and financially. But the cost of surrender is far greater: the erosion of academic freedom and the collapse of democratic norms.
Now is the time for courage. Institutions with voice, credibility, and resources must speak out. And if they won’t, the public must demand to know: what exactly are they afraid of?
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
The African American Mayors Association holds its 11th annual conference, this year in Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON – Black mayors from across the country gathered in the nation’s capital for the annual African American Mayors Association Conference last week and strategized ways to govern their cities despite ongoing federal job cuts and recent actions coming from the Trump administration.
At the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, President Donald Trump conducted his second round of mass firings. Those who were not fired were told to go back to in-person work the same week in late March.
Currently, around 2,400 people have reportedly been laid off.
“People that are employed in Atlanta, particularly the CDC workers, do an amazing job at helping the world live and thrive and fight disease and really enable us to work across the world in a way that a lot of structures don’t,” Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said. “So when the Trump Administration is DOGEing these hard workers, it gives me heartburn.”
Over 170 mayors used the “The Power of Now” themed conference to brainstorm how to manage the fallout from Trump’s agenda on everything from public safety and infrastructure to the impacts of climate change on their residents’ health.
“This is a pivotal time for all of our cities, and I hope this year brings together new partnerships and an exchange of information about what's working and what's not in each of our cities as we move forward to serve,” association president Steven Reed said, who currently serves as mayor of Montgomery, Alabama.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
For Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, the 2nd vice president of the association, infrastructure is key to having “healthier and more vibrant neighborhoods” for cities around the country, especially in urban areas. He pointed to Baltimore launching the Office of Infrastructure Development during his first term as an example.
“These efforts are about more than just concrete and steel,” Scott said. “They are about connecting residents to jobs, to schools and essential services, especially in neighborhoods that have been overlooked for too long.”
LaToya Cantrell, the Mayor of New Orleans, also highlighted the importance of having federal government agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, in coastal cities like hers, where they face constant climate change threats.
“There have been commitments made to our city, and we want to ensure that those resources come, so that we can do the work that has been mandated for us to do,” said Cantrell.
With the CDC layoffs, Atlanta has become a focal point of how federal actions could lead to serious local difficulties.
On Tuesday, a group of protesters, with U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock and Representative Hank Johnson, met in front of the headquarters to rally in support of those recently fired. They criticized the negative impacts the administration could have on health in the city and the U.S.
“The other thing that happens then is you have unemployment that now grows in the city where we’ve had low unemployment for so long,” Dickens said. “I’m hopeful we can help them find employment through all of the various challenges that we may have.”
Association members said it is important not only to highlight solidarity among city officials during uncertain times like these but also to promote transparency and unity throughout all government levels.
“We know that when the federal, state and local leaders work together, monumental change is possible in our communities. That’s why we're grateful for the support that we have received, but we also recognize the work and the need to continue that as we move ahead,” Scott said.
Jordan Owens is a journalism student at the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, pursuing a master’s of Journalism, Politics, Policy & Foreign Affairs Specialization.
Pope Francis is being remembered for his reformist stance that both challenged conservative elements within the Catholic Church and resonated with progressive movements. The 88-year-old Argentina-born pontiff passed away on Monday following a series of health complications.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church often shared his perspectives on various societal issues, including the relationship between faith and democracy. His tenure as pope was marked by a commitment to social justice, human rights, and the dignity of all individuals, which naturally intersects with democratic ideals.
In a social media message last December, marking Human Rights Day, Pope Francis again pleaded for governments "to listen to the cry for peace of the millions of people deprived of their most basic rights due to war," which, he said, "is the mother of all poverty."
While visiting the headquarters of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (DPIHD) on September 20, 2024, Pope Francis called for a fight against social injustices, reiterating his proposal for a Universal Basic Income and higher taxes for billionaires.
He warned that if there are no just policies ensuring access to land, housing, and fair wages, “the logic of material and human waste will spread, paving the way for violence and desolation.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“Unfortunately,” he added, “it is often the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology, out of pure greed.”
