It was only a matter of time for me to need to bring this previous USTomorrow piece back for another run. Here is it in full from just after the Vice President went to Rome last year.

From May 19th, 2025

With all the talk about the new Pope, the Vice President’s return to Rome and religion being in the news so much recently, I wanted to highlight a great book that stays top of mine for me when people talk religion and politics. (Which I hope more people do!)

I want to recommend: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory by Tim Alberta. This book offers insight into the evolving role of the evangelical church and how its internal battles have influenced American politics.

Understanding the Evangelical Movement

Alberta, himself a Pastors’ son and practicing Christian, provides a nuanced look at the modern evangelical movement through the experiences of pastors, congregations, and everyday believers. He explores how shifts in values and priorities have led to divisions within the church, which in turn reflect and contribute to the polarization we see in politics today.

You might recall I did a recent piece on how Democracy grows stronger when more Christians reflect Christ’s compassion—and when secular voices make space for faith in public life. It’s why I found the book so compelling.

USTomorrow by Joseph Kopser

A Gay Atheist Jew, the Pope, and American Poverty

Author's Note: I wrote this newsletter about the Pope prior to news of his passing. I went back and updated the newsletter to put emphasis on the Pope's call for Christians and Catholics to live in a more Christ-like way…

Read more

a year ago · 2 comments · Joseph Kopser

A Mirror for Our Politics

For many conservative Christians, America has been seen as a special, divinely blessed nation. However, Alberta points out that this national pride has sometimes evolved into political/Christian nationalism. He traces key moments in recent history, such as the Trump presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic, to show how these events have deepened existing trends within the evangelical community.

Alberta aims to explore the complexities of how faith and politics have become intertwined, leaving readers to reflect on the future of both the church and the country.

In writing this post, I found a great interview between Tim Albert with fellow Pastor’s son, Jon Ward, before the book went to press. It’s a great discussion if you enjoy audio podcasts.

Border-Stalkers

Tim Alberta's new book portrays a tug of war for the soul of American Christianity

Hello friends…

Listen now

2 years ago · 16 likes · Jon Ward

Final Thoughts

I believe The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory is a valuable resource for understanding the broader cultural and political shifts we’re witnessing. It sheds light on the challenges facing the evangelical community while offering important context for the current political climate. I encourage you to read it and share your thoughts.

It might even help with a family member or neighbor where you both don’t understand each other’s political views when it comes to understanding why the country is still nearly 50-50.

Let me know what you’re seeing out there.

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow.us

AI isn’t a political position. It’s a tool—no different than the computer or the internet. The real issue isn’t the technology itself, it’s how we choose to use it. But before we even get to that point, we have a more basic problem: most people don’t actually understand how it works.

And that’s where leadership comes in.

You Can’t Lead What You Don’t Understand

In the Army, I learned a hard truth about leadership: you cannot lead what you do not understand.

Back in 2006, when that photo was taken in Mosul, Iraq, I was serving as the Squadron XO for 1/9 Cavalry. We had nearly 1,000 Soldiers and hundreds of pieces of equipment spread across everything from vehicles and weapons to communications, medical, and intelligence systems.

I wasn’t the expert in any one of those areas.

I wasn’t the best marksman. I wasn’t the master gunner. I wasn’t the mechanic or the intel officer.

But I had to understand how it all worked.

Because when something broke down—and it always did—I had to make decisions. Real decisions with trade-offs between time, money, and mission risk. If I couldn’t follow the troubleshooting recommended, I couldn’t lead effectively.

Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room. It’s about having enough understanding to see the whole picture while your team is deep in the details.

The Same Lesson in Business & Politics

That lesson didn’t go away when I left the Army.

When we built RideScout, I wasn’t the lead developer. But I had to understand how the product worked and how the MVP was being built. If the CEO is disconnected from the technology, the company is operating blind.

You don’t need to write the code. But you do need to understand the logic.

AI Is Today’s Version of That Problem

Today, that same challenge is showing up with AI.

I talk to a lot of people (i.e. business leaders) who are trying to stay “high level” on AI. They read summaries, attend panels, and talk strategy. But they’re not actually using the tools.

That’s a mistake.

The pace of change right now is fast enough that what worked even a few months ago can already feel outdated. You can’t lead through that kind of shift from a distance.

My Own Approach

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been forcing myself to get hands-on.

Not just reading about AI—but actually using it. Testing tools. Breaking workflows. Trying to understand where it works well and where it doesn’t.

And I’ll be honest, it’s been fun.

It reminds me of sitting in front of my first computer (and IBM PCjr), trying to get BASIC code to run. That same sense of figuring things out as you go.

Where I Think People Are Getting It Wrong

What concerns me is that a lot of leaders (business and political) are hesitant to admit they don’t understand this yet.

