About a decade ago, I was arrested alongside coal miners from Appalachia. They were fighting back after a big coal company stole their pensions and healthcare.

Many liberals ignored their fight, because the miners were red state voters. They said, “Why should we fight for THEIR rights – when they vote against OURS??”

But I saw it differently. I went to the protest anyway. And I learned something very valuable. Watch this video. Tell me what you think.

Subscribe now

Technology is advancing faster than people are. In the gap between what’s being built and who’s keeping up, there is enormous potential for social upheaval. People don’t just suffer economically when they get left behind. They also lose purpose. People without purpose are unpredictable in ways that could be dangerous for everyone.

The industrial civilization we’re replacing already left a lot of people out. We cannot afford to make that same mistake — especially not at this scale and this speed.

There are overlooked communities full of genius, grit and creativity. They also have enormous problems. And as my friend Peter Diamandis reminds us, the biggest problems create the opportunity to build the biggest solutions.

Nothing good happens for poor and marginalized people by accident. We need intention and strategy. We need an entirely new category of technology that protects dignity and provides stability.

If we put the most advanced creative tools in the hands of people who need to build a new future for themselves, we could build something that closes the gap instead of widening it.

On one side, I speak with people who can’t pay their bills. On the other, I meet founders who are drowning in capital. That gap—between what Silicon Valley is building and how everyday people are keeping up—is a threat to all of us. 

The “Age of A.I.” could be an age of miracles and wonders — for a few. But it will not uplift the majority by accident.

That will require a real commitment at the political level to a “new deal” between technology companies and humanity.

And at the economic level, it will require a whole series of new “moonshots” — aimed at providing food, clothing, shelter, energy and broadband to dislocated workers at scale.

Call it dignity tech, social tech or stability tech. It’s the frontier of the frontier. I will meet you there.

I am honored to be working with Peter Diamandis and the folks at the X Prize to eventually create a new X Prize to “distribute abundance” in the exponential era.

Watch the video to hear some solutions and subscribe so you don’t miss what comes next.

Subscribe now

That said: I would be proud to work with her and any other conservative figures in a campaign to challenge our entire nation to move away from extremism, dehumanization and violence. In the meantime, I hope everyone continues to keep her and her children in our prayers.

So, I think a lot of people are making the mistake of just writing Hasan Piker off because some of the things he says are so surprising, so shocking, so outrageous. A lot of people think it’s good enough to just call him names and hope he goes away. I think that’s a big mistake.

Hasan Piker has a massive audience. He’s emerging as one of the major voices of his generation. And I think it’s important that those of us who disagree with him take the time to address his claim. His claim is pretty simple. It’s that the Israelis have been so brutal to the Palestinians, have treated them so badly and have prosecuted the war in Gaza with such violence – that pretty much anything Hamas does pales in comparison. Anything that Hamas does is essentially justified. That’s his basic claim.

I think that claim has a lot of appeal for people. It is true that the Palestinians have suffered grievously over these many decades. I’ve been to the West Bank. I’ve seen it myself. I was in Gaza before Hamas took over. I have seen the conditions of the Palestinian people, and they have been treated badly. Many people felt that the Gaza war was prosecuted too aggressively. And that’s why I think his critique and his comments resonate with a lot of people.

But I do see it very differently than Hasan Piker. And my position doesn’t come out of a position of not knowing anything about oppression. It doesn’t come out of a lack of knowledge about liberation struggles. In fact, the opposite.

Subscribe now

For a big chunk of my life, I was a street-level activist on the left side of Pluto. Why? Because of the pain of my people. I understood the brutality we suffered during our enslavement and during the vicious violent colonial conquest of Africa. And frankly I saw the pain we still suffer in prisons, in jails and in housing projects. Based on my own indignation at the mistreatment of my people, I understand why some people say “anything you do to defend your people is completely justified when they have been mistreated.”

But I was lucky enough to meet people who were older than me in the struggle. I met people who had been in the Black Panther Party, people who had been in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, people who had been in the African National Congress in South Africa. I met people who had to make the actual choice of whether to pick up the gun – and if they picked up the gun, how to use it.

And those people humbled me. They taught me things that I think are not being shared anymore with the next generation.

One thing they taught me was – in the choice between nonviolence and violence – there are legitimate times to be nonviolent. But there are also times to take up arms. Yes, we have a beautiful nonviolent tradition in the black community led by people like Dr. King, Ella Jo Baker, Fannie Lou Hamer and Bayard Rustin. When these people got to heaven – Gandhi himself probably bowed. These are giants of nonviolence. That is an honorable tradition in my community.

But there are people in my community who did pick up the gun. The Black Panther Party did. Malcolm X said we have the right to do it. And many of our leaders in Africa engaged in armed struggle.

BUT when they did it, they had moral principles they refused to walk away from. The choice wasn’t just between violence or nonviolence. It was between principled armed struggle (which focuses on soldiers and military targets) and TERRORISM (which deliberately targets civilians).

Look at Nelson Mandela with the ANC in South Africa, Amílcar Cabral in Guinea-Bissau, Samora Machel in Mozambique and Agostinho Neto in Angola. They engaged in armed struggle, and their opponents called them terrorists. But they were not targeting civilians; to the contrary, they worked hard to minimize civilian casualties. They had the opportunity to kill a lot of white colonial family members – women, children and babies. There were a lot of white civilians living in their countries who were easy targets.

But African freedom fighters chose not to kill those people. They chose instead to focus their guns only on soldiers, only on infrastructure. Why? They did not want to become what they were fighting.

In other words: even in an armed struggle, there are rules. Even in an armed struggle, there are principles. And the principles are – no women, no children, no rapes, no kidnapping. These are moral principles that any liberation struggle must uphold.

There is a way to judge an organization and decide if it is worthy of your support. You ask two questions. First, you ask: “What are the ends of the organization? What are their goals?” And then you ask: “What are their means? How are they getting there?”

Subscribe now

In my tradition, the ends have to be more freedom, more dignity and more democracy for more people. Those are the principles of freedom fighting organizations in our community that we stand with and we uphold.

Hamas is not that kind of organization. Hamas is not fighting for more freedom for Palestinians. It’s actually fighting for less. This is an organization that wants a theocracy, not a democracy. They want Islamic fundamentalism. In other words, they want to rule their people based on Islamo-fascist principles. There is nothing wrong with them being Muslims or following basic teachings of Islam. But Islamism goes far beyond that – seeking theocracy, domination, no rights for people.

So Hamas is not a “freedom fighting” organization. It is actually a “freedom TAKING” organization. I don’t support that.

Number two – their means. It’s not that Hamas is not nonviolent; it’s that they are terrorists. Hasan Piker says that Hamas killed a lot of people on October 7th. But since then, Israel has killed many more Palestinians than Hamas has ever killed. Well, he’s right, but not for lack of trying on Hamas’s part. Hamas has spent the past 10 years firing rockets at innocent Israeli men, women, children, babies, hospitals, schools and nurseries. The only reason those rockets have not murdered tens of thousands of Israelis is because of the Iron Dome. The United States has funded a missile defense system to keep Hamas from being able to murder people.

Hamas is deliberately going after innocent civilians. Of course, you could say – “Well, hold on a second. Israel has at times seemed to be targeting or harming innocent Palestinians.” That is something that a lot of people have objected to. But in my tradition, you never let your opponent’s morality dictate your own. You do not let your opponent’s tactics dictate your own – because you don’t want to become what you’re fighting. You don’t want to accidentally begin to mirror the very things you abhor in your opponent.

In referencing anti-colonial struggles, I do not mean to suggest that Israel is a colonial power. Both peoples have a legitimate historical claim to that land. In a classic colonial situation, that’s not true. Israelis, Palestinians, Jews and Arabs all have a right to be in the Holy Land. What I’m saying is that even if this were an anti-colonial struggle and even if armed self-defense were justified, terrorism is not. Attacking innocent women, children, babies is not justified ever. That’s my point.

And so there is a moral standard that Amílcar Cabral held himself to in fighting against the Portuguese – who were brutal, who were horrible, who were using napalm against black women. They were cutting black women open and pulling out the fetuses. The Portuguese did horrific things to Africans. But when Amílcar Cabral engaged in armed struggle to free his people, he refused to do any of that to Portuguese women and children. Amílcar Cabral’s refusal to stoop to those sorts of tactics ultimately won the Portuguese people over to the side of the African freedom fighters in the 1970s.

I think most people can agree on three things: (1) a secure homelands for both peoples, (2) no hate and (3) protect the babies. I think that’s pretty straightforward. You want Jewish people and Palestinians to have secure homelands. You don’t want hatred against Israelis, Palestinians, Muslims, or Jews. And you don’t want civilians being put in harm’s way – either directly on purpose by Hamas or indirectly in a reckless way by Bibi Netanyahu. I think most people – if you just sat down and talked about it for more than 15 minutes – would agree on most of that.

In world affairs, there is a way to use nonviolence – and even sometimes armed struggle. But it must be in pursuit of good ends using moral means. Hamas fails both tests.

That’s why Hamas is not a thousand times better than Israel. That’s why Hamas should be rejected by people who want freedom for the Palestinian people, freedom for the Israelis, and freedom for humanity.

That tragedy occurred 10 years ago this week. While the world was mourning the death of a great artist, I was grieving the loss a great friend and mentor. I appreciate Don Lemon for giving me a chance to share my reaction to Prince’s death.

I am glad that more people now recognize what an incredible humanitarian and philanthropist he was — a fact he humbly concealed from public view while he was alive. He changed my life and the lives of so many others. I really don’t have adequate words now. And I’m surprised I had any words at all back then. I still miss him every single day.

Prince Rogers Nelson, Rest In Purple.

Subscribe now

More on Iran: If this resonated with you, find more of my articles on this topic:

• War in Iran: Every Argument For It and Against It — Laid Bare

• The War With Iran - Van Jones feat. Iranian Activist Elica Le Bon

• The World Needs A Free Iran

• Hope After Revolution: Iran + Israel = BFFs?

I read U.S. President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act — and studied all sides of the ensuing debate.

There is widespread debate about whether a voter I.D. overhaul is feasible before midterms. Below I lay out the strongest version of the arguments — on BOTH sides. I want you to see all the arguments and information that your news and social media feeds may not be showing you. That’s what these cheat sheets are for.

The Workability Question

Is this bill ready for the real world? Or would it throw the system into chaos right before the midterms?

The Case For the Bill

The SAVE Act would kick in as soon as it’s signed. The Election Assistance Commission would have 10 days to send guidance to every state.

Supporters say the tight timeline is the point: it forces states to act instead of stalling. The sheer number of noncitizens who have flooded our country constitutes a national emergency – requiring bold action to secure our democracy from foreign interference at the voting booth. Deep state obstructionists and blue state opponents need to be run over and forced to do the right thing.

