When facts, freedom, competence, and democracy are tested, citizens have a clear choice to make. In this episode, Dr. Jackalyn Rainosek examines how individual news stories connect to form a larger pattern defining our national character. From government accountability and public health research to judicial independence and academic freedom, citizens must decide what standards they’re willing to tolerate. By looking through the lens of behavioral science and institutional integrity, we can move past political noise and reclaim our role in sustaining American democracy.
Episode Summary Points:
- Fact-Checking Government Watchdogs: Emphasizes that citizens must demand verifiable evidence rather than accepting unbacked claims, pointing to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found overstated savings claims by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
- Separating Science from Politics: Warns against allowing political ideology to dictate public health policy or suppress medical research regarding childhood vaccines and autism, stressing that scientific inquiry must follow evidence rather than political convenience.
- Defending Judicial Independence: Highlights the danger of threats against federal judges who issue rulings against the executive branch, asserting that democracy requires a fearless, independent judiciary to uphold the Constitution.
- Protecting the Free Press: Outlines the critical role of investigative journalism as a democratic check on power, celebrating the withdrawal of Justice Department subpoenas against New York Times reporters after First Amendment challenges.
- Upholding Academic Freedom: Examines lawsuits by Texas A&M professors over state restrictions on classroom topics (race, gender, and sexuality), arguing that higher education requires open inquiry rather than political censorship.
- Confronting Policy Shifts and Human Dignity: Explores the human, economic, and moral fallout of ending Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitians, as well as the treatment of Afghan refugees who assisted U.S. forces.
- Prioritizing Competence Over Loyalty: Questions the appointment of a convicted January 6th participant to a sensitive Pentagon national security role, arguing that national defense demands proven qualifications and trustworthiness over political connections.
- Addressing Congressional Inaction and Strategic Distraction: Criticizes Congress for spending minimal time legislating—which shifts power to the executive branch—and highlights intelligence warnings about global competitors like China exploiting U.S. geopolitical distractions.
- Active Citizenship and Institutional Pushback: Concludes with an empowering message that American democracy is not collapsing, but actively functioning as judges, journalists, auditors, professors, and voters push back against overreach and demand accountability.
—
Watch the episode here
Listen to the podcast here
What Kind Of America Are We Willing To Accept?
Demanding Evidence from Government Watchdogs
This episode, what kind of America are we willing to accept? When the facts, freedom, compliance and democracy are tested, what do citizens choice to do? There are many weeks when I read the news and think, “How many disturbing things can happen? When are we going to stop treating each other the way we are? I realized something, a federal judge makes a ruling and threats follow. Professors challenge restrictions on what they can teach. Journalists receive government subpoenas because of their reporting.
Scientists find themselves defending decades of medical research against political claims. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have legally lived and worked in America suddenly face losing their authorization to work and possibly being forced to leave. A government efficiency project that boasted about enormous savings turns out to have made major errors in calculating. Their calculations are not accretive all about those savings. They didn’t do that.
Congress has enormous problems because it spends remarkably little time legislating. A person convicted for participating in the January 6 attack on the Capitol is appointed to a sensitive political Pentagon position. I say political because that’s exactly how he got it but it’s in the Pentagon in the very sensitive area. Participating in January attack on the Capital seems to me they should not be in the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, Americans are still struggling with affordability. The United States is engaged in a costly conflict with Iran, and an intelligence assessment warns that China is finding ways to benefit from our distraction. Let’s look at it. These stories seem different. They seem unrelated but let’s look at them together and a different question emerges, what kind of America are we becoming? An even more important question, what kind of America are we willing to accept?
That is what I want us to talk about. Not one man. Not one outrageous statement again. Not one political party’s latest talking point. I want us to talk about us. You and me as citizens of the United States, because democracies ultimately become what their citizens are willing to tolerate. I’ve got a bunch of test to see what you think.
Demanding Evidence From Government Watchdogs
The first test. Do facts matter? Let’s begin with something that ought to be simple. If the government tells taxpayers that it saved their money, shouldn’t those numbers be accurate? The Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, presented itself as a historic effort to eliminate waste. It publicized wall of receipts claimed enormous savings for taxpayers. The Government Accountability Office, the independent congressional watchdog examined those claims. What did it find? Serious problems.
