Political labels can help us understand candidates and movements. They can also oversimplify beliefs, distort differences, and replace serious discussion with praise, ridicule, or fear.

That is especially true of terms such as Democrat, progressive, liberal, socialist, and democratic socialist. Politicians and commentators do not always use them consistently. Opponents sometimes use them inaccurately on purpose.

Clarity, accuracy, and respect do not require agreement. They require us to describe political beliefs fairly and then examine the policies behind the labels.

My interest in this subject begins with language. As a writer and editor, I want political labels to help people understand ideas and proposals, not replace them with assumptions, stereotypes, or fear.

The labels describe different things

A Democrat is generally a member or supporter of the Democratic Party.

A democratic socialist identifies with a political philosophy or movement that seeks to extend democratic power more deeply into economic life.

A politician (or any individual) can be both.

The Democratic Party is a broad electoral coalition that includes democratic socialists, progressives, liberals, moderates, and people who hold relatively conservative positions on some issues.

The Democratic Socialists of America is a political organization, not one of the nation’s two major parties. Its members often support candidates running as Democrats.

Comparing Democrats with democratic socialists is not like comparing Democrats with Republicans. One term names a political party. The other names a political philosophy embraced by some people within that party.

What do Democrats generally support?

No description fits every Democrat. In general, though, Democrats support using government to protect civil and voting rights, defend personal freedoms, regulate businesses, provide public services, protect the environment, and reduce economic and social inequality.

Most Democrats accept a mixed economy in which businesses remain largely privately owned but operate under public laws, taxes, labor standards, and consumer protections. They generally support broader access to healthcare, education, housing, and economic assistance, as well as public action to address climate change.

Progressive Democrats generally support stronger labor protections, broader public programs, higher taxes on wealth, and more aggressive limits on corporate power. Moderate and mainstream Democrats are more likely to emphasize regulated private markets, public-private partnerships, gradual change, fiscal constraints, and bipartisan compromise.

Democrats may disagree sharply about particular policies while remaining broadly aligned on rights, public investment, social protections, and democratic government. Their disagreements usually concern the size, pace, and methods of change.

What do democratic socialists generally support?

Democratic socialists often support the same immediate proposals as progressive Democrats, including stronger unions, universal healthcare, affordable housing, progressive taxation, and major public investment.

But democratic socialism generally goes beyond making capitalism fairer.

Democratic socialists argue that political democracy remains incomplete when wealthy owners, investors, and corporations primarily control major economic decisions. They seek to give workers and the public more influence over workplaces, essential services, investment, and production.

That can include stronger unions and workplace democracy, worker cooperatives or employee ownership, public control of some essential services, and greater democratic influence over economic development and investment.

The distinction is not simply that democratic socialists support larger public programs. It also concerns who owns economic resources, who makes major decisions, and how power is distributed among workers, the public, corporations, and investors.

Democratic socialists do not all agree about how much of the economy should be publicly, cooperatively, or privately owned. The label describes a general direction, not a complete governing plan.

Where do the policies overlap?

Progressive Democrats and democratic socialists may support the same legislation on:

• Wages and unions

• Healthcare and prescription drugs

• Housing and childcare

• Taxes and corporate power

• Climate and public transportation

They may vote for the same proposal while understanding its purpose differently.

A progressive Democrat may see a stronger public program as a way to regulate capitalism, correct market failures, and distribute opportunity more fairly.

A democratic socialist may also see it as a step toward shifting power from corporations and investors to workers and the public.

The immediate policy may be the same even when the longer-term philosophies differ.

Where does the deeper difference begin?

The central difference concerns economic power.

Most Democrats want democratic government to regulate markets, provide public services, protect workers and consumers, and distribute economic benefits more fairly.

Democratic socialists also question whether private ownership gives a relatively small group too much control over workplaces, investment, essential services, and public policy.

Put simply:
Most Democrats seek to regulate and rebalance capitalism. Democratic socialists seek to extend democratic power more directly into the economy itself.

That difference becomes important when deciding whether services such as healthcare, energy, housing, or transportation should be provided mainly by private businesses, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, cooperatives, or a combination.

A mainstream Democrat may view responsible businesses as necessary partners that need effective regulation. A democratic socialist is more likely to view concentrated corporate power as a structural problem that regulation alone cannot solve.

What do the labels tell voters?

Political labels provide clues, not conclusions.

The label democratic socialist may suggest that a candidate strongly supports workers, universal public programs, progressive taxation, and limits on corporate power.

The label Democrat usually signals broad alignment with the party on civil rights, personal freedoms, public investment, and social protections.

A label may indicate a candidate’s priorities and general view of government. It does not provide a complete platform or establish the candidate’s judgment, competence, or ability to turn goals into workable policy.

Respecting a person’s chosen label does not require supporting that person. It means using the label accurately rather than substituting a caricature.

Calling every Democrat a socialist is inaccurate. Treating every public service as socialism makes the word nearly meaningless. Assuming every democratic socialist wants government to control every business is also inaccurate.

Look beyond the label

Ask:

• What does the candidate actually propose?

• Who would benefit, and who would pay?

• Would the policy rely on public agencies, private businesses, nonprofits, or cooperatives?

• Is there evidence that it could work?

• Can the candidate turn the goal into workable policy?

• Does the candidate respect elections, rights, lawful government, independent journalism, and political opposition?

Ideology still matters. It shapes candidates’ priorities, diagnoses of public problems, and preferred solutions.

But a political label should begin our examination, not end it.

Clarity supports democratic choice

Using political terms clearly, accurately, and respectfully helps voters distinguish a party label from a political philosophy, current proposals from long-term goals, and real disagreements from manufactured fear.

The most useful question is not simply whether a candidate is a Democrat, progressive, liberal, moderate, or democratic socialist.

It is what that candidate believes, proposes, and is prepared to do with public power.

Resources from Plainly, Garbl

• Supporting Liberal, Progressive, Democratic Officeholders, and Candidates
  A guide to advocacy and training groups that build Democratic power and promote liberal and progressive leadership.

• Contact Information: Washington’s U.S. Senators and Representatives
  Their websites also include information on issues, services, office locations, recent votes, and committee assignments

• Contacting Washington State Officials and Key Departments
  This guide helps you contact elected officials, track legislation, and advocate for what matters

Selected references

• Democratic Party: What We’re Fighting For

• Democratic Socialists of America: What Is Democratic Socialism?

• Congressional Progressive Caucus: The Progressive Promise

  ---

Share

Subscribe now

President Trump went to Michigan last week to promote his economic policies and promise stronger American manufacturing.

The White House promoted Trump’s appearance under the banner “Made in Michigan Again” and said his tariff policies were “supercharging American auto manufacturing.”

Are they?

The setting was appropriate: a General Motors facility in the state most closely identified with American automobiles. But it also exposed the central problem with Trump’s tariff story.

General Motors shows why the answer is more complicated.

GM builds vehicles in the United States. But it also operates manufacturing and assembly facilities in Canada and Mexico, and its U.S. factories depend on parts and materials that cross national borders.

Tariffs intended to support an American automaker can also increase the costs of building vehicles in its American plants.

Three days before Trump’s Michigan appearance, his administration imposed new tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on goods from 60 trading partners. Trump presents tariffs as penalties against countries that have taken advantage of the U.S. and says they will persuade companies to manufacture more products here.

Tariffs can discourage some imports and help some American producers. But they do not work as simply as Trump describes.

Before asking what happens when a product crosses the border, we should ask an earlier question:

Who decided to make it somewhere else?

The American name on the product

Consider some familiar American names: Apple. Nike. Mattel. Target. General Motors.

Their products may be designed, branded, marketed, or sold by American companies. But that does not necessarily mean they were made in the U.S.

Apple relies on an enormous worldwide supplier network for materials, manufacturing, and assembly. Its published supplier information covers most of its direct spending in those areas.

Nike designs, markets, and sells its athletic products, but independent contractors manufacture nearly all of its footwear and apparel, primarily in countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and China.

Mattel—the company behind Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price, and other familiar brands—has operated factories in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Mexico while also using outside manufacturers.

Target develops and controls more than 40 of its own brands, which generate roughly one-third of its sales. Its sourcing offices help design and manufacture that merchandise, and Target is legally responsible for importing most of its owned and exclusive products.

These companies did not simply discover one morning that their products had wandered overseas. Their executives chose suppliers, approved costs, set specifications, and built those supply chains.

The foreign factory made the product. But an American company often decided which factory would make it.

Why companies manufacture abroad

The usual answer is lower wages. That is often part of it, especially for labor-intensive products such as clothing, shoes, toys, and consumer electronics.

But wages do not explain everything. Companies also manufacture abroad because other countries may offer:

• Established supplier networks and experienced workers

• Factories capable of producing enormous quantities quickly

• Lower costs for land, energy, materials, or taxes—and labor

• Export infrastructure and government assistance

• Access to foreign customers

Contracting with an existing manufacturer allows an American company to avoid buying land, financing and equipping a plant, hiring the workforce, and carrying the factory through a downturn. It can concentrate on design, branding, marketing, distribution, and finance while shifting much of the production risk elsewhere.

That arrangement has been highly profitable for many companies. It has also helped dismantle parts of America’s manufacturing system.

When factories close, the country loses not only final-assembly jobs. It can also lose component suppliers, tooling companies, technical knowledge, apprenticeship programs, experienced workers, and the local infrastructure that supports production.

Years later, a company cannot necessarily bring the work back merely by renting an empty building and putting out a help-wanted sign.

What Customs sees

When an imported product reaches the U.S., Customs does not primarily ask whether the brand sounds American. It asks:

• What is the product?

• What is the product worth for tariff purposes?

• Where did it legally originate?

An Apple device, Nike shoe, Mattel toy, Target-owned product, or GM component may therefore face a tariff even though an American company controls the brand or supply chain.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the importer is ultimately responsible for paying any duty owed. That importer may be the American brand owner, a retailer, a distributor, or another company handling the shipment.

The exporting country does not receive a tariff bill from Donald Trump. The Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexican, Canadian, or European government does not normally send money to the U.S. Treasury.

An American importer pays first.

Who eventually bears the cost?

Economists distinguish between who legally pays a tax and who ultimately bears its cost.

The American importer pays the tariff to the government, but paying the tariff first does not necessarily mean bearing its entire economic cost. The importer has choices. It may:

• Raise prices

• Accept lower profits or reduce other spending

• Press the foreign supplier to lower its price

• Change suppliers or move production

• Drop the product or seek an exemption

The cost can therefore be divided among the importer, foreign producer, retailer, workers, investors, and customers.

Federal Reserve researchers have found that tariffs can reach consumer prices, although the speed and size of the increase vary.

A foreign manufacturer can be harmed. It may lose orders, reduce prices, cut production, or lay off workers. But that is different from saying the foreign country pays the tariff.

The U.S. International Trade Commission found that Trump’s earlier tariffs reduced covered imports from China by an estimated 13% but increased U.S. production across the affected industries by only about 0.4%.

That is not nothing. But it is a long way from rebuilding American manufacturing.

And when companies move production out of China, the work often goes to Vietnam, India, Mexico, or another country rather than returning to the U.S.

Moving production from one foreign country to another is not the same as rebuilding a domestic industry with the factories, suppliers, workers, and technical ability needed to make products here.

American manufacturers can be on both sides

Tariffs do not divide the economy neatly between American winners and foreign losers. They can divide American manufacturers against one another.

Federal Reserve researchers studying the earlier Trump tariffs found that greater protection from imports was offset in some industries by higher material costs and foreign retaliation.

An American steel company may benefit when tariffs make imported steel more expensive. It can sell more domestically produced steel or charge higher prices for it.

But an American automaker or equipment manufacturer buys steel as a raw material. Higher steel prices increase the cost of making its vehicles, machinery, appliances, or tools.

Both are American manufacturers. The tariff protects the company that makes steel while raising costs for companies that make products from steel.

The U.S. International Trade Commission found that steel and aluminum tariffs increased domestic production in the protected industries. It also found that higher metal prices reduced production in industries that use those materials.

GM illustrates both sides. Tariffs may discourage imports of competing vehicles, while tariffs on parts, metals, and systems from Canada, Mexico, or elsewhere may raise costs in its U.S. plants. “American manufacturing” is not one unified interest.

Who benefits?

Tariffs can provide significant benefits to some American companies, workers, and communities.

Protected domestic producers may sell more or raise prices. Their owners and shareholders may earn more, workers may gain hours or job security, and surrounding communities may gain business.

The federal government also collects tariff revenue, while companies receiving exclusions can gain an advantage over competitors that still pay the tariff.

Trade lawyers, customs brokers, consultants, lobbyists, and compliance specialists also gain work from a system whose rules and exemptions keep changing.

These benefits are real. But they are concentrated.

The costs are spread across millions of consumers and thousands of businesses. A family may pay only a few dollars more for one product. A manufacturer may absorb only a small increase on one component. Added together across an economy, however, those costs can be substantial.

This imbalance also affects politics.

A protected company has a powerful reason to lobby for the tariff. Each consumer has much less reason to organize against a modest price increase hidden among hundreds of purchases.

Tariffs can have a legitimate purpose

None of this means tariffs are always useless. A targeted tariff may help respond to:

• Unfairly subsidized imports or products sold below fair value

• Forced labor or intellectual-property theft

• Dependence on unreliable or hostile suppliers

• Threats to essential domestic industries

The U.S. may reasonably decide that it needs reliable domestic or allied production of medicines, medical equipment, semiconductors, energy systems, communications equipment, critical minerals, transportation equipment, and defense supplies.

The cheapest possible product is not always the safest or wisest national choice.

But a tariff should be part of a defined strategy. It should answer:

• What domestic capacity are we trying to create or preserve?

• How will the tariff help create it?

• What investments will accompany the tariff?

• Who will bear the increased costs?

• How long will the protection last?

• How will we know whether it worked?

Without those answers, a tariff can become a tax attached to a slogan.

Tariffs tax the border. They do not build the factory.

Studies of Trump’s earlier tariffs do not show that tariffs are powerless. But they also do not show that tariffs alone can supply what domestic manufacturing lacks.

Making imported products more expensive can change a company’s calculations. It cannot by itself provide:

• Factories and machinery

• Domestic suppliers

• Skilled workers

• Infrastructure and financing

• Reliable customers and stable policy

A company may hesitate to invest hundreds of millions or billions of dollars when tariffs can be imposed, delayed, renegotiated, challenged, replaced, or removed. Factories require more patience and stability than presidential tariff announcements.

What would bring more production home?

Tariffs are only one policy tool. A broader manufacturing strategy would combine targeted trade enforcement with grants, loans, production credits, worker training, government purchasing, and support for domestic supply networks. Together, those policies could make American production more practical, profitable, and durable.

A broader manufacturing strategy would need several parts:

Rebuild supply networks, not only final assembly

Final assembly is not enough. A factory cannot operate competitively if nearly every component, material, machine, and specialized service must still come from abroad.