Proponents say opponents are deliberately making this sound harder and more complicated than it actually is.

• The bill has backup options for people who don’t have the main documents.

• Federal agencies — especially DHS — would help states check voter rolls using the SAVE database.

• The same forms, the same rules, everywhere. Simple.

There’s also a practical argument: checking documents up front, at the point of registration, is actually easier for election offices than trying to maintain accurate databases after the fact. One clean check at the door beats an endless game of whack-a-mole with bad data.

The argument: The tools exist. The documents exist. What’s missing is the will to use them.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents say there is zero chance a law this sweeping could be implemented on this timetable. They say it is totally impractical – bordering on ludicrous – to say otherwise.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors — a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic mayors — wrote to the Senate opposing the bill on pure nuts-and-bolts grounds. They didn’t mince words. They said the bill would “insert chaos into our election system,” dump an “unfunded burden on state and local governments” and force huge changes to how we register voters “shortly before the midterm elections.”

These aren’t political pundits. These are the local elected officials who actually oversee and run elections.

Also, there’s the SAVE database — the DHS system the bill relies on to check voter rolls. It’s already being used in some states. And it’s already getting things wrong.

• Denton County, Texas: 84 voters flagged as possible noncitizens. When officials actually checked? At least 12 — more than 14% — were American citizens.

• Missouri: State officials acted on the system’s flags before checking them, telling counties to block flagged voters. County clerks reported that in many cases, the people flagged turned out to be eligible Americans.

• Multiple states: According to the Brennan Center, DHS has had to send corrections to several states after the system wrongly tagged citizens as noncitizens.

The Bipartisan Policy Center found that even in states already using the system, it flagged a big chunk of the people who had already shown proof of citizenship when they registered.

One Texas election administrator summed it up in three words: “Not ready for prime time.”

There’s one more thing. Right now, 42 states let you register to vote online. Under this bill, that would be out the window.

• According to multiple election law analyses, the SAVE Act would effectively end online registration in most states — because you can’t upload an original birth certificate through a website.

• The Voter Participation Center, a nonpartisan group focused on voter access, analyzed federal election data and found that 83 percent of current voters used registration methods that would be restricted or eliminated under this bill.

• All of this would happen now — before the bill would massively expand the SAVE database’s role. With no new money. No phase-in period. And criminal penalties for the officials who have to make it work.

That’s not a tweak to the system. That’s rebuilding it from scratch. In the middle of an election year.

The whole idea would be laughable – if the threat were not so serious.

The argument: The people who actually run elections say this bill would crash our voting system. The database at its core is already misfiring. Blowing up online registration in an election year is chaos, not reform.

Which arguments did I get right? Which ones did I get wrong? Hit me in the comments. That’s what this space is for.

If this piece made you think twice about something you thought you’d already figured out — or introduced an argument or piece of information you had not considered before – subscribe or share it.

The internet wants you dumb and angry. We’re trying to do something different here.

Subscribe now

I read U.S. President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act — and studied all sides of the ensuing debate.

Both sides disagree on how difficult it is to obtain identification. Below I lay out the strongest version of the arguments — on BOTH sides. I want you to be well-armed by seeing arguments and information that you may not be seeing in your news and social media feeds. That’s what these cheat sheets are for.

The “Access To Paperwork” Question

Can every U.S. citizen who has the right to vote get the paperwork this bill demands? Or would the new paperwork requirements hit hardest the people who fought longest and hardest for the right to vote?

The Case For the Bill

Supporters say every citizen – with minimal effort – can get the required documents:

• Birth certificates can come from the government (if they’re legitimate and were filed properly).

• Passports come from the State Department.

• Naturalization certificates are given out at the citizenship ceremony.

The paperwork exists. If you care about your right to vote, just get your papers together!

If you don’t have them, you should get them. It’s a one-time thing when you register – plus a reasonable added layer of security when you vote. That’s it. (Besides, it is better to check everyone’s documents up front – rather than trying to verify citizenship after the fact, using government databases that might be outdated or full of mistakes.)

Other points:

• The bill has backup options. If you don’t have the main documents, you can use other forms of proof. States still get some say in how they carry it out.

• Supporters say the “21 million people locked out” number is overblown. “Don’t have it handy” isn’t the same as “can never get it.” Anyone who cares about their right to vote can and will figure it out.

• They also push back on claims that this bill targets minority voters, calling that framing insulting. Their argument: assuming that a voter is too dumb or lazy to get an ID just because they aren’t white proves liberals are the real racists.

At its strongest: This is about respecting the vote enough to verify it. We require ID for things that matter way less than this.

The Case Against the Bill

It’s a cruel joke to pretend that the same ID you use everyday to “get on a plane, buy Sudafed or open a bank account” would be good enough to vote under this bill.

It won’t be! Your drivers license won’t cut it. Without additional proof of citizenship documentation backing it up, a drivers license doesn’t count under this bill.

Even your REAL ID — the one the government now requires to board a plane, which took 20 years to roll out — doesn’t count under this bill. (Not unless it has “U.S. citizen” printed on the front, which right now is only an option – not standard – in five states: Washington, Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.)

So this isn’t about simple voter ID. This is about suddenly making every U.S. voter get PASSPORT level identification – a whole different level of ID than you use to buy a beer.

Two major research groups have tried to measure how many Americans would struggle to meet these new requirements.

• The Brennan Center for Justice — a voting rights advocacy group that opposes the bill — surveyed citizens and found 21.3 million don’t have a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers readily available.

• The Bipartisan Policy Center — a nonpartisan think tank — ran its own analysis and put the number even higher: roughly 28 million.

The two groups used different methods. But they point in the same direction: tens of millions of U.S. citizens potentially blocked from the ballot box.

The people facing barriers include vulnerable voters – in both parties:

• Rural voters who live hours away from government offices that can issue necessary documentation

• Married women who changed their names when they got married and don’t have proof of citizenship documents that match their husbands’ last names

• Older Americans – the most dependable voters – who may have been born at home or in rural hospitals with incomplete records. They may no longer even have valid drivers licenses.

• Young voters registering for the first time, far from home, whose student IDs won’t be enough

• Low income voters who can’t afford the fees, time off work or travel costs to get “passport level” proof of citizenship documents

• Poorly informed citizens navigating a complicated and confusing bureaucracy

These are the same groups that have fought the hardest, for the longest, to have a voice at the ballot box. They are the people who are most likely to be overlooked by the government if their voice isn’t heard because their vote doesn’t count.

To make it worse: three states already tried similar schemes – with awful results.

• KANSAS: Kansas is the only state that actually tried implementing this law at scale. Starting in 2013, they required proof of citizenship to register to vote. During the five years the law was in effect before it was overturned by a judge, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who had every right to vote were blocked from registering. The number of noncitizens they caught? Thirty-nine. Only 11 of them had actually voted over the course of two decades. But tens of thousands of lawful U.S. citizens had their right to vote denied in that state.

• ARIZONA: Arizona has required citizenship verification since 2004 — but it uses a database-matching system rather than requiring physical documents like the SAVE Act would. Even with that lower bar, according to the Institute for Responsive Governance, an estimated 258,000 voters have been blocked from state and local races because their citizenship couldn’t be confirmed through the database. Many turned out to be citizens caught in a data mismatch. (NOTE: SAVE Act supporters argue this actually proves their point: database-matching is unreliable, which is why document-based verification is better. Critics respond that the outcome — tens of thousands of citizens blocked — is what matters regardless of method. The case is still in litigation.)

• NEW HAMPSHIRE: New Hampshire tried a proof-of-citizenship rule more recently. In the very first election under the new rules, voters got turned away at the polls. According to voting rights monitors, hundreds of potential voters were blocked – including women whose birth certificates didn’t match their married names. One woman was sent home twice in a single day. This is the exact thing SAVE America Act supporters said would never happen.

At its strongest: This isn’t theory. We tried it. It blocked hundreds of citizens for every noncitizen it caught. That’s not a trade-off any democracy should accept.

Which arguments did I get right? Which ones did I get wrong? Hit me in the comments. That’s what this space is for.

If this piece made you think twice about something you thought you’d already figured out — or introduced an argument or piece of information you had not considered before – subscribe or share it.

The internet wants you dumb and angry. We’re trying to do something different here.

Watch the video above to understand how the bill could make it more difficult for long-time voters to cast their ballots.

Subscribe now

I read U.S. President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act — and studied all sides of the ensuing debate.

How necessary is an overhaul of our voter ID system? Below I lay out the strongest version of the arguments — on both sides. Not the dumbed-down version. The best points, on each side.

Most of our news feeds and social media algorithms show us only ONE side of any political issue. But regardless of where you come down, I want you to be well-armed and well-equipped— having seen the best points from all sides.

That’s what these cheat sheets are for.

The Necessity Question

Is noncitizen voting a real threat that demands new “proof of citizenship” requirements? Or is it a made-up crisis whose “solution” would block millions of legitimate, eligible Americans from voting?

The Case For the Bill

Republicans say that tens of millions of non-citizens poured into the United States under President Joe Biden – an unprecedented invasion. Therefore the federal government must take unprecedented steps to prevent this tidal wave of foreigners from voting. Only citizens should be able to vote. If we open the voting booths to anyone and everyone, we won’t have a country.

Today’s “safeguards” won’t cut it.

Right now, when you register to vote in most states, you check a box. You swear you’re a citizen under penalty of perjury. But in many cases, nobody independently verifies it. (NOTE: Some states already cross-check registrations against government databases, but the bill’s supporters argue those checks are inconsistent and full of gaps.)

Supporters of this bill say the whole operation runs on “the honor system” — and that’s not good enough. Not anymore. Not with this many non-citizens running around. Not for something this important.

Pro-SAVE America Act champions point to documented incidents of voter fraud:

• Red states have found noncitizens on their voter rolls — 20 in Georgia, 403 in Louisiana. But blue states may not even be looking.

• Even if the numbers are small, every fake vote cancels out a real one.

• And if we can’t say for sure how many noncitizens are registered — because the system never checks — then maybe the problem isn’t that fraud is rare. Maybe the problem is that we’re not looking closely enough.

They also invoke common sense.

• If you need an ID to get on a plane, buy Sudafed or open a bank account, why wouldn’t you need one to vote?

• Almost every other democracy that has noncitizens living within its borders has some way to check citizenship before people vote. America is the odd one out.

• According to Pew Research, 83 percent of Americans — including 71 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Black voters — support voter ID.

The argument at its strongest: We’re not asking for anything crazy. We’re asking for what most Americans already think is happening. And when they find out it’s not happening, they agree it should be.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents say the SAVE Act imposes a massive, unworkable solution on 160 million U.S. citizens to fix a tiny, almost non-existent problem.

Worse than that, many believe the bill’s proponents are exaggerating this fake crisis just to make it harder for vulnerable populations to vote.