The Government Accountability Office found that DOGE had overstated or could not substantially sustain portions of its claimed savings. Some leases DOGE claimed credit for terminating were already being terminated. Auditors found contracts listed as canceled that had not been canceled. The methodology behind many claimed grant savings could not even be verified. Think about what this means. This isn’t a story about accounting. It is a story about whether citizens can trust what their government tells them.
Efficiency is good. Reducing genuine waste is good. Saving taxpayers money is good but announcing enormous savings is not the same thing as producing enormous savings. When an independent watchdog catches the government exaggerating its accomplishments, our response shouldn’t depend upon which political party is in power. Our response should be, “Show me the evidence.” That sentence may be one of the most important sentences citizens can say in a democracy, “Show us the evidence.”
Separating Scientific Integrity From Political Agendas
The second test. Will we let politics replace science? That is a real concern of mine. Now, consider public health. The White House is considering further action involving vaccines and autism, even though decades of scientific research have failed to establish that childhood vaccines cause autism. This matters enormously. Vaccination is not an abstract ideological argument. Vaccines prevent disease. They prevent disability and they save lives.
David Frum’s article about Anthony Fauci makes an important argument that goes beyond Fauci himself. You do not have to believe that every public-health decision made during COVID was correct. I certainly don’t. Officials make mistakes. Scientific understanding can change. Some policies lasted too long. School closures caused real harm. Public health authorities sometimes communicated with more certainty than the evidence showed.
Efficiency is great, but real government accountability means demanding proof. Show us the evidence.
Those things deserve examination but there is an enormous difference between saying, “Science sometimes gets things wrong and must correct itself.” What I would be saying and what I’ve heard people say is “Evidence doesn’t matter.” I disagree with that. Science works precisely because conclusions can be challenged by better evidence. Political belief does not become scientific evidence merely because millions of people repeat it.
During COVID, vaccines became part of America’s political identity. Frum points to the tragic consequences, communities with greater resistance to vaccination experienced substantially higher death rates. Whatever our politics, we should be able to say something very simple. A vaccine helps eliminate viruses. A virus does not care how you voted. Measles doesn’t ask whether you’re Republican or Democrat. Cancer doesn’t check your voter registration.
Autism research should be driven by researchers following evidence wherever it leads. Not politicians deciding beforehand what answer they want scientists to find. When political leaders pressure science to produce politically convenient conclusions, all Americans should be very concerned because the scientific finding being suppressed might be the one that could save your life.
Protecting Judicial Independence From Intimidation
The third test, for me about what I want to live in. Can a judge rule without fearing that their lives will be affected or there’ll be threatened? This may be one of the most disturbing stories in the collection that I’ve used for this episode. Federal judges who have issued rulings against the administration have reported receiving threats. Judge John Coughenour, a republican appointee with decades on the federal bench temporarily blocked an executive order involving birthright citizenship.
He subsequently described receiving an extraordinary number of threats. Stop there for a moment. A judge ruled against the president? That is not an attack on America. That is America. The judiciary was deliberately created to be independent. A president proposes an action and someone challenges it. A judge determines whether that action complies with the Constitution and the law. Sometimes the president wins. Sometimes the president loses. That’s the system that’s working.
Judicial independence protects everyone’s rights. Threatening judges threatens the entire constitutional system.
We are free to criticize judges. Judges are not infallible. Their decisions can be appealed and overturned. When judges begin worrying that an unpopular ruling may produce threats against themselves or their families, something much larger is happening. Fear begins entering the judicial process and democracy cannot survive if judges must ask themselves two questions before issuing a ruling.
What does the Constitution require? What might happen to my family if I say what I believe about this particular case? Every American, conservative, liberal and independent should want judges who are able to rule without intimidation because today the judge may be protecting someone else’s rights. Tomorrow, that judge may be protecting yours.