During an annual Roman Catholic Church convention on social affairs last year, Pope Francis expressed concerns about the state of democracy, highlighting that many individuals feel excluded, particularly the poor and vulnerable, who are left to navigate challenges on their own. He remarked, "It is evident that democracy is not in good health in today’s world," criticizing the growing polarization and partisanship observed in society.
Pope Francis likened ideologies to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, stating that while they can be appealing, they ultimately lead individuals to deny their true selves. He pointed out that this "crisis of democracy" is a shared issue affecting various countries worldwide.
Francis clashed repeatedly with President Donald Trump in recent years.
During the 2016 election, Pope Francis expressed strong criticism of Donald Trump's campaign proposal to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," Francis said.
Trump, who aggressively courted evangelical Christian leaders and voters during his campaign, fired back immediately, saying, "For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful," reported NPR.
In February, amidst the second Trump administration's efforts to tighten immigration policies, Pope Francis issued a rare public criticism of the president's approach. In a letter addressed to U.S. Catholic bishops, he referred to the mass deportation program as a "major crisis."
Francis wrote, "The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness."
President Trump announced he will attend Pope Francis' funeral, marking what would be his first international trip during his second term in office.
Editor's Note: Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
The U.S. Constitution.
One action or law that violates the letter or established interpretation of the Constitution may simply be unconstitutional, but a series of brazen actions, unlicensed assertions of power that trespass on constitutional text and legal precedent, uncloaks anti-constitutionalism. Multiple examples of anti-constitutional assertions of power reveal a threat to U.S. democracy and point to the deliberate stirring of political chaos to advance power grabbing. We should anticipate that calling for a Constitutional Convention may well be another such tactic and we must do what’s possible to block it.
Asserting by executive order, the nullification of the right to citizenship for those born in the U.S.—despite the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—is but one example. Claiming that there are “methods” to obtain a third presidential term when the 22nd Amendment prohibits it is another example. Supplanting via executive order the rights of states and Congress to regulate elections under the Constitution’s Elections Clause is a further example. Claiming the power to dismantle federal agencies created by law and currently funded by Congress flouts the Constitution’s requirement under Article 2 that the President, and by extension the executive branch, must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Ignoring immigrants’ due process rights and penalizing law firms and universities are among the other instances where that good faith requirement is being disregarded.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Those actions are part of a “flood the zone” approach to overwhelming opposition and any challenge to power grabs via traditional checks and balances. The resulting political chaos creates cover for the attack on constitutional order. When anti-constitutional measures are blocked by the courts, it is labeled as an improper constraint on “inherent” executive powers and proof that the system is broken. The implication is that the constitutional order is the problem.
Clamoring to change the Constitution, but how? By amendment or convention?
Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tennessee) is proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow President Trump to seek a third term. Abolishing birthright citizenship could also be addressed by a constitutional amendment as could other matters. According to Article 5 of the Constitution, each of them would require two-thirds approval by both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. The current political compositions of Congress and state legislatures make passage of such amendments highly unlikely. However, Article 5 provides a never previously used means that could almost certainly heighten political chaos.
Article 5 requires Congress to convene a constitutional convention for “proposing amendments” upon the application of two-thirds of the states, 34 states today. That bypasses a two-thirds congressional vote to open Pandora’s constitutional box.
The article is silent about what constitutes an application or how long one remains valid. It also does not state that applications must be about a particular subject or whether applications about different subjects could be amalgamated to meet the 34-state requirement. Plus, it provides no rules about a constitutional convention’s size, scope, or how it is to be administered. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, while the November 2024 elections provided Republicans with control of both legislative houses in 23 states and Democrats with control of both houses in 15, it is possible that the MAGA movement would be able to control a constitutional convention should one take place any time soon.
If a convention is convened, any and all of the present articles and amendments of the Constitution could be targeted for change or even a complete rewrite could be offered as an amendment. Revoking the presidential two-term limit, abolishing birthright citizenship, limiting judicial powers, eliminating legal abortion, defining gender as sex assigned at birth, and a litany of other topics could be combined to make the call for a constitutional convention a political bludgeon against checks and balances of presidential power as well as against “wokeness”. And, those rallying cries could be joined with more traditional calls for a convention to address balanced budgets and other matters.