Opponents agree that only citizens SHOULD vote. They just don’t believe noncitizens ARE voting very often, if at all. And every big, state-by-state check backs them up:

• Georgia looked at 8.2 million registered voters. Found 20 noncitizens. Nine had voted. That’s approximately 0.00024% non-citizens caught per registered voter.

• Utah checked 2.1 million. Found exactly one noncitizen who registered. That person never voted. Zero impact on election results.

• Louisiana‘s Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry found 403 noncitizens out of 2.96 million voters going back to the 1980s. 83 had voted — over more than 40 years. She said flat out: “Non-citizens illegally registering or voting is not a systemic problem in Louisiana.”

The Heritage Foundation’s own database — the one cited most often on conservative media — has roughly 99 total cases involving noncitizens since 2000, according to the libertarian, conservative-leaning Cato Institute’s review. Not per year. Total. And many of those were green card holders who got bad information from government offices. Not coordinated attempts to rig an election.

Anti-SAVE America Act opponents argue it’s already a federal crime for a noncitizen to vote. The current consequences are severe:

• Prison time

• Deportation

• Permanent ineligibility for citizenship

The law already exists. It’s already enforced.

Opponents say: this bill would change the rules for 160 million registered voters to fix a problem created by a few dozen unlawful voters. That’s not security. That’s overkill — and the people who’ll pay the price are millions of legitimate, eligible voters who inevitably will end up blocked from casting their ballots.

Which arguments did I get right? Which ones did I get wrong? Hit me in the comments. That’s what this space is for.

If this piece made you think twice about something you thought you’d already figured out — or introduced an argument or piece of information you had not considered before – subscribe or share it.

The internet wants you dumb and angry. We’re trying to do something different here.

Subscribe now

I read U.S. President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act — and studied all sides of the ensuing debate.

I know that the potential “race and gender” impact of this measure is a HUGE source of controversy. Below I lay out the strongest version of the arguments — on both sides. Not the dumbed-down version. The best points, on each side.

Most of our news feeds and social media algorithms show us only ONE side of any political issue. But regardless of where you come down, I want you to be well-armed and well-equipped— having seen the best points from all sides.

That’s what these cheat sheets are for.

The “Race & Gender” Question

Is this bill neutral in its impact on race and gender – despite Democrats’ wild claims to the contrary? Or is this bill a sneaky “Jim Crow 2.0” attack on black voting rights and women’s access to the ballot?

The Case For the Bill

Supporters say this is a simple security measure that faces pushback for only one reason: Democrats benefit from a system with no verification. They reject the idea that this bill has anything to do with race or gender. They say the “Jim Crow 2.0” label is a cynical smear — a predictable play from the same Democrats who call everything racist when they don’t like it.

Their core arguments:

• The bill applies the exact same rules to every single American – regardless of race, gender or party. One standard. One set of documents. No carve-outs. No exceptions based on skin color in either direction. That’s the opposite of discrimination.

• The polling backs them up. According to Pew Research, 82 percent of Hispanic Americans and 76 percent of Black Americans support photo ID requirements for voting. These aren’t fringe numbers from a conservative pollster. These numbers represent supermajorities of the very communities Democrats claim to be protecting.

• Prominent Black Republicans have been blunt about what they see as the real insult. U.S. Representative Burgess Owens called the racist framing “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and said it was “wildly insulting” to suggest that Black Americans can’t get an ID.

• U.S. Senator Tim Scott said the comparison to Jim Crow was “hogwash” and pointed to the bill’s broad, bipartisan public support as proof it is common sense, not bigotry.

On gender, supporters say the Democrat’s claim that “69 million women will be disenfranchised” because they changed their maiden name is a deliberate scare tactic.

• White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said there is “zero validity” to the claim, claiming that women who are already registered are entirely unaffected. (FACT CHECK: The bill itself is actually silent on this point.)

• For those who need to register or update, the bill allows them to sign a “simple affidavit” confirming that the name on their birth certificate is their previous name.

• The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy, wrote in The Federalist that the “69 million” figure is “a statistical sleight of hand” that “purposefully ignite[s] fear” by lumping in millions of women who are already registered and already have updated documents.

Supporters also push back hard on the turnout argument:

• U.S. Senator Rick Scott said bluntly: “This idea that [voter ID] is going to suppress votes … that has never happened anywhere.” He pointed to Georgia, which saw record turnout after passing its 2021 voter integrity law — despite Democrats calling that bill “Jim Crow 2.0” at the time.

• The Bipartisan Policy Center — a nonpartisan think tank — confirmed that Black respondents are about as likely as white respondents to report having documentary proof of citizenship. Ironically, Hispanic voters had the highest reported rates of any racial group.

The argument: Calling this racist or anti‑woman insults minority voters who already have ID. If opponents have to lie about the bill to beat it, maybe their real problem is with voter ID itself – because they’re trying to cheat.

Subscribe now

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents identify other studies and surveys that cast serious doubt on Republican claims:

Opponents say you don’t have to call the bill’s supporters racist to acknowledge that the bill would have racially lopsided consequences. Intent is one thing. Impact is another. And the data they point to on impact is damning.

• The Brennan Center found that 11% of Americans of color lack ready access to documentary proof of citizenship, compared to 8% of white Americans. That gap represents millions more people of color locked out of the registration process.

• According to YouGov, only 34% of Black Americans hold a current U.S. passport — compared to 42% of white Americans and 55% of Hispanic Americans. Civil rights groups back up this math.

• The Native American Rights Fund warns that the bill would be devastating for Native American voters. The bill claims tribal IDs will work — but it requires them to include “place of birth,” which tribal IDs do not include. Native citizens in rural and remote areas fear they would have to travel more than 100 miles — or even get on an airplane — just to reach a government office, during weekday business hours, to present the required paperwork.

Opponents point to a growing body of peer-reviewed research.

• A 2018 study from the University of California San Diego — one of the first to analyze certified votes nationwide across multiple elections — found that strict voter ID laws doubled the turnout gap between whites and Latinos in general elections. It nearly doubled the white-Black turnout gap in primaries. The researchers noted: “By instituting strict voter ID laws, states can alter the electorate and shift outcomes toward those on the right.”

• New evidence from Georgia — the very state supporters hold up as proof voter ID works — tells the opposite story. Federal court filings using 2024 election data show that SB 202 widened the racial turnout gap. Black voters were 25 percentage points more likely than white voters to have their mail ballot applications rejected. As a result, Black mail ballot use plunged from 29% in 2020 to 5% in 2024 — a 23-point drop. Nearly 130,000 Black voters lacked valid or matching IDs in their registration files.

In theory, these requirements are color blind. But in practice, opponents say they have had a predictably detrimental effect on black voters.

On gender, the numbers are stark. According to Pew Research, 79% of married women take their spouse’s last name. The liberal Center for American Progress estimates that 69 million women have a birth certificate that doesn’t match their current legal name.

Supporters say “don’t worry, because the affidavit fixes everything.” Great in theory!

But in practice, opponents say: one state already tried this – and it was a disaster for women.

In New Hampshire, which enacted one of the first proof-of-citizenship laws in 2024, a voting rights coalition tracked nearly 250 voters turned away during the 2025 elections — the majority for insufficient documentary proof of citizenship, including name change documentation.

• In Bethlehem, New Hampshire, an election official reported rejecting 25% of registration applicants — all women with maiden-name birth certificates who lacked name change proof.

• One Concord election official testified that she had to turn away a recently-divorced woman who had changed back to her maiden name but lacked proof. Her ex-husband could vote. She could not.

• Ms. Magazine reported that the burden falls hardest on women already facing economic barriers: according to the National Women’s Law Center, Black, Latina and Native American women experience poverty at more than twice the rate of white, non-Hispanic men — making the costs and inconvenience of obtaining a passport or replacement documents a genuine obstacle, not an inconvenience.

The civil rights community has spoken with one voice.

• The NAACP Legal Defense Fund called the bill “disingenuous, discriminatory and rooted in a continuously disproven narrative of voter fraud.”

• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, joined by more than 130 organizations, wrote that the bill would “exclude eligible voters — particularly Latino, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and Native American citizens; married women who have changed their names; low-income people; and people with disabilities — from the electorate and our democracy.”

• The Latino community has flagged that the bill would force over 36 million eligible Latino voters to navigate new bureaucratic hurdles. About 4 in 10 Latino citizens lack a valid passport and Latinos make up 34% of all naturalized U.S. citizens — many relying on naturalization certificates that are expensive and difficult to replace.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer summed up the critique: ”It’s Jim Crow 2.0. What they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting.”

The argument: If the people without paperwork are disproportionately Black, brown, poor, rural, sick, elderly and female — and actual noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare — then this isn’t security, it’s a cynical voter purge.

Which arguments did I get right? Which ones did I get wrong? Hit me in the comments. That’s what this space is for.

If this piece made you think twice about something you thought you’d already figured out — or introduced an argument or piece of information you had not considered before – subscribe or share it.

The internet wants you dumb and angry. We’re trying to do something different here.

Subscribe now

I read U.S. President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act – so you don’t have to. I then studied all sides of the debate surrounding the bill.

Surprise, surprise! Neither side is telling you the full story on this one.

Below I lay out the strongest arguments for and against the bill. Not the dumbed-down version. Not the social media version. The real arguments. Made by serious people.

And then I’m going to shut up and let you decide.

By the way: your news feed isn’t built for this. It’s built to make sure you only hear from whichever side your social media algorithm thinks you like. Smart people on all sides are making big claims. And most of it is designed to make you feel something before you know something.

I want to flip that. I want to give you what you need to handle the noise — and make up your own mind.

Along the way here’s what I discovered:

• The arguments FOR this bill are short, simple and easy to grasp – because they are designed to appeal to common sense. After all, nobody wants undocumented immigrants stealing elections. So I could explain the proponents’ position in fewer words.

• The arguments AGAINST the bill are more complex — because they are rooted in implementation challenges, real-world database failures, legal theories and the law of unintended consequences. It took me more words to explain the objections.

That said – a longer argument is not necessarily a better one, and a shorter argument is not necessarily a more truthful one. There are important points to consider on both sides.

But in an information ecosystem that rewards speed over substance, “longer to explain” usually means “never gets heard.” So please take time to study both sets of arguments carefully.

If you’re only hearing one side of this debate, it’s not because the other side doesn’t have a case. It’s because someone decided you shouldn’t hear it.

CONTENTS

Below you will find the best of both sides arguments related to the following questions:

1. The Necessity Question

2. The “Race & Gender” Question

3. The “Access To Paperwork” Question

4. The Workability Question

5. The “Federal v State” Question

6. The “Principled or Political” Question

7. Blind spots on both sides

5 Things to Know Before You Read

1. President Trump has called this bill his “number one priority.” He has threatened to block every other piece of legislation — including a housing bill that passed the Senate 89-10 — until it reaches his desk.