Preserving First Amendment Protections For Investigative Press
The fourth test. Can journalists investigate the government? Another article concerns subpoenas issued to New York Times journalists connected with reporting about security concerns surrounding the president’s new Air Force One aircraft. The Justice Department ultimately agreed to withdraw the subpoenas after a federal judge raised profound First Amendment concerns. That outcome matters but so does the fact that the confrontation happened.
Journalists are sometimes irritating. They make mistakes. News organizations have biases. Reporters should be criticized when their reporting is inaccurate, but the free press is not supposed to make government officials comfortable. That’s what I think happens. The constitutional purpose is almost the opposite. Journalists investigate. They expose. They question. They obtain information powerful people would sometimes prefer citizens not know.
When the government investigates powers are directed at reporters because of their reporting, every American should pay attention. I notice something important here. The system pushed back. The newspaper challenged the subpoenas. A federal judge questioned them. The Justice Department withdrew them. That is democracy functioning. Not perfectly but functioning. That is going to become important before this episode is over.
Freedom of inquiry only works when we defend it for ideas we disagree with.
Defending Academic Inquiry In Higher Education
The fifth test. Who decides what can be taught in our universities? This question comes very close to home in Texas because I have a degree from Texas A&M in the College Station. The professors at Texas A&M have sued over policies restricting classroom discussion involving race, gender and sexuality. The controversy has affected courses and teaching materials and has raised fundamental questions about academic freedom.
Now, I know some readers will immediately say, “Universities have become too liberal.” Others will say, “Conservative politicians are censoring education.” I want us to go deeper than either slogan. Ask yourself this. Do we want politicians deciding which ideas adults may encounter at a public university? Universities should be accountable. I have no question about it. Professors, though, should teach their subjects. Students should be able to challenge professors. Intellectual diversity matters.
Education is not supposed to guarantee that students will never encounter an idea that makes them uncomfortable. Education is supposed to teach people how to encounter difficult ideas and think. If government officials can prohibit ideas, you dislike today, another government can prohibit ideas you value tomorrow. Freedom of inquiry only works when we decide it for people with whom we disagree. That is the difficult part of freedom.
Evaluating Human Impact In Policy Shifts
The sixth test. What happens to people when policy changes overnight? I think this is tragic because they have contributed so much to our country. When Haitians living in America under temporary protection status lose it, then the temporary protection status exits. Sometimes conditions in another country like, war, disaster, political instability or extraordinary danger, make returning people there unsafe. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians have been living legally in this country under that protection.
They work. They pay rent. They raise children. Employers depend upon them. Communities have incorporated them into their economies. Now that protection has ended for roughly 350,000 Haitians. Placing many at risk of losing their legal ability to work and potentially facing deportation. Whatever your position on immigration and reasonable people can disagree about immigration policy. We should confront the practical question.
Critical government roles demand competence over loyalty. Expertise keeps our country safe.
What happens when hundreds of thousands of legally employed people suddenly cannot work? What happens to hospitals, nursing homes, factories, small businesses, and families? Where exactly are people being returned to? Haiti continues to experience extraordinary violence and instability. There is another immigration story here as well. A federal refugee agency sought to interview hundreds of Afghans who came to America following the Taliban takeover, requesting detailed information that refugee advocates feared could eventually be used for immigration enforcement.
Think about the moral dilemma. Some Afghans assisted the United States during twenty years of war. America told people who helped us, “Trust us.” A country establishes its character partly by what happens after it makes that promise. Border security matters. Immigration law matters, but so do reliability and human dignity. These principles do not have to be enemies.
Prioritizing Competence Over Political Loyalty
The seventh test. What do we reward, competence or loyalty? One article stopped me cold. A man convicted for his participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach was appointed to a Pentagon office involved with sensitive national security matters. He was a young. When January 6 occurred, he later expressed regret. People can change, and our society should allow rehabilitation but that is not the only issue. This is the Pentagon we’re talking about. This is national security. This is work involving highly sensitive military operations.