Policy must support small and midsize manufacturers as well as the large company whose name appears on the finished product.

Train and support workers

Manufacturing requires electricians, engineers, welders, toolmakers, production managers, and maintenance workers. That means supporting apprenticeships, union training, community colleges, vocational education, and paid opportunities for workers changing careers.

It also means addressing housing, transportation, healthcare, and childcare. A factory cannot fill jobs that workers cannot afford to reach or accept.

Use government purchasing power

Federal, state, and local governments purchase vehicles, construction materials, medical supplies, transit equipment, computers, energy systems, and countless other products.

Long-term purchasing commitments can give companies a dependable market if they invest in domestic production.

Attach enforceable conditions to public support

Companies receiving grants, loans, tax benefits, tariff protection, or government contracts should be required to provide measurable public benefits. Those conditions might cover:

• Domestic investment and supplier use

• Job creation and retention

• Wages, benefits, and training

• Continued operation for a specified period

• Repayment when companies fail to meet their commitments

Public money should purchase more than a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Reward production, not merely imports avoided

A tariff penalizes an imported product. A production tax credit rewards a company for actually making a qualifying product or component in the U.S.

One raises the cost of what we do not want. The other helps pay for what we do want. A strong strategy may use both, but the second is much closer to the desired result.

Ask who decided and what we receive in return

Consumers can choose American-made products when the information is trustworthy, the product is available, and the cost is manageable. But consumers did not create this system by themselves, and they cannot rebuild manufacturing one shopping cart at a time.

The more important actions are political. When elected officials propose tariffs or manufacturing subsidies, citizens and journalists should ask:

• What specific industry or product is the policy intended to support?

• What evidence shows that production will move to the U.S. rather than another country?

• Which American companies will benefit, and which will pay more?

• What jobs, wages, investment, and domestic production will companies be required to provide?

• Who may grant exemptions, and will the requests and decisions be public?

• When will the policy be evaluated—and will it end if it fails?

We should ask similar questions of the companies whose names we know.

What would Apple need, for example, before it manufactured more components in the U.S.?

When retailers, automakers, or other companies seek tariff relief or public support, what domestic investment, jobs, wages, and long-term commitments should the public receive in return?

These are harder questions than asking whether someone supports tariffs. They are also more useful.

Someone made the choice

Trump’s tariff story begins at the border. The real story begins earlier.

It begins when an American company decides what to make, where to make it, which supplier to hire, what workers and communities to leave behind, and how much long-term risk to accept in exchange for lower immediate costs.

Tariffs may alter that decision. But they do not erase who made it.

And they do not create the factories, suppliers, workers, infrastructure, and dependable demand that American manufacturing needs.

Before we celebrate another tariff as a victory for American workers, we should ask what it is meant to build, who will gain, who will pay, and what companies receiving government protection or support will owe the public in return.

Otherwise, we are not bringing production home. We are merely taxing products after American companies chose to make them somewhere else.

Related resources at Plainly, Garbl

Tax Reform and Public Investment
A ranked guide to advocacy groups working for a fairer tax system and economic opportunity for all.

How to Contact Federal Officials—and Be Heard
Reaching out to the executive branch of the federal government might make a difference—but only if your message gets to the right place and the right people.

Contact Information: Washington’s U.S. Senators and Representatives
To write your members of Congress through email, use the contact form on their website. Phone calls are recommended.

Share

Subscribe now

← Clear Writing Directory

Introduction | Why This Matters | Plain Language | Readers | Sentences | Words | Consistent Terms | Design | Translation Prep | Machine Translation | Review | Checklist

This guide is for people who write and edit English-language information for readers who use English as a second or additional language.

The guide may be useful in public agencies, nonprofits, schools, hospitals and clinics, legal and justice organizations, workplaces, retail and food-service businesses, and community groups.

It can help people who prepare public notices, forms, instructions, websites, outreach materials, health information, legal information, workplace information, school materials, community resources, and customer-service messages.

The guide is also useful for translators, interpreters, reviewers, teachers, tutors, and bilingual staff who help people move between English and another language.

The main purpose is practical: to help writers prepare English-language information that is easier to read, easier to translate or interpret, and easier to use. It does not try to cover every part of English grammar, plain language, translation, interpretation, or English learning.

That purpose is especially important for immigrants, members of immigrant families, visitors from other countries, and others whose first, main, or preferred language is not English.

In this guide

• Introduction

• Why This Matters

• Plain Language

• Know Your Readers

• Write Sentences Readers Can Follow

• Choose Words Carefully

• Use Consistent Terms

• Design Pages Readers Can Use

• Prepare Text for Translation

• Use Machine Translation Carefully

• Review and Test with Real Readers

• Checklist

  ---

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

More than $100 billion could fund years of early education, assistance for low-income schools, special education, college grants, bridge repairs, food assistance, or rental aid.

Instead, the national government has spent—or is being asked to spend—that amount on the war Trump chose to launch against Iran without congressional authorization.

Defense Secretary Hegseth recently told senators that the war has cost the Pentagon $37.5 billion so far. The Pentagon is asking for another $67.1 billion for the conflict, including continued military operations and replacing weapons already used.

Together, that comes to about $104.6 billion.

The figures raise a question larger than one congressional hearing or emergency spending request:

What could the national government accomplish if it treated the needs of people in the United States with the same urgency it brings to war?

What else could the money support?

More than $100 billion could repair bridges and water systems, improve public transit, support community hospitals and health centers, expand childcare, prepare communities for wildfires and other disasters, strengthen veterans’ services, and reduce costs that working families face for housing, education, transportation, and healthcare.

Those investments would benefit more than people enrolled in a particular assistance program. Reliable bridges, safe drinking water, functioning hospitals, affordable childcare, stronger public transportation, and disaster preparedness support workers, families, businesses, and entire communities.

The $104.6 billion would also be enough—separately, not simultaneously—to provide roughly:

• Eight years of Head Start for young children and their families

• Five and a half years of Title I aid for schools serving large numbers of children from low-income families

• Seven years of major federal assistance for special education

• Three and a half years of Pell Grants to help students from low- and moderate-income families pay for college and career training

• Nineteen annual appropriations at the recent funding level for the federal program that helps states repair, replace, and preserve bridges

• More than one year of food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

• Nearly three years of federal rental assistance

These are comparisons, not a proposal to divide the money among these programs. They show the scale of the spending and the range of public needs that more than $100 billion could address.

Money cannot simply be moved

Congress cannot simply slide money from a missile account into a housing-voucher account. And neither can the president.

Congress must appropriate federal money, and the president must administer it under the laws Congress enacts. Neither branch can simply redirect $104.6 billion into an assortment of defense or domestic programs without legislation, planning, and the capacity to use the money responsibly.

Government programs operate under different laws, appropriations, administrative systems, timelines, contracts, staffing needs, and eligibility rules. Some could use substantial additional funding quickly. Others would need time to expand responsibly.

A dollar spent on war does not automatically represent a dollar that had already been assigned to a classroom, clinic, bridge, or family.

But that does not make the comparison meaningless.

Federal budgets express choices. They reveal which shortages government treats as emergencies, whose needs get immediate attention, and which needs elected officials decide can wait.

When military leaders say weapons stocks are depleted, the shortage becomes urgent. But when schools lack teachers, families lack childcare, tenants cannot afford rent, or communities rely on failing infrastructure, urgency often dissolves into arguments about deficits, bureaucracy, and fiscal restraint.

But the spending question leads to a larger constitutional one.

Congress cannot fund the war and disown it

The Constitution does not assign Congress a ceremonial role in war.

It gives Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, make rules governing the armed forces, and control federal spending.

The president is commander in chief. But the Constitution does not give a president unlimited authority to choose a war and then present Congress with the bill.

Trump launched the war against Iran without a declaration of war or a specific authorization from Congress. The administration may describe the additional money as an emergency request, but calling something an emergency does not erase Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.

Congress is now being asked to provide tens of billions of dollars to continue the fighting and replace the weapons already used.

Approving that money would not technically constitute a formal declaration of war. The War Powers Resolution says Congress does not authorize hostilities merely by funding them. The appropriation must specifically state that it authorizes the military action.

But Trump could—and likely would—claim that Congress approved the war by paying for it.

That would follow a familiar pattern. Since World War II, presidents of both parties have repeatedly started, expanded, or continued military operations while ignoring or minimizing Congress’s constitutional role. Congress has sometimes authorized those conflicts after military action began, sometimes financed them without clearly approving them, and sometimes failed to stop them.

The Vietnam War offers one of the clearest warnings.

Vietnam offers a warning. Congress never formally declared war, but President Lyndon Johnson relied on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as authority to expand the conflict. That resolution explicitly authorized force, while an appropriation for the war in Iran might not.

Politically, however, Trump could make a similar argument: Congress knew what the money was for, voted to provide it, and therefore endorsed the war.

Congress should not give him that opening.

Members cannot knowingly provide the money required to continue the war and then insist that they have taken no position on its purpose.

Why would Congress fund such an expensive undertaking without first debating and deciding whether the undertaking itself is justified?

If Congress votes for the money, it will bear responsibility for what the money enables, even if it avoids the words authorization and declaration of war.

Decide whether the war should continue

Military leaders say depleted weapons stocks must be replenished. Congress should not consider that request apart from the war that depleted them.

Before authorizing another $67.1 billion, Congress should publicly examine the war’s purpose, constitutional authority, strategy, expected duration, human consequences, and likely total cost.

It should decide whether the war itself should continue, not merely whether the Pentagon has enough weapons to continue it.

The House and Senate have already considered resolutions asserting that continued military action against Iran requires congressional approval. On July 23, the House approved such a resolution, 214–208, while a similar Senate measure failed, 49–47.

Those votes do not settle the issue. Congress must also decide whether to supply the money that makes continued warfare possible.

The human consequences should remain central. Americans have been killed and injured. Iranian civilians and combatants have been killed and injured. People have been displaced, homes and infrastructure have been destroyed, and the conflict risks further escalation.

The federal government can mobilize tens of billions of dollars when its leaders decide that a need cannot wait.

Congress must now decide whether prolonging this war deserves that urgency—and why so many needs facing people in the U.S. are almost always expected to wait.

Citizens must also tell their senators and representatives to step up, speak out, and exercise their essential constitutional role in deciding whether this war continues and whether the country will pay for it.

Who Decides When America Goes to War? The Iran debate is a reminder that military power requires clear legal authority, public debate, and democratic consent.

Take action

Contact your members of Congress and urge them to exercise their constitutional authority over war and military spending.

Opposing war does not require approving of Iran’s government or its actions. Advocacy groups working on peace, arms control, international law, diplomacy, and democratic limits on military power offer ways to push for accountability and influence policy without launching or prolonging a war.

• Contact Information: Washington’s U.S. Senators and Representatives

• Peace, Defense Spending, and Nuclear Arms Control

• Global Governance, International Law, and Accountability

Related commentary:
Vengeance Is Not Justice—Getting even is not the same as getting things right.

Share

Subscribe now

Scams do more than exploit individual trust. They also take advantage of weaknesses in payment systems, telecommunications networks, online platforms, advertising practices, data security, consumer-protection laws, and public enforcement.

The organizations below, including several in Washington state, work to prevent fraud, protect consumers, hold institutions accountable, and assist people who have been harmed. Their websites may provide:

• Policy reports and legislative analysis

• Action alerts and opportunities to contact officials

• Scam warnings and consumer guides

• Volunteer and community-education opportunities

• Complaint and reporting information

• Legal-service directories

• Helplines, recovery tools, and support groups

• Research on fraud, identity theft, and data breaches

The organizations are ranked generally by their influence, impact, range of work, public resources, and opportunities for involvement.

Government agencies also play a central role in reporting, investigation, enforcement, and consumer education. Because they are not advocacy organizations, they are listed separately later in this guide.

For practical guidance on evaluating suspicious messages, fundraising appeals, advertising, propaganda, sponsored content, artificial intelligence, and possible scams, see Before You Believe, Buy, Donate, or Share.

National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)

NCLC advocates for stronger consumer laws and safer financial and payment systems, with particular attention to people with low incomes. Its website offers policy reports, legal analysis, state advocacy, training, and consumer resources on payment fraud, banking, debt, credit, and other issues.

Consumer Federation of America (CFA)

CFA brings together nonprofit consumer organizations to conduct research, provide education, advocate, and pursue legal action. Its work includes fraud, financial services, privacy, deceptive business practices, public enforcement, and accountability for online scam advertising.

National Consumers League (NCL) | Fraud.org

NCL advocates for consumer and worker protections, while its Fraud.org project provides scam alerts, educational materials, and a system for reporting suspected fraud. Complaint information is shared with law-enforcement and consumer-protection partners.

AARP Fraud Watch Network | AARP Washington Fraud Prevention

The Fraud Watch Network (Hotline: 877-908-3369) provides scam alerts, educational events, a fraud helpline, a scam-tracking map, victim-support groups, advocacy, and volunteer opportunities for people of all ages. AARP Washington offers state and community fraud-prevention programs and advocacy.

Washington State Senior Citizens’ Lobby

The Washington State Senior Citizens’ Lobby advocates on state policies affecting older residents, including financial exploitation and consumer protection. Its website includes legislative priorities, updates, and information for contacting state officials.

Consumer Reports Advocacy

Consumer Reports Advocacy uses research, consumer experiences, petitions, testimony, and public campaigns to press companies and governments for fairer and safer marketplaces. Its fraud work includes online scam advertising, payment protections, artificial-intelligence impersonation, data privacy, and platform accountability.

U.S. PIRG | WashPIRG

U.S. PIRG and its state affiliates investigate marketplace practices and campaign on scams, robocalls, payment systems, privacy, identity theft, and the strength of public consumer agencies. The website offers reports, consumer alerts, practical guides, petitions, and opportunities to contact officials.

Consumer Action

Consumer Action combines consumer advocacy with multilingual education and training, particularly for communities that are often underserved. Its website provides guides, webinars, complaint referrals, coalition information, and a database of consumer class-action settlements.

National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)

NACA supports attorneys representing people harmed by fraudulent, abusive, and predatory business practices. Its website offers consumer-rights information and a searchable directory for finding consumer attorneys by location and area of practice.

Northwest Justice Project (NJP) | WashingtonLawHelp.org

The NJP, with offices around Washington state, provides civil legal assistance to eligible Washington residents. Maintained by NJP, WashingtonLawHelp.org offers legal information on identity theft, debt collection, consumer fraud, and related problems.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

EPIC advocates for privacy, data protection, cybersecurity, and accountability in digital technology. Its work addresses data practices, artificial intelligence, impersonation, robocalls, identity theft, and other conditions that can enable targeted fraud.

Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC)

ITRC provides free assistance and recovery guidance to people affected by identity theft, scams, and data breaches. It also publishes alerts, research, victim-impact reports, webinars, and prevention tools.