2. The Senate voted 51-48 on March 17 to start debating the bill. Republican Lisa Murkowski was the only GOP senator to vote no. Thom Tillis (who opposes killing the filibuster for this bill) was notably absent. The Senate held a rare weekend session to continue debate. As you read this, we are heading into Week 2 of that debate.

3. U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said he doesn’t have the 60 votes needed to pass it. The debate could last weeks.

4. That’s why some people call this a “messaging bill” – meaning the bill probably won’t garner enough votes in the U.S. Senate to become law. But it will help Republicans advance their “message” that they believe Democrats are election cheats.

5. Even if it doesn’t pass, the debate itself matters — for the future of voting, for the future of the filibuster, for the 2026 midterms, for the 2028 Presidential elections – and for what kind of democracy we want to be.

Subscribe now

Quick Background

The vast majority of Americans support “voter ID” – meaning you should show a government-issued photo ID at the polls to prove you are who you say you are. Almost everyone agrees voters should be verified.

The question isn’t whether. It’s how — and what it costs.

The SAVE America Act has multiple requirements that go beyond simple voter ID.

That’s where the controversy comes in.

• The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act would require you to show a birth certificate, hospital record, passport or naturalization certificate — proving you’re a U.S. citizen — when you register to vote. (Your driver’s license and even most REAL IDs won’t work – because they do not indicate citizenship status.)

• Then, at the polls, you’d need a photo ID approved from a narrow list – stricter than existing voter ID laws in every state but Ohio. For example, student IDs would be out. Utility bills would be out.

• In states that have been sharing their voter rolls with DHS since mid-2025, a driver’s license could work. But in states that haven’t shared voter rolls, you’d need to show proof of citizenship again at the ballot box.

• On top of that, the bill would let the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) check voter rolls against the DHS SAVE database. Online and mail-in voter registration would be eliminated or curtailed in most states.

• If an election worker registered a voter without the official federal government approved paperwork, that worker could go to prison.

Trump is pushing to add more provisions, some of which appear to have little or nothing to do with elections.

• One amendment that would ban mail-in ballots.

• One would bar transgender athletes from women’s sports

• The last would block gender-affirming surgery for minors.

1. The Necessity Question

Is noncitizen voting a real threat that demands new “proof of citizenship” requirements? Or is it a made-up crisis whose “solution” would block millions of legitimate, eligible Americans from voting?

The Case For the Bill

Republicans say that tens of millions of non-citizens poured into the United States under President Joe Biden – an unprecedented invasion. Therefore the federal government must take unprecedented steps to prevent this tidal wave of foreigners from voting. Only citizens should be able to vote. If we open the voting booths to anyone and everyone, we won’t have a country.

Today’s “safeguards” won’t cut it.

Right now, when you register to vote in most states, you check a box. You swear you’re a citizen under penalty of perjury. But in many cases, nobody independently verifies it. (NOTE: Some states already cross-check registrations against government databases, but the bill’s supporters argue those checks are inconsistent and full of gaps.)

Supporters of this bill say the whole operation runs on “the honor system” — and that’s not good enough. Not anymore. Not with this many non-citizens running around. Not for something this important.

Pro-SAVE America Act champions point to documented incidents of voter fraud:

• Red states have found noncitizens on their voter rolls — 20 in Georgia, 403 in Louisiana. But blue states may not even be looking.

• Even if the numbers are small, every fake vote cancels out a real one.

• And if we can’t say for sure how many noncitizens are registered — because the system never checks — then maybe the problem isn’t that fraud is rare. Maybe the problem is that we’re not looking closely enough.

They also invoke common sense.

• If you need an ID to get on a plane, buy Sudafed or open a bank account, why wouldn’t you need one to vote?

• Almost every other democracy that has noncitizens living within its borders has some way to check citizenship before people vote. America is the odd one out.

• According to Pew Research, 83 percent of Americans — including 71 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Black voters — support voter ID.

The argument at its strongest: We’re not asking for anything crazy. We’re asking for what most Americans already think is happening. And when they find out it’s not happening, they agree it should be.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents say the SAVE Act imposes a massive, unworkable solution on 160 million U.S. citizens to fix a tiny, almost non-existent problem.

Worse than that, many believe the bill’s proponents are exaggerating this fake crisis just to make it harder for vulnerable populations to vote.

Opponents agree that only citizens SHOULD vote. They just don’t believe noncitizens ARE voting very often, if at all. And every big, state-by-state check backs them up:

• Georgia looked at 8.2 million registered voters. Found 20 noncitizens. Nine had voted. That’s approximately 0.00024% non-citizens caught per registered voter.

• Utah checked 2.1 million. Found exactly one noncitizen who registered. That person never voted. Zero impact on election results.

• Louisiana‘s Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry found 403 noncitizens out of 2.96 million voters going back to the 1980s. 83 had voted — over more than 40 years. She said flat out: “Non-citizens illegally registering or voting is not a systemic problem in Louisiana.”

The Heritage Foundation’s own database — the one cited most often on conservative media — has roughly 99 total cases involving noncitizens since 2000, according to the libertarian, conservative-leaning Cato Institute’s review. Not per year. Total. And many of those were green card holders who got bad information from government offices. Not coordinated attempts to rig an election.

Anti-SAVE America Act opponents argue it’s already a federal crime for a noncitizen to vote. The current consequences are severe:

• Prison time

• Deportation

• Permanent ineligibility for citizenship

The law already exists. It’s already enforced.

Opponents say: this bill would change the rules for 160 million registered voters to fix a problem created by a few dozen unlawful voters. That’s not security. That’s overkill — and the people who’ll pay the price are millions of legitimate, eligible voters who inevitably will end up blocked from casting their ballots.

Subscribe now

2. The “Race & Gender” Question

Is this bill neutral in its impact on race and gender – despite Democrats’ wild claims to the contrary? Or is this bill a sneaky “Jim Crow 2.0” attack on black voting rights and women’s access to the ballot?

The Case For the Bill

Supporters say this is a simple security measure that faces pushback for only one reason: Democrats benefit from a system with no verification. They reject the idea that this bill has anything to do with race or gender. They say the “Jim Crow 2.0” label is a cynical smear — a predictable play from the same Democrats who call everything racist when they don’t like it.

Their core arguments:

• The bill applies the exact same rules to every single American – regardless of race, gender or party. One standard. One set of documents. No carve-outs. No exceptions based on skin color in either direction. That’s the opposite of discrimination.

• The polling backs them up. According to Pew Research, 82 percent of Hispanic Americans and 76 percent of Black Americans support photo ID requirements for voting. These aren’t fringe numbers from a conservative pollster. These numbers represent supermajorities of the very communities Democrats claim to be protecting.

• Prominent Black Republicans have been blunt about what they see as the real insult. U.S. Representative Burgess Owens called the racist framing “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and said it was “wildly insulting” to suggest that Black Americans can’t get an ID.

• U.S. Senator Tim Scott said the comparison to Jim Crow was “hogwash” and pointed to the bill’s broad, bipartisan public support as proof it is common sense, not bigotry.

On gender, supporters say the Democrat’s claim that “69 million women will be disenfranchised” because they changed their maiden name is a deliberate scare tactic.

• White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said there is “zero validity” to the claim, claiming that women who are already registered are entirely unaffected. (FACT CHECK: The bill itself is actually silent on this point.)

• For those who need to register or update, the bill allows them to sign a “simple affidavit” confirming that the name on their birth certificate is their previous name.

• The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chip Roy, wrote in The Federalist that the “69 million” figure is “a statistical sleight of hand” that “purposefully ignite[s] fear” by lumping in millions of women who are already registered and already have updated documents.

Supporters also push back hard on the turnout argument:

• U.S. Senator Rick Scott said bluntly: “This idea that [voter ID] is going to suppress votes … that has never happened anywhere.” He pointed to Georgia, which saw record turnout after passing its 2021 voter integrity law — despite Democrats calling that bill “Jim Crow 2.0” at the time.

• The Bipartisan Policy Center — a nonpartisan think tank — confirmed that Black respondents are about as likely as white respondents to report having documentary proof of citizenship. Ironically, Hispanic voters had the highest reported rates of any racial group.

The argument: Calling this racist or anti‑woman insults minority voters who already have ID. If opponents have to lie about the bill to beat it, maybe their real problem is with voter ID itself – because they’re trying to cheat.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents identify other studies and surveys that cast serious doubt on Republican claims:

Opponents say you don’t have to call the bill’s supporters racist to acknowledge that the bill would have racially lopsided consequences. Intent is one thing. Impact is another. And the data they point to on impact is damning.

• The Brennan Center found that 11% of Americans of color lack ready access to documentary proof of citizenship, compared to 8% of white Americans. That gap represents millions more people of color locked out of the registration process.

• According to YouGov, only 34% of Black Americans hold a current U.S. passport — compared to 42% of white Americans and 55% of Hispanic Americans. Civil rights groups back up this math.

• The Native American Rights Fund warns that the bill would be devastating for Native American voters. The bill claims tribal IDs will work — but it requires them to include “place of birth,” which tribal IDs do not include. Native citizens in rural and remote areas fear they would have to travel more than 100 miles — or even get on an airplane — just to reach a government office, during weekday business hours, to present the required paperwork.

Opponents point to a growing body of peer-reviewed research.

• A 2018 study from the University of California San Diego — one of the first to analyze certified votes nationwide across multiple elections — found that strict voter ID laws doubled the turnout gap between whites and Latinos in general elections. It nearly doubled the white-Black turnout gap in primaries. The researchers noted: “By instituting strict voter ID laws, states can alter the electorate and shift outcomes toward those on the right.”

• New evidence from Georgia — the very state supporters hold up as proof voter ID works — tells the opposite story. Federal court filings using 2024 election data show that SB 202 widened the racial turnout gap. Black voters were 25 percentage points more likely than white voters to have their mail ballot applications rejected. As a result, Black mail ballot use plunged from 29% in 2020 to 5% in 2024 — a 23-point drop. Nearly 130,000 Black voters lacked valid or matching IDs in their registration files.

In theory, these requirements are color blind. But in practice, opponents say they have had a predictably detrimental effect on black voters.

On gender, the numbers are stark. According to Pew Research, 79% of married women take their spouse’s last name. The liberal Center for American Progress estimates that 69 million women have a birth certificate that doesn’t match their current legal name.

Supporters say “don’t worry, because the affidavit fixes everything.” Great in theory!

But in practice, opponents say: one state already tried this – and it was a disaster for women.

In New Hampshire, which enacted one of the first proof-of-citizenship laws in 2024, a voting rights coalition tracked nearly 250 voters turned away during the 2025 elections — the majority for insufficient documentary proof of citizenship, including name change documentation.

• In Bethlehem, New Hampshire, an election official reported rejecting 25% of registration applicants — all women with maiden-name birth certificates who lacked name change proof.