The question citizens should make is, is this person on my political side? Is that we’re asking questions about? Maybe the question should be, is this the most qualified and trustworthy person for this position? How about taking responsibility for past actions that do not show support of the United States? That should be the standard throughout.
Is this the most qualified and trustworthy person for this responsibility? Compliance over loyalty. Expertise over flattery. Country over faction. We should demand that standard from Democratic presidents. We should demand that standard from Republican presidents because nuclear weapons, intelligence operations, disease outbreaks and military conflicts do not become less dangerous because somebody has excellent political connections.
The eighth test. Is congress still governing? Meanwhile, Congress has a remarkable schedule. According to the Washington Post analysis included in these articles, House members left Washington facing only about four weeks in session over the following three months. The Senate’s schedule was only somewhat fuller. This is happening while the country faces war, spending decisions, affordability problems, immigration questions and major disputes over executive power and congressional approval has been extraordinarily low.
There is something unhealthy about a democracy in which legislators spend increasingly large amounts of time campaigning for the jobs they spend decreasing amounts of time performing in that very job. This matters for another reason. When Congress doesn’t legislate, power doesn’t disappear. Power moves. It moves toward the executive branch. Presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on executive action when Congress cannot or will not act.
Every time Congress voluntarily gives itself and makes itself weaker, the presidency becomes stronger. People who support a powerful president should remember, eventually, someone you profoundly disagree with you will occupy that office. Checks and balances aren’t designed only to restrain presidents we dislike. They protect us from every president.
The ninth test. Are we safer when America is distracted? The articles raise a national-security concern that deserves attention. An American intelligence assessment reportedly concluded that China has been exploiting the US conflict with Iran to improve its own position diplomatically, economically, militarily and informationally. Is this is what great power competitors needing to doing? While America spends money, weapons, political attention and military capacity in one theater.
Competitors calculate what opportunities have to open up in other areas. That doesn’t automatically mean every military action is wrong. Sometimes military force is necessary but Americans should always ask before entering or expanding a conflict. What is the objective? What will it cost? How do we know when we have succeeded? What other strategic priorities are we sacrificing? Who benefits while we’re occupied with this conflict? Patriotism does not require unquestioning support for war. Patriotism requires demanding that American lives and American power be used wisely.
We have to go to the economy. For most Americans, politics eventually reaches the kitchen table. Can I afford groceries? Can I afford insurance? Can I pay the rent? Can my children buy a home? What will gasoline cost next month? Inflation continues to affect the broader economy, and geopolitical instability has again threatened energy prices. People do not experience the economy as a government statistic. They experience it at HEB or anyone at the grocery store.
They experience it at the pharmacy and at the gas pump. When the insurance bill arrives, they experience the concerned about what’s happening in our country. When rent goes up, when a family postpones replacing the car because they cannot afford the payment or a new car or even a used car. That is why leaders must be judged not simply by the numbers they announce but by the conditions citizens actually experience. Which brings me back to DOGE. You cannot tell people government has saved billions and assume the announcement itself makes families better off. Results matter. Competence matters. Truth matters.
Now, I want to change the direction of this episode. If I stopped here, I would leave you with the impression that American democracy is simply collapsing around us. That isn’t what these articles show. There is another story here and we need to hear it. Citizens are pushing back. Professors at Texas A&M didn’t simply accept restrictions they believe violation of academic freedom. They went to court. The New York Times didn’t simply surrender when its reporters were subpoenaed.
It challenged the government. The federal judge didn’t simply accept an executive action because it came from the president. He reviewed its constitutionality. Auditors didn’t simply repeat DOGE’s savings claims. They checked the numbers, and what they found was that they were extremely inaccurate. Scientists aren’t required to accept political assumptions about vaccines. They can keep demanding evidence. These aren’t signs that democracy has disappeared. They are signs that democratic institutions are being used. That distinction truly matters.
Voters are pushing back. Several of the political articles I had provided and will provide in my list point toward declining public support for the administration and growing difficulties for its party heading toward November. Other election results have shown Democrats winning important local contests. I don’t mention that because every Democrat deserves your vote. They don’t, and I don’t believe Americans should replace blind loyalty to one party with blind loyalty to another.