FightCybercrime.org

Cybercrime Support Network, doing business as FightCybercrime, helps people recognize, report, and recover from online crimes, including romance, investment, cryptocurrency, identity, and account-takeover scams. Its websites provide step-by-step guidance, reporting links, educational materials, and support resources.

Government reporting and enforcement

Government agencies are not advocacy organizations, but their reporting systems, enforcement authority, staffing, and independence are central to consumer protection.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC): ReportFraud | Scams

FTC accepts fraud reports, issues alerts and consumer guidance, investigates deceptive practices, develops rules, and brings enforcement actions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

CFPB accepts complaints involving banks, payment services, credit cards, credit reporting, loans, and other financial products.

FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

The FBI IC3 accepts reports of internet-enabled fraud and cybercrime and uses them to identify related cases, emerging schemes, and criminal networks.

Washington Attorney General Consumer Protection Division

The state Consumer Protection Division investigates and takes legal action against unfair or deceptive practices. Its website provides complaint forms, scam alerts, consumer guidance, and educational resources.

Consumer Protection Washington

Consumer Protection Washington, a service of the state Department of Financial Institutions, brings together state and federal agencies to provide Washington-specific scam alerts, consumer information, reporting contacts, and educational tools.

Key scam prevention and consumer protection issues

Safer payment systems and reimbursement: Advocates seek stronger safeguards, warnings, investigations, and reimbursement when banks, payment apps, wire services, cryptocurrency platforms, or other payment systems are used in fraud.

Strong and independent public watchdogs: Consumer agencies need adequate authority, staffing, funding, and independence to investigate misconduct, enforce laws, recover money, and prevent harmful practices.

Online platform and advertising accountability: Social media, search, and advertising companies face pressure to verify advertisers, remove fraudulent accounts and ads, preserve evidence, and stop profiting from repeated scams.

Privacy, data security, and identity theft: Stronger privacy laws, security standards, breach notification, credit protections, and recovery rights can limit the personal information available to identity thieves and scammers.

Responsibility throughout the fraud system: Banks, telecommunications companies, domain registrars, payment services, retailers, and technology providers can identify suspicious activity and prevent their systems from enabling foreseeable fraud.

Financial exploitation of older and vulnerable adults: Prevention efforts include stronger reporting, trained financial and healthcare workers, adult protective services, legal assistance, community education, and safeguards against abuse by both strangers and trusted people.

Artificial-intelligence impersonation: Voice cloning, synthetic images, automated messages, and fabricated identities are increasing demands for stronger authentication, disclosure, consent, liability, and enforcement.

Support without victim blaming: People harmed by fraud may need immediate financial intervention, legal help, identity recovery, counseling, peer support, and protection from follow-up recovery scams.

Better reporting, coordination, and restitution: Improved coordination among financial institutions, platforms, law enforcement, and consumer agencies can connect related cases, freeze stolen funds, preserve evidence, prosecute offenders, and improve restitution.

Political, charitable, and fundraising accountability: Disclosure, advertiser verification, public financial records, safeguards for recurring donations, enforcement, and donor education can protect people from fraudulent or misleading appeals.

Share

Subscribe now

Vengeance asks a simple question: How can I make them pay?

That question can feel satisfying. It can also poison everything it touches.

Justice asks harder questions: What happened? Who was harmed? Who is responsible? What repair is possible? What rules should protect people from the same harm again?

Vengeance does not ask those questions. It wants pain answered with pain. It wants humiliation answered with humiliation. It wants injury to govern.

The settings change. The pattern does not

Vengeance shows up anywhere people decide that getting even matters more than getting things right:

• In politics, power becomes a weapon against opponents instead of a responsibility to the public.

• In business, when leaders punish critics instead of fixing problems.

• In sports, when competition turns into payback.

• In entertainment, when public humiliation becomes the show.

• In families, neighborhoods, schools, prisons, and nations, when people stop trying to resolve harm and start trying to multiply it.

Vengeance does not heal the wound. It keeps returning to it.

When vengeance gets power

Donald Trump has made vengeance unusually explicit. He told supporters in 2023, “I am your justice. … I am your retribution.”

Since returning to power, he has used lawsuits, executive orders, public attacks, threats against media licenses, and federal pressure against perceived enemies, including political opponents, journalists, law firms, media organizations, and universities.

Trump has threatened or pursued legal, regulatory, and investigative pressure against media organizations, such as calls to revoke broadcast licenses and subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters. After major networks did not air his July 16 election-security speech live, Trump criticized them and called for their broadcast licenses to be revoked.

In 2025, Trump issued executive actions against law firms, including suspension of security clearances and efforts to restrict federal contracts or access. The White House attacked the firms’ political and election-related work.

In the United States, not every lawsuit is revenge. Not every investigation is abuse. But when the pattern is punishment of critics, vengeance has moved from private grievance into public power. That is when it becomes most dangerous.

Revenge pretends to be justice

Francis Bacon called revenge “a kind of wild justice.” That phrase still works because revenge often borrows the language of justice while rejecting the discipline justice requires.

Vengeance has little patience for law, rules, evidence, restraint, mercy, proportion, and due process. It wants speed. It wants spectacle. It wants the other person to hurt enough for the avenger to feel whole again.

But the feeling rarely lasts, and that is one reason vengeance is so dangerous. It does not repair the injury; it feeds on it.

The person or group seeking revenge must keep returning to the original wrong—keeping it alive, sharpening it, retelling it, enlarging it.

The pattern is older than Trump

The danger is not new, and it’s not limited to politics:

• After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles did not simply seek peace. It punished Germany, imposed humiliation, and helped create grievances that extremists later exploited. It did not prevent another catastrophe.

• Stalin’s purges show the logic of vengeance at its most monstrous: The leader imagines enemies everywhere, then destroys people, institutions, competence, and trust in the name of security.

• In entertainment, Harvey Weinstein’s retaliation was not a flash of anger. It was a system. He used lawyers, investigators, private intelligence firms, media allies, and threats to silence women and journalists. The effort delayed accountability, but it did not save him.

• In business, Elon Musk’s X sued major advertisers after many left the platform over brand-safety concerns. A federal judge dismissed the antitrust case with prejudice. Lawsuits can be legitimate. They can also become punishment.

• In public health, Wuhan doctor Li Wenliang was punished after warning colleagues about a dangerous new virus. The silencing did not protect the public. It protected authority from embarrassment and only deepened public anger after he died of COVID-19.

The scale changes. The lesson does not. Vengeance rarely stops at getting even. It keeps asking for more.

Grievance can become identity

A wrong can be real without becoming the whole story.

People can be harmed and still be more than what happened to them. Communities can remember harm without organizing their future around retaliation. Countries can face threats without making revenge their policy.

But when grievance becomes the center of the story, old injuries can become new excuses. People who were not present for the original harm can be taught to carry the anger as if it were their own.

That is how vengeance outlives the moment that created it.

Accountability is different

None of this means people should accept abuse, shrug at corruption, excuse cruelty, or look away from injustice.

People still need accountability, protection, and consequences. Sometimes people must be removed from power, restrained, prosecuted, fired, defeated, or kept away from those they have harmed.

But accountability and vengeance are not the same thing. Accountability is meant to protect the future. Vengeance is meant to replay the past.

Accountability can be firm without being cruel. It asks for evidence, proportion, and restraint. Vengeance asks for escalation. It turns anger into policy.

Trust is what vengeance destroys first:

• A government built on vengeance becomes a government of enemies.

• A workplace built on vengeance becomes a place where people hide mistakes.

• A family built on vengeance becomes a family where every old argument is still available as ammunition.

• A movement built on vengeance may win attention, but it will struggle to build trust.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. That does not mean love is sentimental or passive. It means justice must not become a copy of the hatred it opposes.

That is the hard part.

Vengeance tells us our anger is wisdom, our pain is permission, and our side is exempt from the standards we demand of others.

But no one is exempt.

Not in politics. Not in war. Not in families. Not in neighborhoods. Not online. Not among people who have been genuinely harmed.

The temptation may be human. The surrender to it is still a choice.

Vengeance does not heal

We do not have to call every act of restraint forgiveness. We do not have to pretend every conflict can be healed. We do not have to deny the reality of harm.

But we should be honest about what vengeance does.

It does not balance the scales. It breaks them. It does not close the wound. It keeps the wound in charge. It does not build justice. It puts justice out of office.

And once that happens, everyone has reason to be afraid.

Alternatives to vengeance

These resources focus mostly on personal, interpersonal, and community responses to harm. They do not solve governmental abuse, corporate retaliation, or international conflict on their own. But they point to the same broader alternatives: accountability, repair, safety, restraint, and healing rather than payback.

Related Plainly, Garbl resources:

• Conflict Resolution and Community Healing — Tools and support for navigating inner tension, interpersonal friction, and group conflict

• Activist Resilience and Emotional Support — Resources for staying grounded, connected, and well while working for change

• The Pursuit of Happiness: Organizations That Help It Flourish — Resources for finding joy, purpose, beauty, connection, and meaning in daily life

Related resources:

• Restorative Justice: A Different Kind of Accountability — Annie E. Casey Foundation

• How and Why Many Survivors Benefit From Restorative Justice Alternatives to Incarceration — Common Justice

• Nonviolent Communication for Anger — PuddleDancer Press

• Nonviolent Communication for Conflict Resolution — PuddleDancer Press

  ---

Share

Subscribe now

Messages compete constantly for our attention, trust, money, votes, personal information, and help spreading their claims.

Some provide useful information or make honest arguments. Others exaggerate, conceal important facts, imitate trusted sources, or push people to act before they have time to think.

A deceptive message may look like a news story, political appeal, advertisement, charity request, social media post, fundraising email, text from a familiar organization, or warning from a government agency. Artificial intelligence makes it easier to produce convincing images, voices, websites, and messages, but many of the underlying tactics are not new.

Learning to recognize those tactics does not require distrusting everything. It requires slowing down when a message tries to prevent careful thought.

For organizations working to strengthen consumer protections, improve enforcement, hold companies and institutions accountable, and support people harmed by fraud, see Scam Prevention and Consumer Protection.

In this guide: Understand the message | Evaluate particular appeals | Pause, verify, and respond | Related Plainly, Garbl resources | Key government resources

Understand the message

Persuasion is not always deception

Propaganda, advertising, political advocacy, fundraising, and scams are not the same.

Advertising tries to sell something. Political advocacy tries to influence public opinion or action. Fundraising asks people to support a candidate, organization, campaign, charity, or cause. Propaganda promotes a viewpoint, often by selecting and shaping information to influence emotions and beliefs.

Any of them can be accurate or misleading. They become deceptive when they hide who is communicating, impersonate a trusted source, make false or unsupported claims, conceal important conditions, or misrepresent what will happen after someone responds.

A scam goes further. It uses deception to get money, personal information, account access, property, or something else of value.

The categories can overlap. A fraudulent donation request may use propaganda, marketing techniques, political language, and a fake organizational identity at the same time.

The important question is not simply what kind of message it is.

Ask:
What is this message trying to make me believe, feel, give, buy, reveal, or do?

Notice when a message is pushing your emotions

Emotion is part of ordinary human communication. A message is not false merely because it makes people angry, afraid, hopeful, sympathetic, or enthusiastic.

But strong emotion can make verification feel unnecessary or even disloyal.

Be especially cautious when a message tries to provoke:

• Fear about an immediate threat

• Anger toward a person or group

• Guilt about failing to help

• Excitement about an unusual opportunity

• Affection or loyalty toward someone asking for help

• Outrage that encourages immediate sharing

• Panic about an account, debt, arrest, fine, family emergency, or expiring benefit

• Certainty that only foolish, corrupt, or uncaring people would question the claim

Ask yourself:

• What am I feeling?

• What does that feeling make me want to do?

• Has the message given me enough reliable information to justify that action?

Do not confuse an emotional response with evidence.

Be suspicious of manufactured urgency

Urgency is sometimes legitimate. Elections close. Emergencies happen. Matching grants end. Event registration fills. People facing danger may need help immediately.

But urgency is also one of the most common ways to prevent scrutiny.

Warning signs include:

• Act now.

• Do not tell anyone.

• Stay on the line.

• Respond before midnight.

• Your account will be closed.

• You will be arrested or fined.

• Only a few opportunities remain.

• This is your last chance.

• Send this to everyone immediately.

• Do not let the other side find out.

• We need your donation in the next few minutes.

A deadline stated in a message may be real, exaggerated, repeatedly renewed, or entirely invented.

Pause before responding. A legitimate organization should be able to withstand the time needed for you to verify its identity and claims.

Verify outside the message

Do not rely on the contact information, links, buttons, or instructions in a message you are trying to verify.

Instead:

• Type the organization’s known website address yourself.

• Use an official app you already have.

• Call a number from a bank statement, membership card, government website, or other reliable source.

• Contact the person through a number or account you have used before.

• Search for the organization independently.

• Ask someone you trust to review the request.

Scammers can imitate caller identification, email addresses, logos, invoices, websites, social media accounts, government notices, and messages from people you know. A familiar appearance does not establish a familiar source.

The Federal Trade Commission advises people who receive unexpected messages not to use the links or telephone numbers provided in them. Contact the organization through a website, email address, or telephone number you already know is genuine.

Check who is speaking

Before believing or acting on a message, look for a clear and verifiable source.

Ask:

• Who created or paid for this message?

• Is the person or organization clearly identified?

• Does the website address match the organization’s official domain?

• Is the social media account genuine?

• Is the message from the organization itself, a contractor, a fundraising company, an affiliate, or an unrelated group with a similar name?

• Does the message explain where the money or information will go?

• Can its claims be confirmed elsewhere?

Be cautious when a message borrows authority from:

• A government agency

• A bank or payment service

• A news organization

• A political candidate

• A charity

• A police department or court

• A well-known business

• A religious or community leader

• A family member, friend, colleague, or romantic interest

Impersonators depend on the reputation of someone else. They want the borrowed identity to do the persuading for them.

Examine the evidence, not just the claim

A confident statement is not necessarily a documented statement.

Look for:

• Links to original reports or records

• Named and qualified sources

• Dates and relevant context

• Evidence that supports the precise claim being made

• Confirmation from independent and credible sources

• Corrections or explanations when information changes

Watch for:

• Statistics without a source

• Screenshots without a link or context

• Cropped videos

• Quotations without dates or surrounding words

• Unnamed experts or insiders

• Dramatic personal stories treated as proof of a broad claim

• Images that do not show what the caption says they show

• A headline that makes a stronger claim than the article

• Links that cite another summary instead of the original evidence

• Repetition of the same unsupported claim across connected websites and accounts

Several sources are not truly independent when they all copied the same original post.

Notice what is missing

Misleading messages do not always state something plainly false. They may omit facts that would change how readers understand the claim.

Ask:

• What information would I need before making this decision?

• Are costs, fees, subscriptions, recurring donations, or conditions clearly disclosed?

• Does a political appeal identify the committee receiving the money?