• One Concord election official testified that she had to turn away a recently-divorced woman who had changed back to her maiden name but lacked proof. Her ex-husband could vote. She could not.

• Ms. Magazine reported that the burden falls hardest on women already facing economic barriers: according to the National Women’s Law Center, Black, Latina and Native American women experience poverty at more than twice the rate of white, non-Hispanic men — making the costs and inconvenience of obtaining a passport or replacement documents a genuine obstacle, not an inconvenience.

The civil rights community has spoken with one voice.

• The NAACP Legal Defense Fund called the bill “disingenuous, discriminatory and rooted in a continuously disproven narrative of voter fraud.”

• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, joined by more than 130 organizations, wrote that the bill would “exclude eligible voters — particularly Latino, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and Native American citizens; married women who have changed their names; low-income people; and people with disabilities — from the electorate and our democracy.”

• The Latino community has flagged that the bill would force over 36 million eligible Latino voters to navigate new bureaucratic hurdles. About 4 in 10 Latino citizens lack a valid passport and Latinos make up 34% of all naturalized U.S. citizens — many relying on naturalization certificates that are expensive and difficult to replace.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer summed up the critique: ”It’s Jim Crow 2.0. What they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades to prevent people of color from voting.”

The argument: If the people without paperwork are disproportionately Black, brown, poor, rural, sick, elderly and female — and actual noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare — then this isn’t security, it’s a cynical voter purge.

3. The “Access To Paperwork” Question

Can every U.S. citizen who has the right to vote get the paperwork this bill demands? Or would the new paperwork requirements hit hardest the people who fought longest and hardest for the right to vote?

The Case For the Bill

Supporters say every citizen – with minimal effort – can get the required documents:

• Birth certificates can come from the government (if they’re legitimate and were filed properly).

• Passports come from the State Department.

• Naturalization certificates are given out at the citizenship ceremony.

The paperwork exists. If you care about your right to vote, just get your papers together!

If you don’t have them, you should get them. It’s a one-time thing when you register – plus a reasonable added layer of security when you vote. That’s it. (Besides, it is better to check everyone’s documents up front – rather than trying to verify citizenship after the fact, using government databases that might be outdated or full of mistakes.)

Other points:

• The bill has backup options. If you don’t have the main documents, you can use other forms of proof. States still get some say in how they carry it out.

• Supporters say the “21 million people locked out” number is overblown. “Don’t have it handy” isn’t the same as “can never get it.” Anyone who cares about their right to vote can and will figure it out.

• They also push back on claims that this bill targets minority voters, calling that framing insulting. Their argument: assuming that a voter is too dumb or lazy to get an ID just because they aren’t white proves liberals are the real racists.

At its strongest: This is about respecting the vote enough to verify it. We require ID for things that matter way less than this.

The Case Against the Bill

It’s a cruel joke to pretend that the same ID you use everyday to “get on a plane, buy Sudafed or open a bank account” would be good enough to vote under this bill.

It won’t be! Your drivers license won’t cut it. Without additional proof of citizenship documentation backing it up, a drivers license doesn’t count under this bill.

Even your REAL ID — the one the government now requires to board a plane, which took 20 years to roll out — doesn’t count under this bill. (Not unless it has “U.S. citizen” printed on the front, which right now is only an option – not standard – in five states: Washington, Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.)

So this isn’t about simple voter ID. This is about suddenly making every U.S. voter get PASSPORT level identification – a whole different level of ID than you use to buy a beer.

Two major research groups have tried to measure how many Americans would struggle to meet these new requirements.

• The Brennan Center for Justice — a voting rights advocacy group that opposes the bill — surveyed citizens and found 21.3 million don’t have a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers readily available.

• The Bipartisan Policy Center — a nonpartisan think tank — ran its own analysis and put the number even higher: roughly 28 million.

The two groups used different methods. But they point in the same direction: tens of millions of U.S. citizens potentially blocked from the ballot box.

The people facing barriers include vulnerable voters – in both parties:

• Rural voters who live hours away from government offices that can issue necessary documentation

• Married women who changed their names when they got married and don’t have proof of citizenship documents that match their husbands’ last names

• Older Americans – the most dependable voters – who may have been born at home or in rural hospitals with incomplete records. They may no longer even have valid drivers licenses.

• Young voters registering for the first time, far from home, whose student IDs won’t be enough

• Low income voters who can’t afford the fees, time off work or travel costs to get “passport level” proof of citizenship documents

• Poorly informed citizens navigating a complicated and confusing bureaucracy

These are the same groups that have fought the hardest, for the longest, to have a voice at the ballot box. They are the people who are most likely to be overlooked by the government if their voice isn’t heard because their vote doesn’t count.

To make it worse: three states already tried similar schemes – with awful results.

• KANSAS: Kansas is the only state that actually tried implementing this law at scale. Starting in 2013, they required proof of citizenship to register to vote. During the five years the law was in effect before it was overturned by a judge, more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who had every right to vote were blocked from registering. The number of noncitizens they caught? Thirty-nine. Only 11 of them had actually voted over the course of two decades. But tens of thousands of lawful U.S. citizens had their right to vote denied in that state.

• ARIZONA: Arizona has required citizenship verification since 2004 — but it uses a database-matching system rather than requiring physical documents like the SAVE Act would. Even with that lower bar, according to the Institute for Responsive Governance, an estimated 258,000 voters have been blocked from state and local races because their citizenship couldn’t be confirmed through the database. Many turned out to be citizens caught in a data mismatch. (NOTE: SAVE Act supporters argue this actually proves their point: database-matching is unreliable, which is why document-based verification is better. Critics respond that the outcome — tens of thousands of citizens blocked — is what matters regardless of method. The case is still in litigation.)

• NEW HAMPSHIRE: New Hampshire tried a proof-of-citizenship rule more recently. In the very first election under the new rules, voters got turned away at the polls. According to voting rights monitors, hundreds of potential voters were blocked – including women whose birth certificates didn’t match their married names. One woman was sent home twice in a single day. This is the exact thing SAVE America Act supporters said would never happen.

At its strongest: This isn’t theory. We tried it. It blocked hundreds of citizens for every noncitizen it caught. That’s not a trade-off any democracy should accept.

4. The Workability Question

Is this bill ready for the real world? Or would it throw the system into chaos right before the midterms?

The Case For the Bill

The SAVE Act would kick in as soon as it’s signed. The Election Assistance Commission would have 10 days to send guidance to every state.

Supporters say the tight timeline is the point: it forces states to act instead of stalling. The sheer number of noncitizens who have flooded our country constitutes a national emergency – requiring bold action to secure our democracy from foreign interference at the voting booth. Deep state obstructionists and blue state opponents need to be run over and forced to do the right thing.

Proponents say opponents are deliberately making this sound harder and more complicated than it actually is.

• The bill has backup options for people who don’t have the main documents.

• Federal agencies — especially DHS — would help states check voter rolls using the SAVE database.

• The same forms, the same rules, everywhere. Simple.

There’s also a practical argument: checking documents up front, at the point of registration, is actually easier for election offices than trying to maintain accurate databases after the fact. One clean check at the door beats an endless game of whack-a-mole with bad data.

The argument: The tools exist. The documents exist. What’s missing is the will to use them.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents say there is zero chance a law this sweeping could be implemented on this timetable. They say it is totally impractical – bordering on ludicrous – to say otherwise.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors — a bipartisan group of Republican and Democratic mayors — wrote to the Senate opposing the bill on pure nuts-and-bolts grounds. They didn’t mince words. They said the bill would “insert chaos into our election system,” dump an “unfunded burden on state and local governments” and force huge changes to how we register voters “shortly before the midterm elections.”

These aren’t political pundits. These are the local elected officials who actually oversee and run elections.

Also, there’s the SAVE database — the DHS system the bill relies on to check voter rolls. It’s already being used in some states. And it’s already getting things wrong.

• Denton County, Texas: 84 voters flagged as possible noncitizens. When officials actually checked? At least 12 — more than 14% — were American citizens.

• Missouri: State officials acted on the system’s flags before checking them, telling counties to block flagged voters. County clerks reported that in many cases, the people flagged turned out to be eligible Americans.

• Multiple states: According to the Brennan Center, DHS has had to send corrections to several states after the system wrongly tagged citizens as noncitizens.

The Bipartisan Policy Center found that even in states already using the system, it flagged a big chunk of the people who had already shown proof of citizenship when they registered.

One Texas election administrator summed it up in three words: “Not ready for prime time.”

There’s one more thing. Right now, 42 states let you register to vote online. Under this bill, that would be out the window.

• According to multiple election law analyses, the SAVE Act would effectively end online registration in most states — because you can’t upload an original birth certificate through a website.

• The Voter Participation Center, a nonpartisan group focused on voter access, analyzed federal election data and found that 83 percent of current voters used registration methods that would be restricted or eliminated under this bill.

• All of this would happen now — before the bill would massively expand the SAVE database’s role. With no new money. No phase-in period. And criminal penalties for the officials who have to make it work.

That’s not a tweak to the system. That’s rebuilding it from scratch. In the middle of an election year.

The whole idea would be laughable – if the threat were not so serious.

The argument: The people who actually run elections say this bill would crash our voting system. The database at its core is already misfiring. Blowing up online registration in an election year is chaos, not reform.

5. The “Federal v State” Question

Which level of government should control elections — federal or state? And what happens when local officials face prison time for paperwork mistakes?

The Case For the Bill

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set rules for federal elections. Supporters say that’s exactly what this bill does. Federal elections are a federal matter. Congress has every right to create one clear, national standard for proving you’re a citizen before you register.

They point out that the U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement — only state-level ones. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), the Court ruled 7-2 that Arizona couldn’t pile its own citizenship-proof rules on top of the federal voter registration form. That’s the whole reason the SAVE Act was written the way it was; it rewrites the federal voter registration law itself, closing the gap the Court left open.

This bill invokes the same kind of federal “elections oversight” authority that Dr. Martin Luther King relied upon when he marched for the 1964 Voting Rights Act.

Supporters say Congress is continuing to do what the U.S. Constitution intended: setting a national standard for national elections.

When it comes to expanded criminal penalties for election workers, supporters make three points:

• Accountability: Officials have to follow the law. Period.

• Teeth: Penalties that can’t be enforced are meaningless. If there’s no consequence, there’s no compliance.

• Clarity: Clear federal rules actually protect good-faith officials by telling them exactly what’s required — no guessing.

​​The argument: The Constitution gives Congress this job. The SAVE Act finally does it. Clear national rules with real penalties are the only way to make sure every federal ballot is held to the same standard.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents point out that the states have always run elections.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress some say over federal elections. But states do the actual work – including deciding how to check who’s a citizen. That’s been the setup for more than 200 years. This bill would change it overnight. One federal standard. One federal database. And if your local election clerk makes a mistake? Federal criminal charges.