Is constitutional amending or creating chaos the point?
If a convention were to take place, Article 5 requires that any proposed constitutional amendments resulting from it would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. While it is unlikely that the threshold could be met, at least in the near future, the political chaos caused by a convention would likely be dramatic. And, Congress could specify in calling for the convention that ratification be by state conventions, rather than by state legislatures. Those conventions could be closed affairs or otherwise preclude democratic debate. Some states would probably refuse to convene them but heightened polarization and political fallout would be likely consequences, nationally and in states that hold conventions.
Extreme elements would surely claim the lack of success shows that the Constitution and its processes are the problem. That could fuel calls to suspend the Constitution, adding to chaotic politics as upcoming elections approach. In that context, if courts resist anti-constitutional actions, if large-scale protests are pushed into violent confrontations, or if other pretexts develop, the potential for constitutional suspension could significantly increase. Other countries have gone into such constitutional limbos to negative ends.
Put bluntly, though there are sound reasons to debate constitutional weaknesses and a democratic path to amendments, fomenting political chaos can create an opportunity for autocracy. The current drive for a convention seems to head in that direction.
What about the 34-state application requirement for convening a convention?
Some argue that all requests by states—no matter on what subject and no matter how old—should be added together unless they are rescinded. Citing data presented in the Article 5 Library, an unofficial website, they claim that the 34-state threshold is already surpassed. And, there is an effort to initiate a lawsuit on that basis to force Congress to call a convention. Representative Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who believes enough applications are filed, has introduced legislation requiring Congress to call a constitutional convention. He also introduced a bill charging the National Archives with developing an official tally of state convention applications, which could settle the debate about meeting the 34-state requirement.
Common Cause states that six more applications are needed to trigger a convention, noting that there are four major campaigns underway to meet the threshold. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) is among those actively lobbying states to pass convention applications, including advising the successful effort in North Carolina last year. The Convention of States Action website notes that there are 19 states with active convention applications and 21 states actively considering such resolutions, including eight where one legislative chamber has passed one. That demonstrates the nationwide political tug-of-war over the 34-state requirement.
As many as 11 states have rescinded their earlier convention applications since 2016. New York is the most recent example, and a bill is presently moving forward in California’s legislature to void that state’s seven applications approved over time. (The seven include a 1911 application concerning the direct election of U.S. Senators, though ratification of the 17th Amendment rendered it moot.) The California effort is backed by action groups, including the state's chapters of Common Cause, League of Women Voters, and Indivisible. The American Constitution Society (ACS) and its immediate past president, former Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who co-authored a book on the subject, have also raised an alarm about the dangers of a constitutional convention in present times.
Can a runaway constitutional convention be prevented?
Every citizen has a say in whether a constitutional convention is called and there are significant ways to use that voice.
It is important to determine the status of the application issue in particular state legislatures and to weigh in with representatives, both state and national. That can be done on an individual basis and/or as part of organized efforts. Common Cause recently launched a campaign enlisting citizens to oppose convening a constitutional convention. It is also facilitating a coalition of almost 250 national, state, and local organizations opposing a convention, the Defend Our Constitution project, which provides resource materials and calls to action.
California’s example shows that citizen groups like Indivisible and the League of Women Voters can join efforts to rescind prior convention applications or oppose the passage of new ones. The proposed California bill’s text (SJR1) is straightforward and could serve as a template. The issue is also fitting for “Hands Off!” efforts. Contacting state and local chapters of these and other organizations—including unions and religious and civil rights groups—and urging them to take up the issue is crucial; along with using personal and social media networks and sending op-ed pieces and letters to traditional and online news sources.
Marshaling citizen power to confront anti-constitutionalism wrapped in the guise of “amending” the Constitution is essential to putting an end to spreading political chaos and authoritarian power grabbing. Otherwise, “flooding the field” could drown American democracy—though much more is needed than just defending the Constitution. We all have the responsibility to defend and promote the promise of democracy.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