• Does an advertisement distinguish evidence from testimonials?

• Does a news-like page identify its sponsor?

• Does a fundraising request explain how contributions will be used?

• Does the message acknowledge uncertainty, limitations, or competing evidence?

• Is it attacking the source of criticism instead of answering the criticism?

Fine print should not reverse the apparent meaning of the main message.

Think before sharing

A deceptive message does not have to take your money to use you successfully. It may want you to share the message with others.

Before sharing, ask:

• Have I read beyond the headline?

• Do I know the original source?

• Is the information current?

• Does the link support the post’s description?

• Am I sharing because it is verified or because it confirms what I already believe?

• Would I share it if it supported the opposing side?

• Could sharing expose someone to fraud, harassment, or a false accusation?

• Is a warning so vague that recipients cannot verify it?

• Would a direct link to a reliable source be more useful?

Deleting an unverified message is often more responsible than forwarding it “just in case.”

Watch for requests for money or financial access

Stop and verify when someone asks you to:

• Buy gift cards and provide the card numbers.

• Wire money.

• Send cryptocurrency.

• Move money to “protect” it.

• Pay through an unfamiliar payment app.

• Deposit a check and return part of the money.

• Provide a bank password, verification code, or account access.

• Pay an unexpected fee to receive a prize, job, loan, grant, inheritance, or refund.

• Donate through a link in an unsolicited message.

• Send money to someone you have not met in person.

• Keep the transaction secret.

A request may be fraudulent even when the story attached to it seems plausible. Verify the identity and the transaction separately.

Contact a bank, credit union, credit card company, or payment service immediately if money has already been sent or account information has been disclosed. Speed may affect whether a payment can be stopped or an account protected.

Evaluate particular appeals

Links to government services and records mentioned in this guide appear under Key government resources at the end.

Evaluate political fundraising appeals

Political messages often use urgency, fear, anger, loyalty, and claims of emergency. Those emotions may reflect genuine political stakes, but they can also discourage donors from examining the request.

Before donating:

• Leave the email, text, advertisement, or social media post.

• Find the candidate’s or organization’s official website independently.

• Identify the committee or organization receiving the contribution.

• Read the donation page before submitting payment.

• Look for preselected recurring-donation boxes.

• Check the amount, frequency, and recipient.

• Save the confirmation and review later statements.

• Search federal political committees and campaign-finance reports through the Federal Election Commission.

• Use the appropriate state campaign-finance agency for state and local political committees.

A message that mentions a candidate does not necessarily come from the candidate. A political action committee may support a cause or candidate, oppose one, or raise money using their names.

Strong political agreement is not a substitute for checking who will receive the donation and how the group spends its money.

Evaluate charitable and social-action appeals

Crises generate both legitimate appeals and opportunistic imitations. Fraudulent requests may appear after disasters, wars, mass violence, deportation actions, protests, medical emergencies, or other events that create an understandable desire to help quickly.

Before donating:

• Confirm the organization’s exact name and website.

• Search for it independently instead of following an unsolicited link.

• Review its purpose, leadership, finances, and recent work.

• Determine whether the request comes from the organization or an outside fundraiser.

• Check whether a donation is tax-deductible rather than assuming it is.

• Use the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search to verify federal tax-exempt status and review available filings.

• Check state charity-registration records when appropriate.

• Be cautious about newly created crowdfunding campaigns when you cannot verify the organizer or recipient.

• Pay by a method that provides a record and reasonable protections.

• Review the receipt and later account statements.

Tax-exempt status does not prove that an organization is effective, transparent, or aligned with your priorities. It verifies only part of what donors may need to know.

Likewise, a legitimate grassroots or mutual-aid effort may not be a registered charity. In those cases, verification may depend more heavily on trusted community relationships, transparent organizers, clear purposes, and visible accounting.

Advertising and sponsored content

Advertising can appear in search results, social media feeds, videos, podcasts, newsletters, news websites, influencer posts, and pages designed to resemble independent articles.

Look for labels such as:

• Ad

• Advertisement

• Sponsored

• Promoted

• Paid partnership

• Partner content

• Affiliate link

Then ask:

• Who paid for it?

• What is being sold or promoted?

• Does the person recommending it receive money, products, commissions, or other benefits?

• Are claims supported by independent evidence?

• Is the advertisement imitating a news report or consumer review?

• Are testimonials typical, verifiable, and relevant?

• Are price, renewal, cancellation, and refund terms clear?

• Is the advertiser creating a problem or fear that its product conveniently promises to solve?

A disclosure does not make a claim true. It helps readers understand the relationship behind the message.

Propaganda and coordinated persuasion

Propaganda often presents a selective picture designed to build loyalty, hostility, resignation, or action. It may contain accurate facts while arranging them in a misleading way.

Common techniques include:

• Repeating a slogan until it feels established

• Reducing a complex issue to a single enemy or cause

• Attaching insulting or heroic labels to people and groups

• Appealing to patriotism, identity, fear, resentment, or belonging

• Presenting only evidence that supports the preferred conclusion

• Describing disagreement as betrayal

• Creating the impression that nearly everyone agrees

• Portraying the source as the only one that can be trusted

• Flooding the information environment with conflicting claims

• Using false accounts or coordinated networks to simulate public support

• Mixing verifiable information with rumor and invention

Propaganda does not always try to make people believe one precise falsehood. It may try to make them distrust every source, abandon careful judgment, or believe that truth cannot be known.

The answer is not automatic disbelief. It is comparison, verification, context, and attention to who benefits from the message.

When artificial intelligence is involved

Artificial intelligence can create or alter text, photographs, illustrations, audio, and video. It can imitate a person’s voice or writing style, generate false identities, and quickly personalize messages.

Do not rely on odd fingers, strange punctuation, or other supposed clues as proof that AI created something. Those clues are inconsistent and will become less useful as the technology improves.

Concentrate instead on the claim and its source:

• Can the event, quotation, image, or recording be confirmed?

• Did the supposed speaker publish or acknowledge it?

• Is there an original and traceable source?

• Do credible independent sources report the same event?

• Is someone using the material to demand immediate money, information, or action?

• Does the message rely on the apparent realism of the content rather than verifiable evidence?

Something can be authentic and still misleading. It can also be generated by AI and used honestly, such as a clearly labeled illustration. The question is how the material is represented and used.

Pause, verify, and respond

Links to government services and records mentioned in this guide appear under Key government resources at the end.

A quick pause-and-check routine

Before you believe, buy, donate, reveal information, or share:

Pause
Do not let urgency make the decision.

Identify
Determine who created, sent, sponsored, or paid for the message.

Leave
Exit the message before contacting the supposed person or organization.

Verify
Use an independently located website, telephone number, account, public record, or credible source.

Examine
Check the evidence, context, conditions, recipient, payment method, and missing information.

Ask
Consult someone you trust when the request is unusual, emotional, secretive, or financially significant.

Decide
Act only after the message—not merely its appearance or emotional force—has earned your trust.

When you encounter a possible scam

Do not be embarrassed about asking for help. Scammers deliberately exploit ordinary human qualities, including trust, affection, fear, generosity, loyalty, and hope.

Depending on what happened:

• Stop communicating with the suspected scammer.

• Do not send additional money to recover earlier losses.

• Contact the financial institution or payment service involved.

• Change compromised passwords and use different passwords for different accounts.

• Protect accounts with multifactor authentication.

• Save messages, receipts, account information, telephone numbers, website addresses, and screenshots.

• Report fraud to the Federal Trade Commission.

• Report identity theft through the federal IdentityTheft.gov service.

• Submit complaints involving financial products or companies to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

• Report internet-enabled crimes to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.

• Contact your state attorney general or consumer-protection agency.

• Notify the impersonated organization.

• Contact local law enforcement when money, threats, stalking, or immediate danger is involved.

People who have already lost money may be targeted again by someone claiming to recover it. Verify recovery services independently, and do not pay an unexpected caller who promises to retrieve stolen funds.

The responsibility does not belong only to individuals

Media literacy helps people resist manipulation, but warnings cannot substitute for effective public protections.

Governments, businesses, banks, payment services, telecommunications companies, political committees, fundraising firms, advertisers, and online platforms also have responsibilities.

They can:

• Verify advertisers and fundraisers

• Identify impersonation and coordinated fraud

• Respond quickly to reports

• Make recurring payments and donation terms clear

• Provide effective ways to dispute unauthorized transactions

• Slow or flag suspicious transfers

• Preserve evidence for investigations

• Share information about organized fraud

• Enforce consumer-protection and campaign-finance laws

• Stop profiting from deceptive advertisements and accounts

• Design services that do not place every risk on the user

“Be careful” is useful advice. It is not a complete public policy.

Related Plainly, Garbl resources

Truth Toolkit
Fact-checking organizations and tools for investigating questionable claims.

Evaluating the Evaluators
How organizations assess news accuracy, bias, and credibility.

Topic-Based News Sources
Credible reporting organized by public issue.

Political, Hate, and Digital Violence Prevention
Organizations addressing political intimidation, hate, digital abuse, and related threats.

Scam Prevention and Consumer Protection
A companion guide to organizations advocating for stronger protections, enforcement, accountability, and support for people harmed by fraud.

Key government resources

Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice
Guidance on scams, impersonation, phishing, shopping, donating, reporting fraud, and identity theft.

Federal Election Commission
Federal campaign-finance records, political committee information, contribution rules, and enforcement information.

IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search
Federal tax-exempt status, filings, determination letters, and related records for nonprofit organizations.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Information and complaints involving financial products, payment services, fraud, and scams.

IdentityTheft.gov
Federal guidance and a personalized recovery plan for people reporting identity theft.

FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center
Reporting for internet-enabled fraud and other cybercrime.

USA.gov State Consumer Protection Offices
Contact information for state consumer-protection agencies.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

← Clear Writing Directory

I recently rediscovered a few poems I wrote in the 1980s, during breaks at work, when editors were getting used to shared computers in a large room.

That may not sound revolutionary now. But compared with electric typewriters, those computers felt almost magical. I could move words around. I could change spacing. I could revise without correction tape, retyping, or muttered newsroom profanity.

So I played.

The poems were spontaneous, odd, and not especially disciplined. That may be part of why I still like them. Poetry and I have only been casual acquaintances

But looking back, I can see concerns that still shape my writing: war, development, class, consumer culture, nature, power, and ordinary people caught in systems they did not create.

Not all writing has to be standard journalistic, academic, or professional prose to make a point. Sometimes writing needs to loosen its tie, kick the furniture, and see what falls out.

That does not mean abandoning clarity. It means giving yourself room to experiment before the serious writing begins.

Try a different voice. Break a pattern. Bend a grammar rule on purpose. Write a sentence fragment if it lands harder than a complete sentence. Play with rhythm, repetition, spacing, and surprise. Stick with poetry—or any other form—if that is what keeps you writing.

Not every experiment belongs in a finished essay, report, article, or public statement. But experiments can help you discover images, arguments, phrases, and connections you would not find by marching dutifully from subject to verb to period.

The best time to try that is when no editor, supervisor, client, or deadline is waiting for the final version. Write something that does not have to behave. Then decide later what deserves to stay.

That is one reason I have long liked the pencil as a symbol of creativity: It invites motion. You can try a word, test a sentence, sketch an idea, erase it, and try again. The delete key can do the same thing, though with less charm and no pink eraser.

Clear writing can look simple when it is finished. But getting there often requires some messy, playful, stubborn, rule-testing work first.

Here are a couple of examples from that earlier writing life.

Homes to Houses in One Easy Lesson

The flour mill on top of Cherry Hill
burned to the ground yesterday.

It was the day the new year began,
        and union leaders had said workers could stay away.

But gray Samuel McGovern didn't listen. He was alone
        and had nothing to do—
        so he went to the mill
        as he had done
        since Ruth left his world
after 30 years.

He was in the machine shop when it started,
repairing flywheels and switches
        and making things work.

His foreman had dropped by

but left in a hurry:
        He went to get drunk;
        he didn't want to face
        the future and fates
        of the workers he once knew as friends.

"Too bad about that," said the chairman of the board.
"Oh, it's too bad," said the mayor.
"Yes, it's too bad," said the president of Cherry Hill First National.
"I agree. It really is too bad," said the developer
        of the proposed Cherry Hill Mall.
"I hate to sound redundant, but it is too bad,"
        said Nickerson of Nickerson's Cherry Hill Realty.

On January 2, papers were filed
for a new development.
It was to be Cherry Hill Estates:
        "Get Away from It All," the slogan would say.
And commuters-to-be
        would come in droves.

Portstown was just
        20 minutes away.
"Our Empire's Financial Hub," its promoters called it.
But the briefcase carriers hated it
        and would be happy to move away:
Portstown neighborhoods
        were old and dark,
        and “undesirables” lived there.

Mill workers without jobs
        soon lost their homes
        and moved to Portstown.
The powerful cried, "Arson!" And Samuel McGovern was pulled
        from his hospital bed ...
He was burned again
with the third degree.

The flywheel fixer took the blame:
and the bankers, developers and their lawyers
        lay at home in hammocks
      —and were happy.

Flash Garden Saves Safeway Lot

The steering wheel blares at the driver:
        "Get your hands off me, honky."

The driver ignores the blast
and turns around, instead,
        just in time
        to see the curb
        as his tires roll through
the Viburnum davidii and Oregon grape
planted there.

"Now I've done it," says the driver,
        taking a break
        and smashing the pedal
        to the floor.
"Woooooooooaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh, horsepower!"
        he says.

"We're getting really tired of this,"
        say the berries falling from the grape bush.
"Same here,"
        agree the berries
        still clinging barely
to the shrub.

Mother Nature has few kind words
        for parking lot forests.
Scattered across
the wide, open asphalt fields,
        little oases
        crop up.
Heartbroken branches, soiled dirt
        and downtrodden cedar chips
give a poor impression
of evergreen jungles.
 
"Well, at least they're not plastic,"
        says the grocery store manager.
"Here, buy some petunias and marigolds
      —on  sale now— 
        and place them
        in this whiskey barrel
        on your porch.
You, too, can go native."

But the Chevy station wagon
        does not hear or see.
        It flies right past
        and empties its
        2-year-old, 8-year-old and 30-year-old cargo
alongside a stand of flowering cherries.

"Ouch," yelps the driver with a twig in his eye.
"I can't see no forest, let alone a tree!"
His well-trained kids play leapfrog across the ivy.

← Clear Writing Directory

Share

Leave a comment

We pay rent. Or we pay on our mortgage. We buy groceries. We fill the gas tank. We pay insurance premiums, utility bills, medical bills, co-pays, credit card balances, car repair bills, childcare bills, and property tax bills.

We decide what can wait, what cannot, and what happens if one more expense lands before the next paycheck.

That is the economy most people live in. Not the Dow. Not gross domestic product. Not a quarterly earnings report. Not a politician’s favorite chart.

The real economy is whether people can afford the ordinary costs of staying housed, fed, healthy, employed, connected, and secure.