Critics on the left and the right say that’s not election reform. That’s Washington taking over your state and local elections.

As for the courts: opponents note the Court ruled on a statutory question — federal law vs. state law. It did not rule on whether a federal proof-of-citizenship mandate would survive challenges under the Equal Protection Clause or the 14th Amendment. Those questions have never been tested.

Furthermore, the Cato Institute — a right-leaning, libertarian think tank — has raised serious concerns. Cato’s Walter Olson has warned that the bill would hand “dangerous voter-screening power” to people appointed by the President, taking it away from local officials who actually know their communities. He noted that election workers could face criminal charges for paperwork errors — even if every single person they registered was a U.S. citizen.

Think about that. Under this bill, an election worker who signs up a citizen without the right documentation could be charged with a federal crime. That person could spend up to five years in prison. Not just for registering a noncitizen. For a simple paperwork mistake while registering an actual U.S. citizen.

The Bipartisan Policy Center calls this aspect one of the most dangerous parts of the bill. It would push election workers to reject anyone whose papers look even slightly off — because the alternative is risking prison. Nearly 60 election officials from both parties sent a letter opposing the bill for exactly this reason.

When the ACLU and the Cato Institute agree that something crosses a constitutional line, that is an anomaly worth paying attention to.

The argument: States have always run elections, this bill hands that power to Washington and a federal database. The threat of prison for paperwork mistakes will scare good clerks into blocking eligible voters.

6. The “Principled or Political” Question

Is this bill designed to protect elections fairly for everyone? Or is it meant to ensure that Republicans win more elections?

The Case For the Bill

Supporters say this is a simple security measure that faces pushback for only one reason: Democrats benefit from a system with no verification. Progressives want to shove illegal immigrants into our ballot booths and tell them to vote blue. But if these measures ensure that only U.S. citizens vote, the true choice of the American people will show up in the results.

And if that helps Republicans? That’s not cheating. That’s not partisan. That’s the system working right.

President Trump has said this bill would ensure that Republicans “never lose a race for 50 years.” His supporters say Trump is simply underscoring that the present corrupt system is rigged for Democrats to win by cheating. Clean up the rolls, and you will get what Americans actually want.

For people who see election integrity as the issue of our time, the political stakes are worth the fight. And anyone who opposes measures to check citizenship? Those people are crooks who want to keep cheating. Period. End of story.

At its strongest: If Democrats really believed only citizens were voting, they wouldn’t fear tougher checks. A party that fights basic citizenship checks is admitting it depends on illegal votes to win. The SAVE America Act simply strips away the cheating that props Democrats up.

The Case Against the Bill

Opponents have a simple answer: Trump’s bill is a purely partisan ploy to rig elections for REPUBLICANS – and the bill’s supporters keep saying the quiet part out loud.

U.S. Senator Mike Lee posted a chart showing Democrats favored to win the Senate in 2026 and wrote: “Let’s turn this around — by passing SAVE America.”

When a U.S. senator ties the bill to flipping midterm odds – and the president says the bill will keep his party in power for half a century — that proves that this law is not about nonpartisan election security. The bill is a scheme to knock out vulnerable, lawful voters who are more likely to vote blue.

But this bill hasn’t just divided Democrats and Republicans. It’s divided Republicans and Republicans.

• U.S. Senator Roger Marshall said he’d nuke the filibuster to pass it. U.S. Senator John Cornyn — who spent years defending that same filibuster — suddenly flipped, writing that the SAVE America Act is more important. (Cornyn is also locked in a GOP runoff against Ken Paxton and waiting on a Trump endorsement that may depend on how hard he fights for this bill. Connect those dots yourself.)

• Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis called the whole filibuster push “a foolish and lazy idea.” U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer said the SAVE Act isn’t worth blowing up the filibuster over. U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell won’t even vote for the bill. And Thune keeps saying what everyone already knows: he doesn’t have the votes.

What started as a debate about citizenship checks has turned into a food fight within the Republican caucus. Meanwhile Trump is holding the entire legislative process hostage — with other bills held captive to a bill the U.S. Senate can’t pass.

Someday there should be a grand, bipartisan bargain that balances tougher voter security with stronger voter access. But this extreme, unworkable train wreck of a bill is the opposite of what’s needed.

At its strongest: When backers brag this bill will lock in GOP power for decades, they’re admitting it’s about shrinking the blue‑leaning electorate – not neutral “integrity.” Even many Republicans can’t swallow that.

Blind Spots on Both Sides

Here’s how I see it.

The pro-bill side keeps waving the 83% who support voter ID stat around. But that poll asks about showing a state-issued photo ID — not handing over a birth certificate or passport. Those are two very different things. Treating them as the same thing isn’t an argument. It’s a bait-and-switch. And U.S. citizens who support common sense voter ID could pay the price. Not to mention: conservatives usually oppose national government overreach – like putting local election workers in federal prison over paperwork errors.

The anti-bill side keeps saying millions of women will lose their right to vote.They call it Jim Crow 2.0. But the bill creates hurdles, not a ban. How high that hurdle is depends on the state, because the bill leaves some decisions up to state officials. That could be good or bad news, depending on what state you’re in. Precision matters when the stakes are this high. And honestly: making it all about “race and gender” could short circuit the opportunity to build a bigger tent – especially when white, rural, conservative voters also stand to lose out.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

This is the first time in a long time that the federal government seeks to restrict access to voting rather than expand it. It is worth serious conversation – and you deserve more than politically-skewed talking points.

The hardest spot in politics is holding more than one truth at the same time.

Only citizens should vote. True.

Noncitizen voting is already illegal – and rare. Also true.

Some kind of citizenship check beyond “take my word for it” is a worthy goal. True.

The only state that actually tried this approach unfairly blocked 800 citizens (!!!) for every one noncitizen it caught. Also true.

A computer system to check citizenship would be a good idea. True.

But the one we actually have is unjustly making lawful U.S. citizens ineligible to vote. Also true.

The values on both sides are real and laudable. Election security matters. Voter access also matters. In a democratic republic, striking the right balance is the hard work of citizens – like you and me.

I wanted to make sure you had access to the best thinking on both sides – so that you can make up your own mind.

Which arguments did I get right? Which ones did I get wrong? Hit me in the comments. That’s what this space is for.

If this piece made you think twice about something you thought you’d already figured out — or introduced an argument or piece of information you had not considered before – subscribe or share it.

The internet wants you dumb and angry. We’re trying to do something different here.

Sources

• Politico — Senate launches debate on SAVE America Act with endgame uncertain — March 17, 2026

• TIME — The Senate Has Passed What Could Be the Largest Housing Package in Decades. Here’s What’s In It — March 13, 2026

• Office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski — Murkowski: “I support voter ID — but oppose the SAVE America Act” — February 23, 2026

• Office of Sen. Thom Tillis — Tillis Statement on the SAVE America Act — March 19, 2026

• NBC News — Some Republicans warn Trump’s SAVE America Act is doomed to fail as Senate tees up a vote — March 13, 2026

• Brennan Center for Justice — New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting — February 2, 2026, Updated March 20, 2026

• Brennan Center for Justice — SAVE Act Reaches Senate — March 17, 2026

• U.S. House of Representatives — Rules Committee Print 119–19: Text of House Amendment to S. 1383 — February 6, 2026

• National Conference of State Legislatures — 9 Things to Know About the Proposed SAVE America Act — March 23, 2026

• Campaign Legal Center — What You Need to Know About the SAVE Act — February 9, 2026

• ABC News — Georgia voter roll audit finds only 20 noncitizens out of 8 million registered voters — October 23, 2024

• WVLA Baton Rouge (via Yahoo News) — Louisiana voter rolls cleaned as verification debate heats up in D.C. — March 18, 2026

• Pew Research Center — Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID — August 22, 2025

• CNN — Georgia’s Republican secretary of state finds just 20 noncitizens registered to vote out of 8.2 million — October 23, 2024

• Utah News Dispatch — ‘Not a widespread problem’: Lt. gov. releases early findings from voter citizenship review — January 23, 2026

• Brennan Center for Justice — Louisiana’s Chief Election Official Confirms Lack of Widespread Noncitizen Voting — September 12, 2025

• The Heritage Foundation — Election Fraud Map: A Sampling of Proven Instances of Election Fraud — December 12, 2025

• Cato Institute — The Right’s Bogus Claims about Noncitizen Voting Fraud — April 11, 2024

• Rep. Burgess Owens (via X) — Post sharing Blaze Media article on SAVE Act — January 27, 2026

• Sen. Tim Scott (via Facebook) — Video: “Jim Crow 2.0?! Hogwash...” — February 15, 2026

• The National News Desk — ‘Zero validity’ to claim SAVE America Act blocks married women’s votes, Leavitt says — March 10, 2026

• The Federalist — Senators, Don’t Fall For Hillary Clinton’s Desperate Lies About The SAVE Act — April 16, 2025

• Fox News — Republicans shred ‘nonsense’ Dem claims against Trump-backed voter ID bill — February 20, 2026

• Bipartisan Policy Center — Do Documentary Proof of Citizenship Requirements Disadvantage One Party More Than the Other? — March 16, 2026

• Brennan Center for Justice — 21.3 Million American Citizens of Voting Age Don’t Have Ready Access to Citizenship Documents — June 11, 2024

• YouGov — Adults under 30 are more likely than older Americans to have a current U.S. passport — August 31, 2023

• Capital B News — ‘Jim Crow 2.0’: Civil Rights Leaders Sound Alarm on SAVE America Act — March 18, 2026

• Native American Rights Fund — All Versions of the SAVE Act Harm Native Voters — March 12, 2026

• The Journal of Politics (University of Chicago Press) — We All Agree: Strict Voter ID Laws Disproportionately Burden Minorities — April 18, 2018

• NAACP Legal Defense Fund — LDF’s Lawsuit Challenging Georgia’s Voter Suppression Law — December 8, 2023

• Pew Research Center — About 8 in 10 women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband’s last name — September 7, 2023

• Center for American Progress — The SAVE America Act Explained: How the New ‘Show Your Papers’ Voting Bill Is Even More Extreme Than the SAVE Act — February 27, 2026

• PolitiFact — Voter suppression or little step? How the SAVE America Act affects married women who change names — March 19, 2026

• Ms. Magazine — When Voting Gets Harder, Women Pay First: The Stakes of the SAVE Act — February 9, 2026

• NAACP Legal Defense Fund — LDF Denounces House Passage of SAVE America Act as Dangerous and Discriminatory — February 12, 2026

• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights — Coalition Letter Opposing S. 1383, The So-Called “SAVE America Act” — February 24, 2026

• Voto Latino — The SAVE America Act Threatens Access to the Ballot for Over 36 Million Eligible Latino Voters — March 17, 2026