There are things that we have to constantly consider. It makes it very important for us to think about what we’re doing. What democracy really needs is for us to work to understand what is happening. Election is not a loyalty oath. Your ballot is not an employee evaluation. The question is, what have our Congressional representatives done. What have they done?
We need to look at that more clearly and this is what I think is important about voters pushing back. What matters is something that I think is very healthy. Politicians are discovering that voters can impose consequences on them. That is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. An election is not a loyalty oath as I said.
Your ballot is not an employee evaluation. The questions you have to ask yourself is, did they protect your interests? Did they tell you the truth? Did they respect the Constitution? Did they govern competently? Did they improve your community? Did they solve problems? If not, you are allowed to hire somebody else to represent you in congress or in the executive branch, period.
Another thing I want to show too is California gives us an interesting lesson. One of these articles report something we don’t hear very often. Homelessness in California has fallen for the first time in years. California still has a serious homeless problem. No one should pretend, otherwise, but the decline matters because it reminds us of something politics often makes us forget. Problems can get better. Policy can work. Prevention can work.
Housing assistance can work. Community partnership can work. We should study what produces results and what doesn’t. That is what government should be about. Not owning the other side. Not creating the most vile videos. Not making the angriest speech. We need to be having them solving problems. Imagine if we evaluated every politician primarily on one category. What did you actually fix? Not all the drama that’s being created. What did you actually fix? Even the climate story contains some hope.
For years, scientists modeled an extreme climate scenario known as RCP 8.5. A future in which humanity continued dramatically expanding fossil fuel use with little meaningful climate action. Scientists now say that particular worst-case pathway has become increasingly improbable. Now, we need to be careful. That does not mean that we don’t need climate change. It does not mean we can stop reducing emissions. It does not mean dangerous warming aren’t going to happening.
Why has the worst-case scenario become less plausible? What has happened that worst-case scenario is less plausible? Among the reasons scientists cite are falling renewable-energy costs, climate policies and changes in emissions trends. In other words, human choices changed the trajectory. Think about that. We spend so much time hearing that our problems are impossible that we sometimes forget what happens when millions of people, businesses, scientists and governments change behavior.
The future changes. Not perfectly. Not immediately, but measurably. That may be the most important lesson in this entire episode. Democracy is not something we have. It is something we do. We often talk about democracy as though the founders constructed it in 1787, handed it to us, and our only responsibility is to enjoy it. That isn’t how democracy works. Every generation has to maintain it. Judges maintain it when they rule according to law rather than intimidation.
Journalists maintain it when they investigate powerful people. Scientists maintain it when they refuse to alter evidence to satisfy politicians. Professors maintain it when they defend intellectual inquiry. Government auditors maintain it when they check the numbers. Civil servants maintain it when they put law ahead of political loyalty and citizens maintain it when they vote. How should we vote? I am not going to tell you that every person reading this episode must vote for exactly the same candidates.
I want to suggest something more demanding. Before you vote in November, ask every candidate, Republican, Democrat or independent the same questions. I have a list for it. Ask them, will you respect the Constitution when it prevents you from getting what you want? Will you defend judges from threats even when you hate their rulings? Will you defend a free press when you hate what it publishes? Will you follow scientific evidence even when it conflicts with your political base?
Will you appoint competent people rather than loyalties and the ones that are loyal to you? Will you protect the right of Americans to vote rather than designing election rules to favor your party? Will you tell us the truth when the truth is politically inconvenient? Will you treat immigrants as human beings while enforcing immigration law? Will you protect academic inquiry even when professors teach ideas you dislike? Will you work with people from the other party when doing so solves an American problem?
Perhaps, most importantly, do you understand that public office belongs to the public and not to you, the representative or the Senator or the president? It doesn’t belong to them. The question is, do you understand that the public office belongs to the public? Not to you. These are not Democratic questions. These are not Republican questions. These are American questions. If you want to, you can read my blog and you will find the questions there, so you’ll have your list. You can ask any contestant.