“Affordability” points to real pressure. But by itself, the word is too broad. People need candidates to name the bills.

This is not a messaging exercise in search of a topic. The evidence is already sitting on kitchen tables, in bank accounts, and in unpaid bills.

The bills people struggle to pay must be the top priority for candidates before Election Day and for officeholders afterward.

A Harris Poll for The Guardian found that 95% of Americans say the country faces an affordability crisis, and about half say they struggle to afford basics such as groceries and gas.

KFF reported in April 2026 that 64% of adults worry about affording healthcare costs, tied with concern about gas and transportation costs.

And Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies reported that nearly half of renter households were cost-burdened in 2024, spending more than 30% of income on rent and utilities.

Taken together, those numbers point to the same conclusion: Candidates should stop treating “affordability” as the whole answer. It is only the starting point.

People do not experience affordability in general. They experience specific costs.

Affordable housing. Affordable groceries. Affordable healthcare. Affordable childcare. Affordable transportation. Affordable utilities. Affordable insurance.

Wages that cover real life.

Affordable means within reach without forcing people to sacrifice food, medicine, housing, work, safety, or basic dignity.

That is the message candidates should use. That is also the language voters and activists should demand.

Even “affordable housing” needs clearer language.

Some people hear the phrase and think it means housing only for people with very low incomes. Others use it to mean housing that working people, young families, seniors, teachers, nurses, caregivers, service workers, and middle-income renters can actually afford.

Both concerns matter. But when the same phrase means different things to different people, politicians can sound compassionate while saying very little.

So, ask the next question: Affordable for whom? Affordable at what income? Affordable because rents are lower, wages are higher, public support is stronger, or supply is larger? Affordable now, or affordable only in a campaign brochure?

In plain language: Say “housing people can afford,” then explain which people and how.

We should expect politicians to talk about all their ideas in plain language—in terms that make sense to us.

Make candidates get specific

Don’t settle for:
“We care about affordability.”

Ask:
What will you do to raise wages?
What will you do to lower housing costs?
What will you do to lower healthcare costs?
What will you do about childcare?
What will you do about utility bills?
What will you do about grocery prices?
What will you do about transportation costs?

And don’t stop there. Ask the questions that turn campaign language into accountability:

What policy would you support?
Who pays?
Who benefits?
When would people feel the difference?

Action resources at Plainly, Garbl

For readers who want to move from concern to action, these advocacy resources may help:

Social Safety Net and Economic Security—organizations strengthening support for individuals, families, and communities.

Affordable Housing and Homelessness—advocacy groups working to expand access to housing and support people experiencing homelessness.

Economic Equity and Stability—organizations promoting economic security, fair wages, and opportunities for working families.

Political Action for Introverts, Extroverts, and Everyone in Between—a guide to finding activist work that fits your temperament, energy, skills, and comfort level.

Supporting Liberal, Progressive, Democratic Officeholders, and Candidates—a guide to advocacy and training groups that build Democratic power and promote liberal and progressive leadership.

Suggested Text for Writing Email Messages to Elected Officials—it could also work as a script for phone calls

Contact Information: Washington’s U.S. Senators and Representatives

Contacting Washington State Officials and Key Departments

Advocacy Groups Working to Influence Local Government

Share

Subscribe now

We lowered the bar—and somehow it's still over his head.

Share

This Fourth of July is more than a milestone. It is a checkpoint.

Two and a half centuries after the Declaration of Independence, Americans are still arguing over the responsibilities of government, who gets heard, who gets believed, who gets power, and how truth survives in public life.

That argument is not a failure of democracy. It is part of democracy, when it is grounded in facts, open debate, public accountability, and the freedom to challenge those who govern in our name.

I care about this partly because of my experience working as a journalist and with journalists. I still think like one: Check the claim, look for evidence, ask what’s missing, and correct the record when needed. I also care because I’ve seen up close how local government and civic action depend on people knowing what is actually happening around them.

The First Amendment protects more than expression. It protects the rights that make democracy possible without government control: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government, and freedom of religion.

Those freedoms allow people to question authority, expose wrongdoing, gather in public, organize for change, worship or not worship, publish unpopular ideas, and demand answers from public officials.

But freedom does not inform, verify, or defend itself.

An independent free press helps communities see what power is doing. But that promise weakens when local newsrooms shrink or disappear after advertising revenue flows to online platforms and distant corporate owners. Fewer reporters are left to cover school boards, courthouses, city councils, statehouses, and local issues that shape daily life.

When verified reporting fades, communities are left with more noise, more rumor, and fewer shared facts.

A free society needs more than speech. It needs people who know how to judge what they read, hear, watch, and share.

That does not mean trusting every headline. It does not mean pretending all news sources are equally reliable. And it does not mean retreating into cynicism by declaring that “all media are biased,” as if that settles anything.

Bias matters. But calling something biased is not the same as checking whether it is accurate.

Facts are not left, right, or center. Interpretations may differ. Emphasis may differ. Values may differ. But claims still need evidence, sources still need scrutiny, and corrections still need to be made when the record is wrong.

Media Literacy Tools

I’m using this Fourth of July to highlight Plainly, Garbl’s Media and Journalism Tools. I list a few of the tools below.

The point is not to tell readers what to think. It is to help readers test claims, recognize bias, judge accuracy, support independent journalism, and choose news sources with care.

A free country needs free expression. It also needs citizens who know how to sort evidence from assertion, reporting from opinion, skepticism from cynicism, and facts from fog.

These resources are meant to help readers defend facts, understand media bias, spot disinformation, evaluate news sources, and support independent journalism.

A few key resources:

If You’re Concerned About Bias, Check for Accuracy
A plain-language essay on why accuracy is the foundation of journalism—and why bias is not the same thing as dishonesty.

The Truth Toolkit: Fact-Checking Resources for Informed Resistance
A guide to credible fact-checking organizations and practical ways to verify questionable claims.

Evaluating the Evaluators: A Guide to Media Analysis and Bias Rating Resources
A guide to tools that rate media credibility, reliability, accuracy, and bias—and how to use them without outsourcing your judgment.

Saving Local Journalism and Independent Media Advocacy
A guide to organizations working to rebuild local journalism, defend press freedom, support nonprofit and independent newsrooms, and strengthen community-based news.

Progressive Media Sources for News, Ideas, and Action
A guide to fact-based journalism and analysis from a progressive perspective.

Other guides at Media and Journalism Tools include moderate and conservative media, Pacific Northwest media, nonprofit newsrooms, credible topic-based sources, and trusted commentators.

Related advocacy group resources at Plainly, Garbl cover all First Amendment freedoms and more. This spotlight focuses on the news media and journalism tools that help people use those freedoms with care.

The work does not end with the links.

The promise of the First Amendment is not passive. It asks something of us.

Read carefully. Check facts. Support journalism. Listen across differences. Speak honestly. Correct mistakes. Defend the right of others to question power, even when their questions make power uncomfortable.

After 250 years, the work of self-government is still unfinished.

Good.

That means it is still ours.

Share

Subscribe now

We sometimes hear about small-r republicans and small-d democrats. Those words can sound odd in a country where Republican and Democratic refer to political parties, candidates, campaign signs, and cable-news arguments.

But those words began as descriptions of government, not party brands.

A Republican candidate is not the same thing as republican government. A Democratic candidate is not the same thing as democratic self-rule.

The party labels may tell us who is running. They do not, by themselves, tell us who respects representative government.

That test has to be earned.

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, that distinction is worth remembering. The Declaration did not celebrate party labels. It asserted that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That principle still asks something of us: Who respects the people’s right to govern themselves, and who only wants power in the people’s name?

What republican meant

In the founding era, a republic meant government without a king, with public power exercised through representatives chosen by the people. It did not mean government by one ruler. It did not mean a direct public vote on every law.

James Madison made that distinction in Federalist No. 10. He described a republic as a system where government is delegated to a smaller number of citizens elected by the rest. He contrasted that with what he called “pure democracy,” meaning direct rule by citizens gathered to decide public questions themselves.

That old distinction can sound strange today because we often use democracy more broadly. We call the United States a democracy because the people are supposed to govern through elections, rights, public debate, and accountable institutions.

But the Constitution itself does not use the words democracy or democratic. It does use republican in Article IV, which says the United States shall guarantee every state a “Republican Form of Government.”

In plain English, that means representative government.

That does not make the United States less democratic in the modern sense. It means the Constitution’s structure is representative. The people govern but not by voting on every bill, budget, court case, treaty, or regulation. They govern through elected officials, the separation of powers, public pressure, and the rule of law.

What democratic means now

Today, small-d democratic usually means more than holding elections.

It includes the right to vote, fair access to the ballot, the rule of law, peaceful transfer of power, equal protection under the law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, public accountability, and respect for election results.

A country can hold elections and still fail democratic tests. If voters are threatened, districts are rigged beyond recognition, courts are captured, opposition leaders are punished, journalists are intimidated, or officials refuse to accept lawful election results, democracy is weakened even if ballots still exist.

That is why the word democratic should not be treated as a decoration. It is a standard.

What federal meant

Another founding-era word belongs in this conversation: federal.

Federalism is the division of power between the national government and the states. The Constitution created a stronger national government than the one under the original Articles of Confederation. But it did not eliminate the states. Madison argued in Federalist No. 39 that the proposed Constitution was partly national and partly federal.

That tension is still with us.

Federal, state, and local power all shape people’s rights and daily lives. Civil rights can be protected or damaged at every level.

So when we talk about republican government and democratic self-rule, we are not talking only about the White House or Congress. We are also talking about state legislatures, governors, courts, county officials, city councils, school boards, election administrators, and the people who push them to do their jobs.

The names of today’s political parties do not settle any of these questions. A party label can tell us who is running but not whether that candidate respects representative government, voting rights, the rule of law, lawful limits, and public accountability.

That test has to be applied to everyone who seeks power. Applying the same test to everyone does not mean pretending everyone is passing it.

A party, candidate, or movement that undermines voting rights, excuses political intimidation, treats legislatures as rubber stamps, or refuses to accept lawful election results is failing the test, whatever name it uses.

That brings us back to representation.

The representation test

In our constitutional system, the branch most built for representation is the legislative branch: Congress nationally and state legislatures. Presidents and governors can lead, propose, persuade, administer, veto, and respond to emergencies. But they are single executives.

Legislatures are different. They are made up of many elected people from many places, each tied to a district, state, or community. That does not mean they always listen or represent people well. It means representation is built into their structure.

That structure is the point.

When legislative bodies are ignored, bypassed, gerrymandered, intimidated, or turned into rubber stamps for one leader, republican government is weakened.

When voting is restricted, election results are denied, public servants are threatened, and citizens are treated as enemies instead of participants, democratic self-rule is weakened.

That is where the old words become real. They have to be practiced, defended, and demanded.

The question is not simply whether a candidate has an R or a D after a name. The question is whether that candidate respects the people’s right to govern themselves through fair elections, representative institutions, lawful limits, and public accountability.

That is the test.

Share

Subscribe now

← Clear Writing Directory

Introduction | Common Sentence Errors | Nouns | Pronouns | Verbs | Modifiers | Prepositions | Conjunctions | Glossary and Resources

Grammar is not most people’s idea of a good time.

Many of us got all the grammar instruction we wanted in school, then met it again while helping our children with homework, getting roped into editing a club newsletter, or trying to explain why we like a favorite author: “I know good writing when I see it.”

That is where grammar becomes useful. Not as a multiple-choice question. Not as a school essay. But as a tool to help us express ourselves and understand what we read.

What this guide covers

Grammar is about how words work together in sentences.

Grammar rules are a bit like traffic rules. They are not meant to force everyone onto the same road or punish writers for taking a different route. They help readers follow where a sentence is going, avoid confusion, and arrive at the meaning the writer intended.

This guide focuses on common grammar errors that can make writing unclear, awkward, or incorrect. It is not a complete grammar textbook. It does not try to explain every rule, exception, or technical term. And it is not meant to replace Garbl’s Editorial Style and Usage Guide.

Instead, this guide looks at common sentence-level grammar problems, such as:

• incomplete sentences: Because the meeting lasted three hours.

• subject-verb disagreement: The list of changes are long.

• wrong pronoun forms: The director thanked Donna and I.

• misplaced modifiers: Walking through the park, the monument came into view.

• incorrectly joined sentences: The bill passed the House, the Senate has not voted.

The guide will cover other grammar problems, too. But the focus stays on common errors that affect clarity, correctness, consistency, and readability. This guide is designed as a reference. Bookmark it, share it, or return to it when a sentence gives you trouble.

Some grammar choices are technically allowed but are still awkward enough to distract readers. This guide leaves room for those judgment calls. But it does not treat every preference, pet peeve, or disputed word choice as a grammar rule.

For questions mainly about word choice, capitalization, spelling, punctuation style, journalistic convention, or AP style, use Garbl’s Editorial Style and Usage Guide. For questions about how words function in sentences or how sentence parts fit together, use this guide. Bookmark these guides, share them, or return to them when a sentence gives you trouble.

Sections in this guide:

• Common Sentence Errors

• Noun Errors

• Pronoun Errors

• Verb Errors

• Modifier Errors: Adjectives, Adverbs, and Phrases

• Preposition Errors

• Conjunction Errors

• Glossary and Resources

PDF version: To save or print a PDF copy of an individual guide page, click the three dots at the top of the page, then choose Open as PDF. A PDF of this introduction will include only this page, not the full guide.

Grammar basics in plain language

Grammar terms can sound more complicated than they need to be. This guide uses them only when they help explain how a sentence works.

Here are some basic terms used throughout this guide:

Sentence
A sentence is a group of words that expresses a complete thought. A sentence usually has a subject and a verb.

Subject
The subject tells whom or what the sentence is about.

Verb
A verb tells what the subject does or what the subject is. Vote, decide, write, and run show action. Is, are, was, were, and seems show being or condition.

Noun
A noun names a person, place, thing, idea, action, or condition.

Pronoun
A pronoun takes the place of a noun. She, he, it, they, we, me, and them are pronouns.

Adjective
An adjective describes a noun or pronoun.

Adverb
An adverb describes a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.

Preposition
A preposition is a connecting word. It shows the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word or idea in the sentence. Prepositions often start phrases that tell where, when, how, why, in what direction, or about what. In, on, by, for, from, with, and about are prepositions.

Conjunction
A conjunction joins words, phrases, or parts of a sentence. And, but, or, because, and although are conjunctions.

Modifier
A modifier describes, limits, or adds meaning to another word or group of words. Adjectives and adverbs are common modifiers.

Phrase
A phrase is a group of related words that does not express a complete thought by itself. A phrase can act like a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb.

Clause
A clause is a group of words with a subject and a verb. Some clauses can stand alone as complete sentences. Others need more words to complete the thought.

These terms are tools, not trophies. You do not need to memorize them all before using this guide. The goal is to understand enough grammar to make sentences clearer and easier to read.