• Senate Democrats — Leader Schumer Floor Remarks On How The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions Of American Voters — February 9, 2026

• Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement, University of Maryland — Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge — January 2024

• Bipartisan Policy Center — Modernizing Voter List Maintenance: An Evidence-Based Framework for Access and Integrity — September 9, 2025

• Fox News — Pandemic, price tags and privacy concerns: Why it took 20 years to implement REAL ID — April 21, 2025

• ACLU — Kobach’s Documentary Proof-of-Citizenship Law Heads to Trial — March 1, 2018

• NPR — Judge Tosses Kansas’ Proof-Of-Citizenship Voter Law And Rebukes Sec. Of State Kobach — June 19, 2018

• Institute for Responsive Government — The SAVE Act: How a Proof of Citizenship Requirement Would Impact Elections — January 30, 2025

• Office of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — On Senate Floor, Shaheen Slams Republicans’ SAVE America Act: ‘This Bill Prevents Americans from Voting.’ — March 18, 2026

• U.S. Conference of Mayors — Nation’s Mayors Call on U.S. Senators to Oppose the SAVE Act — March 16, 2026

• The Texas Tribune / ProPublica — A federal tool to check voter citizenship keeps making mistakes. It led to confusion in Texas. — February 13, 2026

• ABC 17 News (KMIZ) — Local election authorities say a verification tool used in Missouri elections flagged citizens for removal from rolls — February 13, 2026

• Voter Participation Center — The SAVE America Act by the Numbers: How Millions of Eligible Voters Could Be Affected — March 13, 2026

• ACLU — Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona — June 17, 2013

• National Conference of State Legislatures — The States Decide How Elections Are Run — July 9, 2025

• CNN — Trump wants Republicans to ‘nationalize’ US elections. The Constitution might get in the way — February 4, 2026

• Cato Institute (via X) — Post on SAVE America Act centralizing voter-screening power — February 25, 2026

• Issue One — Nearly 60 bipartisan election officials express their opposition to the SAVE Act — April 1, 2025

• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (via X) — Post on President Trump’s comments on the SAVE Act — March 2, 2026

• Sen. Mike Lee (via X) — “Let’s turn this around — by passing SAVE America. Pass it on.” — March 14, 2026

• Fox News — Reporter’s Notebook: GOP weighs ‘nuking’ filibuster to pass Trump’s SAVE Act — March 16, 2026

• Office of Sen. John Cornyn (originally published in New York Post) — Why the SAVE Act Matters More than the Filibuster — March 11, 2026

• Louisville Courier Journal — McConnell and filibuster stand in way of Trump-backed voter ID bill — February 13, 2026

• CNN — MAGA says the SAVE America Act is crucial. A new poll shows Americans don’t agree — March 21, 2026

Subscribe now

More on Iran: If this resonated with you, find more of my articles on this topic

• The Iran Blackout: 90 Million People Went Dark

• War in Iran: Every Argument For It and Against It — Laid Bare

• The World Needs A Free Iran

• Hope After Revolution: Iran + Israel = BFFs?

Read my personal reflection on his life and legacy from the morning after he passed away here.

I was blown away and humbled by how much impact one human life can have.

Reverend Jackson was born in segregation and poverty. Yet three former U.S. presidents and three sitting heads of state were among the 10,000 people who showed up for his funerals.

Pastors, activists, diplomats, union leaders, elected officials and everyday people whose lives he touched filled the pews and the overflow rooms. Some came because he mentored them. Others came because he marched for them. Many came simply because he made them believe.

Jesse Jackson didn’t just witness history. He helped bend it. He helped millions of Americans see themselves differently.

So let me tell you a little more about what Rev. Jesse Jackson actually did.

Rev. Jackson Saw Us Before We Could See Ourselves

Jesse Jackson didn’t just stand up and tell us we were worthy of dignity and respect.

He made us declare it.

Out loud. In our own voices.
Until we embraced it.
Owned it.
Truly believed it — for ourselves.

He called us up and in,
even when the world counted us out.

Jesse Jackson Helped Us Believe Our Time Has Come

Jesse Jackson ran for president twice: 1984 and 1988.

He ran fully aware of all his critics’ warnings that the country “wasn’t ready.”
He didn’t care.

He declared to voters: “Our time has come,” daring America to prove him wrong.

Against all odds, he nearly made it to the White House.

Rev. Jackson Transformed How Americans Saw Politics — and Each Other

He didn’t just talk about the Rainbow Coalition.

He brought that vision to life with strong leadership and powerful prose — and made millions of Americans want to be part of it.

It’s time to put respect on his name. He earned it. And then some.

Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson, 1941–2026. No equal. No sequel. Rest in power.

It started long before the U.S. strikes on Iran. And it will continue long after. That’s because this is a “gray war.” Most of the time, the fight isn’t loud. It’s subtle. It runs through your phone. Algorithms are the weapons. Division is the strategy.

The main goal is to turn America on itself.

The video above connects the dots. Watch it, then decide what side of this gray war you’re on.

Subscribe now

For those of you who are unfamiliar, meet Reza Pahlavi. This man has an honest shot at leading Iran and changing the Middle East — and possibly the world. The video above explains how one rarely discussed figure may hold the biggest lever for peace in our time.

Subscribe now

February 28, 2026

Your news and social media feeds are already flooded with content about the war in Iran. There are smart people on all sides making powerful claims. I want to equip you to handle the onslaught — and come to your own conclusions.

Below, I lay out the strongest version of every argument — for and against the strikes on Iran. Not the straw-man version. Not the Twitter-friendly version. The real arguments, made by serious people, with actual evidence behind them.

Because here’s what I know: if you’re only hearing one side of this debate, it’s not because the other side doesn’t have a strong case. It’s because the information ecosystem is designed to make sure you never encounter it.

QUICK BACKGROUND: On February 28th, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury and Israel launched Operation Roaring Lion — hitting more than 500 targets across Iran, including nuclear sites, missile bases and energy infrastructure. Iran fired back. Ayatollah Khamenei has already been pronounced dead by US and Israeli officials.

This is one of the biggest military actions of the decade. It deserves more than bumper sticker explanations.

Here are five dimensions to think about. You decide where you land. To develop your own take on the narratives unfolding in different ecosystems, I encourage you to read through to the end.

1. National Security

For the military strikes: The Islamic Republic in Iran has been calling for “death to America” for decades. The Islamic Republic of Iran runs the biggest terror proxy network in the Middle East – Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza and militias across Iraq and Syria.

These aren’t just names on a map. Hezbollah has killed hundreds of Americans. The Houthis shut down a major global shipping lane for over a year. Hamas carried out the deadliest attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust on October 7. The Iranian Regime is the largest state actor that funds, arms and directs all of it.

The potential nuclear threat is real. Iran had pushed uranium enrichment to 60%. The IAEA found 83.7% particles at Fordow. That’s getting dangerously close to bomb-grade material.

The case the administration made was simple. Iran’s nuclear program kept advancing — through sanctions, through talks, through warnings. The window to stop it militarily was closing. So they acted. More than thirty sites were struck in the first wave. Deterrence only works if people believe you mean it. The White House says: we had to act before it was too late.

Against the military strikes: The third round of Geneva nuclear talks ended February 26th. One day later, Oman announced Iran had agreed to “zero stockpiling” of enriched uranium. Maybe that deal would have fallen apart. Maybe not. But bombing a country one day after it made its biggest offer in years? That raises a hard question: were these strikes about stopping a threat — or were they planned no matter what?

On the same day we launched these strikes, the Department of Homeland Security was in the middle of a shutdown that started on February 14th. Sixty-one thousand TSA workers — the people who screen you at the airport — were working without a paycheck. The agency that protects Americans here at home was falling apart while we were launching strikes 6,000 miles away.

You can’t say you’re protecting America while cutting the agencies that actually protect America. Any enemy watching can see the gap. The totality of these actions make our nation less secure.

Subscribe now

2. Legal

For the military strikes: The legal argument for the strikes rests on a simple idea: countries have a right to defend themselves under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Two top law professors argue Israel and Iran have been in an ongoing conflict for years, making the strikes a legal continuation, not a new war.

Iran had been breaking its promises to nuclear inspectors for years. They refused to explain secret nuclear work at multiple sites. They kept pushing enrichment closer and closer to bomb-grade levels. And there’s a historical precedent. In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The UN Security Council condemned it in Resolution 487 — but it set a pattern that countries have followed ever since.

Against the military strikes: Professor Adil Ahmad Haque of Rutgers Law School called the strikes “indefensible” and a “manifest violation of the UN Charter.” The administration’s own intelligence chief, DNI Gabbard, told the Senate in 2025 that “Iran is not building nuclear weapons.” Britain’s top lawyer told PM Starmer not to join, calling it illegal to bomb a country over a threat that might happen someday.

President Trump would need legal authorization from the U.S. Congress to launch this war — and he doesn’t have it. That fact makes this an illegal war by definition.

3. Humanitarian

For the military strikes: The Islamic Republic has been brutalizing its own people since 1979. Executions, torture, forced disappearances, the systematic oppression of women, gay people, journalists and anyone who dared to dissent. This isn’t recent. This is 47 years of state violence against the same population the regime claims to represent.

The most recent crackdown made that undeniable. The regime itself admitted 3,117 people died in its crackdown on the 2025-2026 protests. Activist groups say the real number is over 7,000. Leaked military documents from inside the IRGC suggest it could be over 36,500.

On Valentine’s Day, hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied worldwide — not protesting the strikes, but calling for the military weakening of the IRGC. When critics wave the protests away as imperialism, they are telling real people their dead relatives don’t matter.

Few countries free themselves from dictatorship without outside military help. The fascist regimes of Germany and Japan required global intervention to topple. Even the United States could not have freed itself from Great Britain without help from France and Spain. The cause of freedom within a country sometimes requires military support from outside the country.

Against the military strikes: But here’s the flip side. After last year’s 12-day war, a UN investigation documented civilian deaths across multiple strike zones, including damage to neighborhoods and basic infrastructure. Long military operations disrupt the economy and the suffering falls hardest on the exact same Iranian people whose freedom is supposed to be the whole point.

Iraq and Libya taught us what happens when you knock down a government without a plan for what comes next. In both cases, the people who paid the highest price were the same ones we said we were saving.

You can’t call it humanitarian if you don’t have a plan for the humans.

4. Diplomatic

For the military strikes: Diplomacy with Iran has been tried for decades — and it has never held.

The biggest attempt was the 2015 nuclear agreement, the JCPOA. Iran was supposed to freeze its nuclear program. In exchange, it got sanctions relief. The U.S. pulled out in 2018. Iran started enriching again. Every round of talks since has made small progress and never closed a real deal.