We need to accept that we decide what we will normalize. We decide that. We’re the ones voting them in office. This is where I want to leave you. Democracy disappears in one dramatic moment. Standards erode gradually. One threat becomes normal. One distortion becomes normal. One abuse of power becomes normal. One attack on experts becomes normal. One attack of retaliation becomes normal.
One restriction on freedom becomes normal until citizens no longer remember that the government wants to behave very differently. That is why our response cannot be simply outrage. Outrage exhausts all of us. Citizenship needs to empower every person that lives in this country. I’m asking you to read. Read the episodes. Ask questions and verify evidence that’s being given to you. Talk with people who disagree with you.
Support independent journalism. Defend courts even when you dislike their ruling. Demand evidence. Attend local meetings. Know who represents you and vote. Especially vote, because elected officials study one thing with remarkable attentiveness. Whether they’re behavior costs them an election. When it does, behavior changes. What kind of America are we willing to accept? I want an America where a scientist can tell a president, “The evidence doesn’t support that.”
I want an America where a judge can tell a president, “The Constitution doesn’t permit that.” I want an America where a journalist can tell a president, “We’re going to investigate that.” I want an America where a professor can tell students, “Let’s examine that idea.” I want an America where an auditor can tell the government, “Those numbers don’t add up.” I want an America where a citizen can tell every elected leader, “You work for me. You work for us, the citizens of the United States.”
I want an America where we can disagree passionately about taxes, abortion, immigration, guns, climate change, education and the size of government and still agree that elections matter, facts matter, laws matter, truth matters and political opponents are fellow Americans rather than enemies. That America is still available to us. The judges who keep judging prove it. The journalists who keep reporting prove it. The professors who challenge censorship prove it.
The scientists who keep following evidence prove it. The auditors checking government claims prove it. The communities solving difficult problems prove it, and every citizen who still shows up to vote proves it. Perhaps the question is, what is happening to America? I’d rather ask this question, what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about our country? We are not powerless. We are citizens of the United States. In a democracy, there is a profound difference between the two. Let’s be educated. Let’s stay engaged and let’s vote for the America we actually want to live in. Thank you so much for reading.
Important Links
- Frum, David. “Anthony Fauci Is Not the Villain in This Story.” The Atlantic, 2026.
- “The Race to Inoculate the Country.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “White House Drafting Executive Order on Vaccines and Autism Despite GOP Pollsters’ Warnings.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Elon Musk’s DOGE Made Big Errors in Claims of Government Savings, Government Watchdog Finds.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “The Trump Administration Tells the Truth.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Congress Isn’t Working. Literally.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “This Federal Judge Ruled Against Trump. Then the Threats Began.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Federal Appeals Court Rejects Bid to Block Trump’s Mail Voting Restrictions.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Justice Department Agrees to Withdraw Subpoenas Issued to New York Times Reporters.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “A Dire Warning Came in the Mail.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Professors Sue Texas A&M.” Article supplied by Don Kelly, 2026.
- “Temporary Protected Status for Haitians Officially Ends, Putting Thousands Out of Work and in Limbo.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Federal Agency Seeks to Interview Afghan Immigrants, Alarming Refugee Groups.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Pentagon Hires Convicted Jan. 6 Rioter for Sensitive Counterterrorism Job.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “China Gains Major Edge on U.S. Amid Iran War, Intelligence Report Finds.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Trump Has Lost More Than the Iran War.” Forwarded commentary article, 2026.
- “Inflation Taking a Toll on Broader U.S. Economy.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Trump’s Poll Numbers Just Took Another Turn for the Worse.” The Washington Post, 2026.
- “Trump’s Plan for November Is Failing.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Local Democrats Won Big Tuesday Last Week.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “The Once-Shameless President Is Deeply Embarrassed.” The Atlantic, 2026.
- “Homelessness Is Falling in California for the First Time in Years. Here’s What Changed.” Article supplied by email, 2026.
- “Scientists Now Say This Worst-Case Climate Scenario Is ‘Implausible.’ Here’s What Retiring It Would Mean.” The Washington Post, 2026.