When rules have exceptions

Grammar rules help readers follow what a sentence means. They are not meant to make every sentence sound the same.

Sometimes a writer may choose a sentence fragment, an unusual word order, or another nonstandard construction for emphasis, rhythm, or voice. That can work in commentary, fiction, headlines, captions, speeches, and informal writing.

But an exception should help the reader, not trip the reader. The more formal, official, technical, or instructional the writing is, the more useful standard grammar usually becomes.

A good test: If readers are likely to notice the choice more than the meaning, rewrite the sentence.

← Clear Writing Directory

Introduction | Common Sentence Errors | Nouns | Pronouns | Verbs | Modifiers | Prepositions | Conjunctions | Glossary and Resources

Share

Subscribe now

Many people think cooperation means answering every question.

It doesn’t.

A person can be calm, respectful, and law-abiding while still saying: “I am choosing to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.”

That is not obstruction. That is not guilt. That is a constitutional right.

This is not advice to obstruct an investigation, ignore a court order, or refuse civic responsibility. It is a reminder that constitutional rights still matter when government officials ask questions.

Police officers, FBI agents, immigration officers, and other law enforcement officials may ask questions. They may sound friendly. They may say they only want to clear things up. They may imply that refusing to talk makes things worse.

But a voluntary conversation is still voluntary. And anything said in that conversation may be written down, recorded, misunderstood, taken out of context, or used later.

The safest rule is simple:

Don’t lie. Don’t argue. Don’t run. Don’t consent to searches. Don’t answer questions without legal advice.

Note: This resource draws on know-your-rights guidance from the ACLU and other legal and civil liberties sources, including several listed below. I am not providing it as original legal analysis or as legal advice. My goal is to put reliable public information into plain language so more people understand the basic choices they may have when law enforcement asks questions.

Rights are not the same as obligations

In general, you do not have to answer questions from law enforcement. The ACLU says people have a constitutional right to remain silent and, in general, only a judge can order someone to answer questions. You may also ask whether you are free to leave and ask for a lawyer before answering questions.

That does not mean every situation is the same. Traffic stops, warrants, subpoenas, court orders, border crossings, immigration status, probation conditions, and other circumstances can change what the law requires.

But the basic civic lesson remains:

You have rights. Use them clearly. Use them calmly. Use them out loud.

What you can say

You do not have to give a speech. You do not have to explain yourself. You do not have to debate constitutional law on a sidewalk, in a parking lot, at your front door, or in an interview room.

You can say:

• “Am I free to leave?”
  If the answer is yes, you may leave calmly.

• “I am choosing to remain silent.”
  Say it clearly. Then, actually remain silent.

• “I want to speak with a lawyer.”
  Ask for legal advice before answering questions.

• “I do not consent to a search.”
  Say it calmly. Do not physically resist.

• “I do not agree to an interview.”
  A voluntary interview is voluntary. You may decline.

What you should not do

Do not lie.

This is especially important with federal agents. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements in matters within federal jurisdiction. That can include statements to FBI agents or other federal investigators. Silence is often safer than trying to explain, minimize, guess, or improvise.

Do not guess.

“I think,” “maybe,” and “probably” can still create trouble if the statement is wrong or misunderstood.

Do not try to talk your way out of something serious.

Law enforcement officers are trained to gather information. Most of us are trained mainly to panic politely.

Do not argue.

You can assert your rights without debating the officer or agent.

Do not run.

Leaving calmly after being told you are free to go is different from running away.

Do not physically resist.

Even if you believe a stop, search, or arrest is illegal, say your objection clearly and challenge it later through a lawyer, complaint process, or court proceeding.

What you may have to do

Some situations require more than silence.

If you are driving and are lawfully stopped, you generally must provide your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.

In Washington state, the rules are more limited outside traffic stops. Seattle’s police-accountability guidance says officers may require identification if they witness a violation, if someone is stopped while carrying a firearm, or if someone is attempting to purchase liquor. Otherwise, officers may not require identification. Washington law also requires that identifying information be included when someone receives a civil infraction notice.

If officers have a valid warrant, subpoena, or court order, the situation changes. You still have rights, but you need legal advice immediately. A warrant may allow a search. A subpoena may require a response. A court order may require testimony or documents.

None of that means you should chat casually.

At your home

You generally do not have to open the door just because law enforcement knocks.

You can ask:

“Do you have a warrant?”

If officers say yes, ask them to show it. You can read it through a window, ask them to slide it under the door, or ask them to hold it up where you can see it.

If they do not have a warrant, you can say:

• “I do not consent to a search.”

• “I do not agree to an interview.”

• “Please leave your card or contact information.”

Then contact a lawyer.

If you choose to talk

Sometimes people decide to talk to law enforcement. That may be reasonable in some situations. But it should be a decision, not a reflex.

Before answering questions, ask yourself:

• Do I understand why they want to talk to me?

• Could I be a witness, a suspect, a target, or a source of information about someone else?

• Could my words affect my family, friends, coworkers, organization, or community?

• Do I need a lawyer before I say anything?

If the issue is serious enough for law enforcement to ask questions, it is serious enough to pause.

A simple card to carry

Consider copying these lines onto a small card to keep in your wallet, purse, glove compartment, or phone. Stressful moments are a lousy time to search your memory:

“Am I free to leave?”

“I am choosing to remain silent.”

“I want to speak with a lawyer.”

“I do not consent to a search.”

“I do not agree to an interview.”

“Please leave your card.”

—

Rights are not rude. Silence is not guilt. Asking for a lawyer is not an admission of anything.

Constitutional Provisions

These constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights are especially relevant to the rights described in this resource:

Fourth Amendment—Searches, seizures, and warrants
Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and sets rules for warrants.

Fifth Amendment—Silence and self-incrimination
Says no person may be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves. This is the core constitutional basis for the right to remain silent.

Sixth Amendment—Assistance of counsel
Protects the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. The details can depend on the stage of the case, but asking for a lawyer is still a clear and important way to protect yourself before answering questions.

Related Resources

The ACLU and ACLU of Washington each offer know-your-rights guidance for encounters with police, immigration officers, and the FBI. Their guidance emphasizes that people generally have the right to remain silent, may ask whether they are free to leave, may ask for a lawyer, and generally may refuse consent to a search.

The Justice Department’s discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 explains why people should not guess, speculate, or lie when speaking with FBI agents or other federal officials. False statements to federal agents can fall under federal false-statement law.

For Washington-specific details, RCW 7.80.060 requires a person receiving a civil infraction notice to provide name, address, date of birth, and reasonable identification if requested. Seattle’s police-accountability guidance also offers a plain-language summary of when officers may stop, detain, question, or require identification from someone.

For Washington-specific guidance on immigration enforcement, see the Washington Attorney General’s Know Your Rights: Civil Immigration Enforcement in Washington and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project’s know-your-rights resources. These are especially useful when police, ICE, CBP, or federal agents are involved.

The Legal Observer Program of the National Lawyers Guild monitors and documents law-enforcement activity at protests, marches, and other actions. The Seattle chapter specifically says it monitors police behavior and provides legal support to protesters.

Related Advocacy Resources at Plainly, Garbl

Bill of Rights: Due Process, Equal Protection, Habeas Corpus
For broader constitutional protections when government power is used against individuals.

Freedoms of Speech, Press, and Assembly
For organizations defending protest rights, press freedom, public dissent, and the right to gather peacefully.

Immigration Rights
For people who may face questioning by ICE, CBP, police, or the FBI about immigration status, citizenship, travel, or documentation.

Policing, Custody, and State Violence
For groups working on police accountability, detention conditions, excessive force, jail and prison oversight, and protection from government abuse.

Share

Subscribe now

Donald Trump does not need to turn every American into a red-hat loyalist.

He does not need everyone to chant at rallies, repeat conspiracy theories, or cheer cruelty as strength. Trumpism does not have to make everyone bigoted, selfish, or ignorant. That would be too obvious.

He only needs to make enough of us think like MAGA skeptics: distrust government, journalism, courts, universities, science, public records, elections, expertise, and one another. Distrust even the idea of public service.

Once that happens, democracy has no common ground left to stand on.

The greater danger is that it spreads cynicism. It says every institution is corrupt, every journalist is lying, every scientist is political, every court is rigged, every election is suspect unless “we” win. Every fact is just somebody’s opinion wearing a lab coat.

That is how democratic society gets hollowed out.

My journalism training and experience taught me not to trust sources unquestioningly. It taught me to be skeptical, not cynical.

Check the quote. Confirm the fact. Look for the original document. Ask who benefits. Check whether a website is credible. Notice what is missing. Call one more source. Read past the headline. Correct the error.

That is not distrust. That is the work of accuracy.

Democracy needs that kind of skepticism, not just among journalists but also among all of us.

It does not need the manufactured cynicism that says every institution is corrupt, every expert is lying, every journalist is fake, every court is rigged, and every fact is just another political weapon.

Social media makes it easy to spread lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendo, and careless mistakes faster than truth can catch up. Trump and his administration have shown how effectively that system can be exploited.

Even fact-checking can become part of the problem when it repeats the falsehood more loudly than the truth. Corrections should be clear, accurate, and honest, but they should lead with what is true.

Otherwise, deceit keeps doing its work. It makes people wonder: Who do we believe? Can we believe anyone?

That is the distrust Trumpism feeds on.

Healthy skepticism asks questions and checks facts. MAGA-style cynicism dismisses answers and facts before they can be checked.

That is the heart of it.

A democracy needs skepticism. Citizens should question government, journalism, universities, courts, corporations, science, and other expertise. Blind trust is not democracy.

But corrosive distrust is different. It does not ask, “What is true?” It says, “Nothing is true unless my side says it.” It does not demand better institutions. It teaches people to give up on institutions altogether.

That difference—between skepticism and cynicism—shows up in several ways.

Skepticism is necessary. Cynicism is the trap.
We should not worship institutions. Government makes mistakes. Media outlets fail. Universities can be elitist. Science can be misused. Courts can be political. But the answer is accountability, not arson.

MAGA turns every referee into an enemy.
Election officials, judges, journalists, scientists, teachers, civil servants—anyone who can check power becomes part of “the deep state,” “fake news,” “woke academia,” or some other cartoon villain.

The goal is not truth. The goal is dependence.
Once people distrust every outside source, they become dependent on the leader, the party, the influencer. That is the con. Old trick. New hat.

This warning is not only about Trump supporters. Distrust of institutions did not begin with MAGA.

Opponents can absorb the poison too.
People who oppose Trump can also be worn down by cynicism, including the cynicism he spreads. We can begin to assume every institution is already lost, every public servant has already failed, every news source is useless, and every legal process is only theater.

That is understandable. It is also dangerous. That despair helps authoritarian politics.

Many judges still follow the law. Many journalists still dig for facts. Many public employees still protect records, administer programs, count votes, and serve the public. Many citizens still show up.

Democracy does not survive because institutions are perfect. It survives because people keep pushing them to work. We do not have to agree on everything to rebuild trust in the things that help us find out what is true.

The goal is not blind trust.
The goal is repair: build trustworthy institutions, demand evidence and accountability, and defend the people and processes still doing their jobs.

But we should also recognize the trap being set for us.

When every source of shared knowledge is dismissed as corrupt, the loudest voice wins. When every referee is called rigged, only power is left.

And when democracy loses trust—not blind trust but earned trust—it does not become freer.

It becomes easier to rule.

Ask tough questions. But ask them honestly.

Related Resources at Plainly, Garbl

If You’re Concerned About Bias, Check for Accuracy
How to read the news without losing trust in the facts

The Truth Toolkit: Fact-Checking Resources for Informed Resistance
Understanding where to find reliable fact-checking resources is more critical than ever.

Evaluating the Evaluators: A Guide to Media Analysis and Bias Rating Resources
Understanding the watchdogs that track journalism’s trustworthiness

Share

Subscribe now

The U.S. president is not a king. Our country’s founders revolted against a foreign king because they believed citizens should have the right and power to govern themselves.

No single person is wise or compassionate enough to rule a people without restraint. History has proved that too often.

That restraint is built into the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers among the three federal branches, the states, and citizens themselves. The Constitution gives each branch powers, duties, and limits.

That is not a weakness in the system. It is one of the system’s main safeguards. Those limits matter regardless of party, ideology, or personality.

Of course, the president is the head of the executive branch. That means the president has real authority over federal departments, agencies, officers, and national priorities.

But the Constitution does not merely give the president power. It also gives the president responsibilities. Presidents must agree to those limits before taking office, as stated in Article II, Section 1.

The president must swear or affirm in the oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Article II, Section 3, also requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Those words matter.

The Take Care Clause is especially important. It means the president is responsible for seeing that federal laws are carried out. It does not mean the president may rewrite those laws, ignore them, or enforce only the parts the president personally favors.

The president leads the executive branch. The president does not own the law.

In my view, a president who refuses to obey valid laws is not faithfully executing the office. A president cannot take care that the laws are faithfully executed while claiming a personal right to ignore them.

Of course, that requirement should apply to every president, including Donald Trump.

Constitutional powers of the president

Article II, Section 2 and Section 3, give the president major powers. Some belong mainly to the president. Others require action by Congress or the Senate.

The president can:

• Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces.

• Require written opinions from heads of executive departments.

• Grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment.

• Make treaties, with approval from two-thirds of senators present.

• Nominate ambassadors, judges, Cabinet officers, and other federal officials, usually with Senate confirmation.

• Fill some vacancies temporarily during Senate recesses.

• Receive ambassadors and other public ministers and conduct diplomacy.

• Recommend legislation and policy measures to Congress.

• Sign or veto bills passed by Congress.

• Convene Congress in extraordinary circumstances.

• Commission officers of the United States.

Those powers are significant. Presidents shape national policy, direct federal agencies, influence foreign affairs, and make decisions that affect millions of people.

But much presidential power depends on laws passed by Congress, funding approved by Congress, Senate confirmation of officers, court review of decisions, and the actions of federal agencies carrying out lawful authority.

The president leads the executive branch

The executive branch is large because the federal government is large. Cabinet departments and federal agencies administer laws on health, labor, education, transportation, agriculture, national security, civil rights, immigration, environmental protection, consumer safety, taxation, veterans’ services, and much more.

Presidents set priorities for that branch. They appoint leaders. They direct agencies. They issue policies. They decide how to use lawful discretion.

But agencies do not exist simply because a president wants them. Congress creates federal departments and agencies, defines many of their powers, funds them, oversees them, and can revise the laws they administer.

The president may steer the executive ship. Congress built much of the ship, controls much of the fuel, and can change the rules of navigation.

Executive orders and other presidential actions

Executive orders are one tool presidents use to direct the executive branch.

An executive order is a written presidential directive, usually aimed at federal agencies and officials. It may guide how agencies carry out existing law, organize federal operations, or set priorities within the president’s legal authority.