Pro-strike voices in Congress and the political think-tank world would say Iran doesn’t negotiate to make peace. It negotiates to buy time. Every round of talks is another month to enrich more uranium, build more missiles and strengthen its proxy network. At some point, the question isn’t whether diplomacy is failing. It’s whether diplomacy is being used.

The strikes change the math. You negotiate very differently when your nuclear sites are in pieces.

Against the military strikes: The third round of Geneva talks wrapped up February 26th. Iran’s foreign minister said they had “found the main pieces of a deal.” Oman announced Iran had agreed to “zero stockpiling” of enriched uranium. Whether that offer was real or a bluff, it was the biggest diplomatic opening in years. Then we bombed them.

That sends a message to every country we’ll ever negotiate with: don’t bother. Making a deal with America is pointless if America might bomb you anyway. The damage goes beyond Iran — Key U.S. partners lobbied against the strikes. Oman had spent years building itself into the go-between for the U.S. and Iran. Its foreign minister flew to Washington the day before to beg us not to do this. When your own mediators are telling you to stop, that’s worth pausing on.

The real question isn’t whether Iran has played games at the negotiating table — it has. The question is whether blowing up the table makes things better.

Subscribe now

5. Economic

For the military strikes: The money argument for the strikes is about the long game. As long as Iran is chasing a nuclear weapon, global energy markets stay jumpy. Every time Iran does something provocative — more enrichment, more proxy attacks on oil tankers — oil prices tick up. That costs the world billions.

Take out the nuclear threat for good and you take out the source of that instability. Iran has huge oil reserves. Someday, a different Iran could pump a lot more oil onto the world market, which could actually bring prices down.

Against the military strikes: Oil was already at $67/barrel before the strikes. One-fifth of all the world’s oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption is already real. Major oil companies have stopped shipping through the strait. Fourteen LNG tankers have turned around or stopped. One energy analyst warned that if Qatar can’t get its gas out, “the effect on global gas prices would be dramatic.”

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro put it plainly: Americans are begging for help with the cost of living, not more war. Sen. Tim Kaine said the same thing: people want lower prices, not more war.

Information Warfare

The pro-strike side is celebrating without mentioning the civilians killed or the peace talks that were still on the table 24 hours earlier. The anti-strike side is sharing unverified footage from accounts that don’t check out and ignoring the direct desires of the Iranian people.

But the people with the most at stake — Iranians, both inside Iran and in the diaspora, who will tell you they’re thrilled the IRGC is weaker — get too little attention, airtime or respect.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

The hardest spot in politics is holding more than one truth at the same time.

The IRGC has killed thousands. True. Bombing without a “day after” plan is reckless. Also true. The people of Iran need military aid to topple the dictatorial regime that is slaughtering them. True. Gutting homeland security while launching a foreign war makes no sense. True.

The internet is set up to make sure you only hear one of these truths at a time. Absolutely true.

The events that are unfolding in the Middle East are arguably the most consequential in the world. It’s important to note the overwhelming support from the Iranian people for military strikes and intervention.

Next week, I will write an essay that describes my own views. But in the meantime, I hope the information above will help you develop your own.

Which arguments do you think I got right — or wrong? Hit me with your strongest agreements and disagreements in the comments.

And if this piece made you wrestle with an argument you hadn’t yet considered (or maybe didn’t even want to hear) — maybe subscribe or share. That’s our goal here.

Subscribe now

More on Iran: If this resonated with you, find more of my articles on this topic

• The Iran Blackout: 90 Million People Went Dark

• The War With Iran - Van Jones feat. Iranian Activist Elica Le Bon

• The World Needs A Free Iran

• Hope After Revolution: Iran + Israel = BFFs?

Sources

1. Ali Khamenei Cut Off From Contact as Israel, US Strike Iran — The Jerusalem Post

2. Live Updates: US and Israel Attack Iran — CNN

3. US-Israel Launch Operation Against Iran — Army Recognition

4. IAEA Finds 83.7% Enriched Uranium at Fordow — PBS

5. Iran and Its Proxies Threaten Retaliation — FDD

6. USS Abraham Lincoln Redirected to Middle East — Army Recognition

7. US and Israel Attack Iran: Early Analysis — Chatham House

8. US-Iran Nuclear Talks Wrap Up — NPR

9. Trump says he is ‘not happy’ with the Iran nuclear talks but indicates he’ll give them more time – NPR

10. US and Iran Hold “Most Intense” Nuclear Talks — CNBC

11. US-Iran Talks: “Longest, Most Serious” Round — Al Jazeera

12. Indefensible: Israel’s Unlawful Attack on Iran — Just Security

13. A New War or Ongoing Conflict — Just Security

14. Are Israel’s Attacks Against Iran Legal? — Al Jazeera

15. UN Mission: Strikes May Have Violated International Law — Reuters

16. UN Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) — UN Digital Library

17. DNI Gabbard Testimony — PBS

18. Iran Regime Acknowledges 3,117 Deaths — NHK World

19. More Than 7,000 Dead in Iran Crackdown — PBS

20. IRGC Internal Documents: 36,500+ Dead — Iran International

21. Iran, US Spar as Diaspora Organises Rallies — Al Jazeera

22. Oil/Gas Majors Suspend Strait of Hormuz Shipments — Reuters

23. Trump Iran Attack: Oil, Energy Impact — Politico

24. How Would Iran Respond to US Attack — CSIS

25. UMD/SSRS Critical Issues Poll

26. DHS Begins Shutdown — Reuters

27. TSA Workers Without Pay — CNN

28. Why Middle Eastern Governments Lobbied Against US Attack — Chatham House

29. Iran Enriched Uranium to 60% — BBC

30. Pahlavi Urges Iranians to Prepare — Iran International

Ms. Baker wasn’t interested in building celebrity leaders. She helped catalyze the student movement that became SNCC, urging young activists to be their own force.

Her philosophies changed my life and informed my work as an organizer. Watch the video above to learn about the blueprint Baker left us.

Subscribe now

I saw my father cry only once. It was the summer of 1984. And he was listening to the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

It was a hot summer night. A dozen or so of my relatives were all packed into a modest hotel suite – the kind where a single door joined two separate rooms. I don’t know why we were all there. But all the kids were in one room, having fun and acting crazy.

The adults were in the other room – quiet and pensive. They were gathered around a TV set, anxiously waiting for Rev. Jackson to mount the global stage and address the Democratic National Convention.

It’s hard to imagine now, but in those days black people almost never got the opportunity to address the entire nation like that. So my parents, uncles and aunts were all desperately hoping he would “represent us well.”

Rev. Jackson’s unprecedented 1984 run for the presidency had electrified black America – and shocked the white establishment.

He had come up short, losing the nomination to Walter Mondale. But along the way, MLK’s protégé had become the nation’s most dynamic and charismatic figure – offering liberals a brilliant and colorful counterpoint to the unwelcome and intimidating figure of Ronald Reagan.

I decided to slip over and join the adults. My dad was sitting on a bed – casting his trademark scowl at the TV screen.

My father was a tough SOB who didn’t suffer fools. My dad had grown up poor in the segregated South. He joined the military to get out of crushing poverty in Memphis. He became a no-nonsense educator of disadvantaged students in my hometown of Jackson, Tennessee.

He was the least sentimental man I have ever known. He never cried – ever. No matter what. No matter who died. No matter how bad things got. Willie Anthony Jones was a rock. A brick. A stone.

Then Rev. Jackson walked out on that big stage. And within 10 minutes, he had my dad in tears.

When it was over, my dad was weeping – with his head in his hands.

Such was the power of Rev. Jackson. His singular ability to speak to the hopes, fears, pain and aspiration of his constituency was unmatched – then and now. He was able to convey to the wider world all of the dreams and aspirations of people like my dad – and somehow get 30,000 people of every color and hue to stand and cheer in rapturous ovation.

MLK’s ELOQUENCE x BERNIE’S POPULISM x ROCK STAR CHARISMA

I have never seen anything like it. Imagine the power of Bernie Sanders’ populist message. Now imagine that power exponentially multiplied by the transcendent eloquence of a Dr. King. Add to that a football player’s physique and rock star presence.

That combination would just begin to describe Rev. Jackson at the height of his powers. He was a peerless force of nature who rearranged the molecules in the air, just by walking into a room.

During his 1984 and 1988 runs, he invented and perfected the brand of inclusive politics that Democrats now take for granted. His “Rainbow Coalition” united blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, students, union members – all the people who were overlooked or underestimated in Reagan’s America.

As Rev. Jackson often said: “My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised”. He proved that real power was in the hands of the powerless – when a leader emerged who could move the masses.

MY FRIEND AND MENTOR

Soon after my father died in 2008, I got the chance to meet Rev. Jackson in person. It was a life-changing moment for me. He took me under his wing, personally mentoring me for more than 15 years.

• After I left the Obama administration, he encouraged me – saying, “We are long-distance runners. We just keep on serving.”

• He and I worked together to open up Silicon Valley to overlooked talent when I was running #YesWeCode.

• The Reverend’s example of including everyone – from AIDS patients to family farmers – in his coalition encouraged me to keep my own heart open and my own arms wide.

He was of singular importance to me. And not just me.

It is impossible to overstate – and difficult to even to comprehend – the importance and power of Rev. Jackson in his prime. Today he is overshadowed by other figures. But for nearly half a century, Rev. Jackson was the United States’ most important black political figure.

After all, Dr. King died in 1968, and Obama was not elected until 2008. For black America, that was a long 40 years in the wilderness. Through those four difficult decades, the man who put the cause on his back and carried us through was Rev. Jackson.

BLUEPRINT FOR OBAMA 2008

Exactly 20 years after King’s death and 20 years before Obama’s triumph, Rev. Jackson led a presidential campaign that felt more like a spiritual revival than an electoral bid. Here was a black man lighting up the sky with an incandescent politics of possibility, telling a despairing nation to “keep hope alive.”

Sound familiar? In many ways, his 1988 campaign offered a roadmap for Obama’s successful run 20 years later – showing the enthusiasm that a dynamic black outsider could generate with a message about “hope” and change.

Most importantly: after his 1988 campaign, Rev. Jackson insisted that the DNC change its rules. He wanted – and won – a fairer, more proportional model to select party delegates.

Had the old rules applied to the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton likely would have been the Democratic Party’s nominee – not Barack Obama. But the post-Jackson rules made it possible for the next outsider to beat the establishment candidate and go on to win the presidency.

R.I.P. TO OUR LONG-DISTANCE RUNNER

In other words, Rev. Jackson unlocked the door. Then Obama forced it open and walked through. Without Rev. Jackson’s advocacy for a change of rules, Obama might have been stopped by the same system that blocked the Reverend’s rise.

The quest for justice, freedom and equal opportunity is a long one. It can’t be completed in one generation – or even one century.

It’s a relay race. And there was never a better “long distance runner” than the beloved Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson. My father – and millions of others like him – deeply appreciated him. So do I. May he rest in peace and power.