Presidents also use memoranda, proclamations, national security directives, signing statements, policy guidance, and other written actions. Federal agencies may then issue rules, guidance, enforcement priorities, or program changes.

These actions can matter a great deal. They can affect immigration enforcement, civil rights enforcement, federal employees, contractors, public lands, national security, emergency response, and agency priorities.

But they are not all the same thing.

A presidential speech is not a law, and a news release is not a statute. An executive order is not a constitutional amendment, and an agency rule is different from an act of Congress.

A presidential action does not become valid just because it is written on White House letterhead. It must rest on legal authority.

What presidents cannot do alone

Presidents cannot lawfully do everything they announce, promise, or demand.

A president cannot:

• Amend the Constitution by executive order.

• Repeal or rewrite laws passed by Congress.

• Spend money Congress has not authorized or appropriated.

• Give agencies powers Congress has not provided.

• Override valid court orders.

• Command federal officials to violate the Constitution.

• Eliminate rights protected by the Constitution.

• Turn personal preference into federal law.

• Ignore the Constitution, even in the name of urgency.

• Replace Congress as the lawmaking branch.

• Treat public office as personal power.

Congress can respond through legislation, appropriations, oversight, confirmation, and impeachment. See What Congress Controls That Presidents Don’t.

And later presidents can revise or revoke executive actions, especially when those actions are based on presidential discretion rather than a statute.

The announcement is not the end of the story.

Where the courts matter

Courts also limit presidential power. When executive actions are challenged, courts may decide whether the president or an agency acted within constitutional and statutory limits. Courts can block unlawful executive actions, interpret federal laws, enforce constitutional rights, and require agencies to follow proper procedures.

Courts do not review every presidential decision. Some disputes are political, discretionary, or difficult for courts to resolve. But when the law gives courts a role, they can be a major check on executive power.

The courts do not always get it right, however. The political philosophies of individual court members can influence their interpretation of the Constitution, its history, other court decisions, laws enacted by Congress, and actions of the executive branch.

In my view, the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential-immunity decision was wrong because it weakened a basic principle of constitutional government: No president should be above the law. The ruling remains part of constitutional law unless changed by future court decisions, legislation where possible, or constitutional amendment.

Citizens, Congress, state governments, advocates, lawyers, scholars, and the news media all have roles in reviewing court decisions, challenging harmful rulings, and seeking lawful ways to change them.

What citizens can do

When a president or federal agency acts, citizens do not have to stand aside.

You can:

• Read the actual executive order, memorandum, proclamation, rule, or agency notice.

• Look for the legal authority the action claims.

• Contact your members of Congress.

• Submit public comments on proposed federal rules.

• Follow court challenges from reliable legal and news sources.

• Support watchdog, civil rights, public-interest, and accountability organizations.

• Vote in federal, state, and local elections.

• Keep asking whether public officials are following the law, not just whether they are getting their way.

Executive power is real. So are its limits.

The job of citizens is to remember both.

Related Resources at Plainly, Garbl

How to Contact Federal Officials—and Be Heard

U.S. Cabinet-level Departments and the Executive Office of the President

What Congress Controls That Presidents Don’t

The U.S. Constitution and the Judicial Branch

Share

Subscribe now

We hear so much about what’s going on in Washington, D.C.

That makes sense. Presidents dominate the news. Congress fights, stalls, performs, negotiates, and sometimes even legislates. Federal courts issue decisions that can change the country.

But a lot is also going on in the “other Washington”—this Washington, the state: the home of Costco, Mount St. Helens, Puyallup, and Pearl Jam.

Washington state government may not command the same national attention, but it shapes much of daily life here: schools, roads, elections, housing, healthcare, policing, courts, environmental protection, labor standards, public records, consumer protection, and the power of cities and counties.

And it does not matter only when the Legislature is in session or when candidates are on the ballot. State government operates all year. So should citizen attention.

During session, bills move quickly

Washington’s Legislature meets in Olympia for a few intense months each year, starting in January. In odd-numbered years, lawmakers meet in a longer session. In even-numbered years, they meet in a shorter one.

During those sessions, bills move quickly. Hearings are held. Amendments are made. Budgets are written or adjusted. Laws are passed, blocked, weakened, strengthened, or quietly buried.

I learned some of this years ago, when I was assigned for one legislative session to help lobby for the local government agency where I worked. In Olympia, I worked with the main lobbyist and consultants. I attended hearings, met with legislators, watched the process up close, and learned a bit about how much happens outside the speeches and headlines.

I did not come away thinking lobbying was my calling. Too much of it seemed to happen in actual lobbies, among people more comfortable working the room than I was. My introvert self was not exactly built for that sport. Writing is my forte.

But I did come away understanding this more clearly: State government is complicated because real life is complicated. Legislators have to weigh many needs, costs, consequences, and trade-offs when writing, revising, and voting on bills.

Lobbyists, advocates, and citizens can help by bringing concrete needs and concerns into the process. That might not simplify the work, but it can help lawmakers see how proposed legislation would affect real people and real communities.

That does not mean everyone has to become a lobbyist. Most of us will not. Most of us should not have to. But we do have to pay attention before decisions are final.

That is one important time to pay attention. But it is not the only time. Government does not stop governing when we stop watching.

Outside the legislative session, agencies write rules, programs are administered, budgets are carried out, courts issue rulings, boards and commissions meet, local governments implement state laws, and public officials keep making choices long after the campaign signs come down.

Where theory turns into practice

Citizens do not lose their voice when the Legislature adjourns. They can still act:

• When a law passed in Olympia becomes a rule written by an agency, citizens can comment on the proposed rule, ask questions, and explain how it would affect real people and real communities.

• When a budget decision becomes a service funded or not funded in a county, school district, health program, ferry system, court, or public works department, citizens can ask how the money is being used, what is missing, and who is being affected.

• When a campaign promise becomes a vote, a silence, a hearing, a staff decision, or a missed opportunity, citizens can follow up with the officials who made that promise and ask what happened.

• When state agencies, boards, and commissions meet outside the legislative session, citizens can attend, submit comments, request records, and bring concerns before decisions become routine.

• When local governments carry out state laws and budgets, citizens can show up where those decisions become visible—at city councils, county commissions, school boards, port commissions, public utility districts, and public meetings closer to home.

That is where people often experience government most directly—not as a theory, but as a road, a classroom, a ballot, a permit, a utility bill, a court date, a public meeting, a ferry schedule, a park, a clinic, or a missing service.

Elections are one door into state power

This year, legislative elections add another reason to pay attention.

Here in the 24th Legislative District, both state House seats are on the ballot, as usual. One race includes an incumbent. Longtime Rep. Steve Tharinger is vacating the other. That means voters are not only choosing names on a ballot. We are choosing what kind of state representation we expect.

What should our representatives understand about rural communities, small cities, tribes, housing, healthcare, ferries, forests, schools, climate, local journalism, public safety, and the cost of living? What will they do when the national noise fades and the state work begins?

Those questions matter before the election. They matter after it, too.

The practical point is simple

Citizens can do more than vote every few years and hope for the best:

• We can follow bills during the legislative session.

• We can contact our legislators before a bill is drafted, while it is moving, and after it passes. We can testify in person or remotely.

• We can submit written comments and ask that our position be recorded.

• We can follow state agencies when they propose rules.

• We can watch what statewide elected officials do with the authority voters gave them.

• We can support advocacy groups that track issues more closely than any one person can.

Federal politics will keep demanding attention, too. Some of that attention is necessary. Washington, D.C., has enormous power. Presidential actions matter. Congressional failures matter. Federal court rulings matter.

But national politics can also become a trap. It can train us to stare at distant power while overlooking power closer to home. I see that in myself, unfortunately. It can make us feel helpless when we are not.

It can make government seem like something that happens somewhere else, to someone else, beyond our reach.

The other Washington is not somewhere else

It is Olympia. It is our legislative district. It is our county courthouse, city hall, school board, port commission, public utility district, and local ballot.

It is the state agency writing rules, the committee taking testimony, the budget line that funds a program, the official who answers or does not answer a public concern.

State government can protect rights or restrict them. It can strengthen democracy or weaken it. It can fund services or starve them. It can help communities solve problems or leave them to struggle alone.

So yes, keep an eye on Washington, D.C. But do not forget the other Washington.

It is closer to home. And closer to our reach.

Related resources

Washington State Officials and Key Departments
A guide to contacting elected officials, tracking legislation, and advocating for what matters

Local Government and Community Action
Guides for understanding and influencing local government

Share

Subscribe now

Presidents dominate the news.

They hold rallies, sign executive orders, command the military, appoint officials, issue pardons, and speak with the loudest single voice in American government.

But the president is not the whole government.

That should be obvious. Yet President Trump keeps acting as if executive power can override laws, reshape institutions, punish opponents, redirect public money, and bend the federal government to his will.

Too many members of Congress have let him test those limits without the resistance their constitutional duties require—especially members of his own party.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress enormous powers that are just as central to the country’s direction.

That matters all the time. It matters even more when a president pushes beyond the traditional boundaries of the office. And it matters when Congress lets him.

Congress is not a decorative branch of government. It is not a complaint department. It is not there merely to applaud, object, investigate after the damage is done, or appear on cable news.

Congress has power

Many of Congress’s core powers are listed in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. It does more than list technical powers. It gives Congress authority over much of national life. Among other things, Congress may:

• Raise revenue, borrow on the nation’s credit, pay debts, and fund public purposes, including the general welfare and national defense.

• Regulate commerce among states and with other nations, shaping the rules for trade, business, labor, and markets.

• Set immigration and naturalization rules, including the process for immigrants becoming citizens.

• Manage national currency by coining money, regulating its value, and punishing counterfeiting.

• Create a national postal system by establishing post offices and post roads.

• Promote knowledge, scientific discovery, creativity, and invention by protecting copyrights and patents for limited times.

• Define certain national and international crimes, including piracy, crimes at sea, and offenses against the law of nations.

• Create lower federal courts and shape the federal judiciary, including the size of the Supreme Court, within constitutional limits.

• Declare war, fund the military, and regulate the armed forces.

• Govern the District of Columbia and certain federal properties, including the power to delegate local authority to D.C.’s elected government—or limit it by law.

• Pass laws needed to carry out federal powers through the “necessary and proper” clause.

For a closer look at war powers, see Who Decides When the United States Goes to War?

Congressional powers are not suggestions. A president enforces laws, administers programs, and makes policy choices within legal limits. But the president cannot simply replace Congress’s judgment with executive orders because he dislikes the law Congress passed.

When Congress fails to use those powers, that is also a choice.

Congress writes the laws

The president can propose laws. The president can praise them, attack them, veto them, sign them, ignore political norms around them, or claim credit for them.

But Congress writes the laws to carry out its constitutional powers.

Article I, Section 1, says Congress has “all legislative powers.” That means federal lawmaking belongs to the House and Senate, not to the president alone.

Article I, Section 7, lays out the basic path for bills: Congress passes them, the president signs or vetoes them, and Congress may override a veto with enough votes.

Article II, Section 3, says the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Here, execute means carry out. A president may have discretion to direct agencies, enforce requirements, administer programs, and put federal law into practice.

But the president does not have a general power to ignore, repeal, defund, weaken, or discard laws they dislike.

That distinction is basic, but it is often blurred in public debate. When people say, “the president should do something,” sometimes they are really talking about something only Congress can authorize, fund, change, or stop.

That does not mean presidents are powerless. Far from it. But presidential power usually depends on law, funding, delegation, and enforcement authority. Congress helps build that machinery. Congress can also limit it.

Congress controls the money

One of Congress’s strongest powers is the power of the purse.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, borrow, pay debts, spend for the general welfare, and appropriate money. Revenue bills must begin in the House, and no money may be drawn from the Treasury unless Congress has approved it by law. See Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9.

Federal programs do not run on speeches. Agencies do not operate on campaign slogans. Wars, courts, investigations, public health programs, disaster relief, veterans’ services, national parks, air traffic control, food safety, Social Security administration, and congressional operations all require money.

Congress decides whether to raise money, how to spend it, and what conditions to attach.

That power is not a minor bookkeeping role. It is one of the main ways Congress defines what the federal government can actually do.

A president may request money. A president may pressure lawmakers. A president may threaten a veto. But the Constitution does not give the president a personal checkbook for the federal treasury.

When Congress protects its spending power, it protects representative government.

When Congress allows a president to redirect, freeze, misuse, or ignore money Congress has approved, it weakens one of the most important checks in the constitutional system.

Congress checks the executive branch

Congress also has the power—and the duty—to oversee the executive branch.

That includes hearings, investigations, subpoenas, reports, budget conditions, confirmation questions, and public accountability. Oversight is not supposed to be a partisan hobby, used only when the other party controls the White House. It is part of how Congress makes sure laws are carried out properly.

The Constitution does not put oversight into one neat clause. It flows from Congress’s Article I lawmaking powers and from the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8.

The executive branch is huge. It includes Cabinet departments, law enforcement agencies, military command structures, regulatory offices, grant programs, contractors, inspectors general, and thousands of officials carrying out federal policy.

A president leads the executive branch. But Congress has the authority to ask: What are you doing? Who authorized it? What law allows it? Where did the money come from? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What records prove it?

Those questions are not harassment. They are governance.

Congress creates and limits federal institutions

Congress also creates, names, funds, structures, and limits many federal offices and institutions.

Much of that authority rests on the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8. Congress can create offices, agencies, and institutions by law when they are needed to carry out federal powers. Congress can also define their duties, funding, structure, and limits.

Some are part of the legislative branch, such as the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, Government Publishing Office, and Architect of the Capitol.

Others are federal institutions created by statutes with special structures, duties, boards, names, or missions.

The Kennedy Center is one example. Congress created and named it by law. A president may have influence through appointments and political pressure, but if a name is set by statute, changing it generally requires Congress to change the statute.

The principle applies far beyond one cultural institution. The president may lead the executive branch, but Congress helps define the legal framework within which federal offices and institutions operate.

Congress confirms—or rejects—many top officials

Presidents nominate many senior officials, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, federal judges, and Supreme Court justices. But Article II, Section 2, gives the Senate an advice-and-consent role.

That means the Senate is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. Its role is not merely to ask whether a nominee is loyal to the president. Its job is to ask whether that person is qualified, ethical, lawful, independent enough for the role, and committed to the Constitution.

Consent means the Senate can say yes. It also means the Senate can say no.

Congress also has an advice-and-consent role for treaties negotiated by the president with other countries.

Congress can impeach and remove officials

The impeachment power of Congress is divided among several provisions:

• The House has the sole power to impeach under Article I, Section 2.

• The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments under Article I, Section 3.

• Article II, Section 4, identifies the officials and grounds for removal.

Conviction may also bar that person from holding future federal office.

Impeachment is not a normal policy disagreement. It is a constitutional remedy for serious abuse of public office.

But it exists for a reason: Some misconduct cannot wait for the next election, and some federal officials are not elected at all.

A president cannot pardon an impeachment. A president cannot erase an impeachment conviction. And a president cannot remove members of Congress for using that power.

Congress controls its own rules and officers

Congress also controls much of its own internal machinery.

Article I, Section 5, says each house may determine its own rules, punish its members, and, with a two-thirds vote, expel a member.

Each chamber chooses its leaders. Committees conduct much of the work. Internal officers and staff help the House and Senate function.

That may sound procedural, but procedure can shape power.

For example, the Senate parliamentarian advises on Senate rules and procedure. A president may object to a ruling. A president may pressure senators. A president may complain loudly.

But the president does not run the Senate’s referees.

That matters because Congress cannot remain independent if the executive branch controls the people who interpret congressional rules.

Congress can give power away

There is one more uncomfortable truth.

Congress can weaken itself:

• It can pass vague laws that give presidents too much discretion.

• It can fail to conduct oversight. It can confirm unqualified loyalists. It can tolerate secrecy.

• It can look away from unlawful spending.

• It can treat constitutional duties as partisan inconveniences.

• It can let emergency powers become routine. It can complain about executive overreach while quietly benefiting from it.

When that happens, presidential power grows not only because presidents seize it but also because Congress allows it.

That is dangerous, no matter which party controls the White House.

A Congress that surrenders power to a president from its own party may later discover that the power is still gone when the other party wins.

Why this matters to citizens

That is why civic pressure cannot focus only on the White House.

Presidents matter. Elections matter. Executive orders matter. Courts matter.

But members of Congress matter too.

They can write laws. Fund programs. Block spending. Demand records. Hold hearings. Reject nominees. Expose misconduct. Protect agencies. Defend courts. Declare war or refuse to authorize it. Impeach officials. And set limits the president must obey.

Or they can fail to do those things.

When Congress has power but does not use it, voters should know where the responsibility lies.

The Constitution does not make Congress helpless.

Politics sometimes does. And politics can change.

Related Resources at Plainly, Garbl

• Contact Information: Washington’s U.S. Senators and Representatives
  Phone calls are recommended. Or send an email using the contact form on their website.

• How to Track What Congress Actually Does
  Follow bills, votes, hearings, committees, and other congressional action.

• Suggested Text for Writing Email Messages to Elected Officials
  Use or adapt sample language for emails. The same points can also work as a script for phone calls.

Share

Subscribe now

This guide is part of a series on Violence Prevention and Community Safety. Check its Introduction for an overview of the series, its goals, and other guides.

Some violence happens in public view. Much of it does not. It happens in homes, relationships, families, schools, care settings, workplaces, institutions, and online spaces. It can include domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, coercive control, child abuse, elder abuse, abuse of people with disabilities, financial exploitation, and sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking.

This guide highlights organizations working to prevent abuse, support survivors, protect people at risk, strengthen accountability, and build safer systems of care, justice, and community response.

The focus is not only on crisis response after harm occurs. It is also on prevention, education, healthy relationships, trauma-informed services, economic security, and public policies that help people live with safety and dignity.

Domestic Violence, Survivor Safety, and Victim Support

Issues addressed: Domestic violence, relationship abuse, survivor safety, victim support, shelter and advocacy services, housing, legal support, stalking, technology-facilitated abuse, economic abuse, children and families, prevention education, public policy, and local program support.

Futures Without Violence

Futures Without Violence works to prevent domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, and other forms of harm through prevention, public policy, education, training, and partnerships with healthcare providers, educators, judges, employers, coaches, and community leaders. Its work also includes children and families, economic opportunity, and engaging men and boys as part of the solution.

National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV)

NNEDV represents state and U.S. territorial domestic violence coalitions and works to strengthen survivor safety, public policy, housing, economic justice, technology safety, legal information, and local domestic violence programs.

National Domestic Violence Hotline | Local Providers

The National Domestic Violence Hotline provides free, confidential support 24/7/365 for people experiencing domestic violence, intimate partner violence, or relationship abuse. Hotline: 800-799-SAFE (7233).

National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) | VictimConnect

The National Center for Victims of Crime supports victims’ rights, policy, training, and victim assistance. Its VictimConnect Resource Center offers confidential referrals and support for victims of all crime types, including stalking and other forms of interpersonal violence. VictimConnect can be reached by phone or text at 855-4-VICTIM (855-484-2846) or through online chat.

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

WSCADV supports domestic violence and sexual assault programs across Washington state through training, prevention, public policy, research, housing assistance, legal assistance, technology safety resources, and connections to local advocacy services. Its website also links to more than 70 local domestic violence and sexual assault programs serving Washington residents.

Sexual Violence, Assault Prevention, and Survivor Healing

Issues addressed: Sexual assault, rape, incest, sexual harassment, survivor support, prevention education, hotline services, local rape crisis centers, and public awareness.

RAINN

RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, is the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization. It operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline and also provides the DoD Safe Helpline, a confidential service for members of the U.S. Department of Defense community affected by sexual assault. National Sexual Assault Hotline: 800-656-HOPE (4673). DoD Safe Helpline: 877-995-5247.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) | Respect Together

NSVRC, a division of Respect Together, provides research, tools, training, public awareness resources, and prevention strategies for advocates and communities working to end sexual abuse, assault, and harassment. Respect Together supports broader efforts to prevent sexual violence, promote survivor-centered responses, and build safer, more respectful communities. NSVRC also leads national Sexual Assault Awareness Month resources and campaigns.

Children, Elders, Adults with Disabilities, and Vulnerable People

Issues addressed: Child abuse and neglect, adverse childhood experiences, family support, elder abuse, caregiver abuse, neglect, self-neglect, financial exploitation, Adult Protective Services, and abuse of adults with disabilities.

Prevent Child Abuse America | Washington Chapter

Prevent Child Abuse America is a national organization focused on preventing child abuse and neglect before it happens through research-informed programs, family support, community prevention, and public policy. The Washington chapter in its state network is affiliated with Strengthening Families Washington, a program of the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families.

National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA)

The National Center on Elder Abuse provides information and resources on elder abuse research, training, policy, public awareness, and best practices for preventing and responding to elder mistreatment.

National Adult Protective Services Association (NAPSA)

NAPSA works to strengthen Adult Protective Services at the national, state, and local levels so systems can better recognize, report, respond to, and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders and adults with disabilities.

Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking

Issues addressed: Sex trafficking, labor trafficking, commercial sexual exploitation, trafficking prevention, survivor-informed research, justice, restoration, systems change, and public awareness.

Polaris

Polaris works to prevent and respond to sex and labor trafficking by supporting victims and survivors, using data to understand how trafficking works, and addressing systems that make trafficking possible and profitable.

Shared Hope International

Based in Vancouver, Washington, Shared Hope International works in the U.S. and around the world to prevent sex trafficking, support restoration for survivors, and advance justice, especially for women, children, and youth vulnerable to or victimized by sex trafficking.

Community-Specific Advocacy

Issues addressed: Gender-based violence in Indigenous, Latino, immigrant, LGBTQ+, HIV-affected, and other communities; domestic violence; sexual assault; dating violence; stalking; hate violence; barriers to services; culturally specific advocacy; and community-led prevention.

National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center (NIWRC)

NIWRC is a Native-led organization addressing gender-based violence in tribal communities, including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence, stalking, sex trafficking, and the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and relatives. Its work connects survivor safety with tribal sovereignty, public policy, training, and community response.

Esperanza United

Esperanza United mobilizes Latinas and Latin@ communities to end domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Formerly Casa de Esperanza, it works through culturally specific advocacy, training, technical assistance, public policy, community organizing, and support for Latin@ survivors and community-based organizations.

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)

NCAVP works to address violence against and within LGBTQ and HIV-affected communities, including domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, hate violence, harassment, police misconduct, and other forms of victimization.

Related Resource

Community, Youth, and School Violence, focusing on preventing harassment, bullying, youth harm, school violence, assault, and intimidation in public places

This guide was built to be used. Please share it with people, groups, and local organizers who could put it to work.

Subscribe now

Share

War is not supposed to be one-person government.

That may sound obvious. But every time U.S. presidents use military force without clear approval from Congress, the country has to relearn one of the Constitution’s basic lessons: The power over war is divided on purpose.

I’ve been alive since 1950. In all that time, Congress has never formally declared war, even as the United States has fought in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.

That history is why the constitutional division of power still matters, not as a civics lesson but as a safeguard.

The president is commander in chief. That matters. A president must be able to respond quickly to attacks, threats, and emergencies.

But the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the armed forces, and control military funding. Those powers are not decorative. They are part of our government’s system of checks and balances.

That is why congressional action over Iran matters.

On June 3, 2026, the House passed a war powers resolution seeking to require President Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress authorizes continued military action. The vote was 215-208, with four Republicans joining Democrats.

The measure now depends on Senate action. If it passes both chambers, Trump could veto it, and Congress would need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto.

If Congress cannot override a veto, the resolution would not force a legal change. But the vote would still matter politically. It would show congressional resistance, put lawmakers on record, and help define the public debate over the legal and democratic support for military action.

That is the larger constitutional question: Who gets to decide when the United States goes to war?

The answer is not simple. But it is not mysterious either. The Constitution divides war powers for a reason, even if modern practice has blurred the lines.

Over time, power has shifted toward presidents. Broad authorizations helped. So did emergency laws, defense spending bills, and congressional hesitation. Formal declarations of war became rare.

But the core principle remains: War power is shared because war is too dangerous to entrust to one person.

Related: For a broader plain-English guide to Congress’s constitutional powers beyond war and military authority, see What Congress Controls That Presidents Don’t.

What the Constitution says about war powers

The Constitution splits war-related power between Congress and the president.

Congress decides whether to formally authorize war.
Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power “to declare War.” In plain English: Formal war is not supposed to begin on presidential authority alone.

Congress creates, funds, and regulates the military.
Congress may raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the armed forces, call forth the militia, and organize, arm, and discipline the militia. It also controls spending, which gives it enormous practical power over military action.

The president is commander in chief.
Article II, Section 2, makes the president commander in chief of the Army and Navy, and of state militias when called into federal service. That means the president directs military operations, commands forces, and can respond quickly to attacks or emergencies.

States have very limited war powers.
Article I, Section 10, largely takes war-making away from individual states. States may not keep troops or ships of war in peacetime without Congress’ consent, and they may not engage in war unless actually invaded or facing imminent danger that allows no delay.

The built-in tension

The problem is that modern military action often falls between the categories the Constitution names most clearly.

Without a declaration of war, a president might authorize military action as a limited strike, drone attack, naval deployment, cyber operation, defense of U.S. forces, or support for an ally.

Any one of those actions may be described as short of war—until it expands, continues, or draws the U.S. deeper into conflict.

That built-in tension has grown as modern military action has become faster, sometimes secret, more global, more technological, and less likely to begin with a formal declaration of war.

Congress may object, but too often it’s after the fact.

How later laws changed the balance

Over time, Congress has passed laws that both limit and expand presidential power. Some were meant to restore congressional authority. Others gave presidents broader tools to respond to threats, impose sanctions, aid allies, conduct surveillance, or use force under specific authorizations.

The result is a system that still rests on constitutional checks and balances. But it often operates through statutes, funding bills, emergency declarations, and congressional authorizations rather than formal declarations of war.

The War Powers Resolution

After the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over President Nixon’s veto. Its purpose was to restore Congress’ role in decisions about sending U.S. forces into hostilities.

The law says the president may introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities only under three conditions: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency arising from an attack on the United States, its territories, possessions, or armed forces.

The law also requires presidents to consult with Congress “in every possible instance,” report to Congress when forces are introduced into hostilities, and generally end the deployment within 60 days, with a possible 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes continued action.

The problem is enforcement. Presidents of both parties have often resisted the law’s limits while still filing reports under it or “consistent with” it. That careful wording signals compliance without conceding control.

Authorizations for Use of Military Force

Instead of formal declarations of war, Congress now usually passes Authorizations for Use of Military Force, or AUMFs.

The 2001 AUMF after the Sept. 11 attacks became the legal basis for years of military action against terrorist groups and related forces. The 2002 Iraq AUMF authorized force against Iraq. Both show how broad authorizations can stretch far beyond the moment that produced them.

AUMFs give Congress a role, but they can also give presidents wide room to act if the language is vague or left in place too long.

Military funding laws

Congress funds the armed forces through defense authorization bills, appropriations bills, emergency spending, and other measures.

That gives Congress a powerful tool. It can fund military action, limit it, condition it, or cut off money. But in practice, Congress often hesitates to restrict funding once troops are already deployed. Members do not want to appear to be abandoning service members, even when the real issue is the mission’s legal authorization.

Emergency and sanctions laws

Congress has also passed laws giving presidents broad powers during national emergencies and foreign crises. These laws can allow sanctions, asset freezes, trade restrictions, and other actions short of war.

Those tools can be necessary. But they can also shift power toward the executive branch if Congress does not oversee them carefully.

Military justice and domestic limits

Congress also writes many rules for the military, including military justice. Laws such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice grow out of Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate the armed forces.

At home, laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act generally limit the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, while the Insurrection Act allows military involvement in certain domestic crises.

Those laws reflect another constitutional concern: Military power should remain under civilian control and should not become a tool of domestic intimidation.

How the courts have affected war powers

Courts have not given the country one neat war-powers formula. But several Supreme Court cases matter.

In Little v. Barreme, the court held that presidential military orders could not override limits Congress had set by law. That early case stands for a basic principle: Even in military affairs, presidents must follow statutes.

In the Civil War Prize Cases, the court recognized that a president may respond when an actual armed conflict or emergency already exists. That strengthened emergency presidential power, but it did not give presidents unlimited authority to start wars.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court rejected President Truman’s seizure of steel mills during the Korean War. Justice Robert Jackson’s famous framework remains central: Presidential power is strongest when Congress authorizes it, uncertain when Congress is silent, and weakest when the president acts against Congress’ expressed will.

In later terrorism and detention cases, including Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush, the court recognized that Congress and the president may have broad wartime powers, but constitutional rights do not disappear.

What citizens should watch

The Iran debate is not only about Iran.

It is also about whether decisions of war and peace still require public debate, legal authority, and democratic consent. Citizens should pay attention to the questions Congress asks and the questions it avoids:

• Has Congress clearly authorized military force?

• Has the president reported to Congress as required?

• Are U.S. forces already in hostilities?

• Is Congress debating the mission before or after the shooting starts?

• Are lawmakers willing to use their funding power, or only issue statements?

• Are old authorizations being stretched to cover new conflicts?

The Constitution does not make the president powerless in war. But it also does not make the president a king.

War is too grave for autopilot. And it is far too grave for one-person rule.

Related Resources in Plainly, Garbl

Global Governance, International Law, and Accountability
Advocacy organizations focused on international law, sovereignty, and democratic limits on power

Peace, Defense Spending, and Nuclear Arms Control
Advocacy organizations focused on de-escalation, restraint, and arms reduction

Share

Subscribe now