So instead, they default to safe language—frameworks, policies, strategy decks.

But without real understanding underneath, that’s not leadership. It’s just positioning.

The baseline has shifted. If you’re not willing to engage directly with the technology, you’re not really leading on it.

Bringing It Back to the Bigger Point

AI shouldn’t be something that divides us politically.

It should be something that challenges us to step up.

To learn.
To experiment.
To get a little uncomfortable.

Because that’s what leadership has always required.

The Question

So here’s the question I’ve been asking myself:

Am I actually learning how this works… or am I just talking about it?

Curious how others are approaching it—what’s one AI tool you’ve used that actually helped you understand things better?

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow.us

I promised I had theories. But first, I wanted to hear from you.

And you delivered.

Heads up: If this topic resonates with you, there’s a couple of opportunities to learn more linked below. Join if you can.

You’ve Seen This Before

The response from readers was thoughtful, personal, and, in the best way, a little heartbreaking. It confirmed what I suspected: the Kelly Hall story isn’t an anomaly. It’s a pattern. And many of you have watched it play out up close.

M, put it plainly:

“I read about that Hall election and my heart sank. I think we simply stopped paying attention to elections and the process and now we are seeing the results. Another unfortunate result here in Bexar County. We simply must do a better job of creating voters who seek to be informed about candidates. League of Women Voters has our Voters Guide and we distribute 50,000 in both English and Spanish. The TX Trib does a voters guide, our local SA Report does a voters guide. Anecdotally people tell us they read at least one of those to get informed — but obviously not enough.”

O. spoke to something even more fundamental — the real-world constraints on civic engagement:

“My husband and I read the background and platforms of every candidate. Also every bill put forth, outlining the pros and cons. It doesn’t require a lot of time — but most people have their noses to the grindstone to pay bills, feed their families, and maybe catch an episode of a favorite show at the end of the day. It is sad but true. You pointed out that sometimes their decisions are based on race, gender, affiliations, or if they are good looking should they even make it to the polls. Sad but true.”

C. brought up a powerful and specific example — one that illustrates just how consequential name-based and identity-based voting can be in down-ballot races:

“It has happened in the past and it has happened in several cases this election. If you remember Tim Sulak — who was an experienced judge — he ran for reelection in 2016, when Hillary was on the ballot. Basically young women voted for the woman on the ballot and he lost. I think women are as qualified and many times more qualified to be elected, but I try to look at qualifications versus sex. People who don’t research candidates should be very cautious voting in races just because of the name.”

And Sharon Lawrence— who spent nearly a decade working in the elections industry — highlighted our last newsletter publicly and added her own expertise over at her Substack. She wrote:

“You raised an issue that has frustrated me for over two decades so I was thrilled to see this post!”

has been writing thoughtfully on these similar issues for years. I encourage you to follow her work: sharonlawrence.substack.com

The common thread running through all of this feedback? Our system, as currently designed, makes it far too easy for uninformed choices to drown out informed ones — especially in primaries. Which brings me to the good news.

There are real solutions. And one of them is elegant in its simplicity.

What If the Top Three Advanced?

Among the most compelling responses I received came from J., who cut right to it:

“Do away with primaries by party and have one primary. Top three are in the final election, most votes wins.”

I love this idea — and not just because it would have helped me personally (more on that in a moment). There are a lot of reasons why we need to look at changing the system.

A combined, nonpartisan primary where the top three vote-getters advance to the general election would fundamentally change the incentives in our political system. Here’s why it matters.

Go back to Texas House District 19. Under a top-three system, Kelly Hall — who spent $750 and ran no campaign — would almost certainly not have been one of the three finalists. Javier Andrade, the Army veteran and cybersecurity professional endorsed by the Austin American-Statesman, would have made it to the general election. Voters who had no idea there was a primary - or no intention of voting in it - would have gotten a second opportunity to do due diligence and weigh in during the general election.

It would have helped me too. In HD47, I ran a real campaign. I knocked on doors, raised money, built a coalition. Under a top-three primary system, I would have advanced to the general — where a much broader and more informed electorate would have decided the outcome. That’s how it should work– even if I lose, at least more folks will get a voice.

And then there’s Ken Paxton.

In the 2026 Texas Senate race, Paxton — the indicted Attorney General — finished fourth in the primary (if you combined them, he was fourth behind Talarico, Crocket and Cornyn. Under a top-three system, he would not have made it to the November ballot, not to mention the ongoing potential for a bruising, divisive, and expensive GOP primary runoff or the meddling of a fickle President.

Many of my Republican friends told me they felt torn during the primary: they wanted to vote for me in HD47, but felt their higher calling was to vote in the GOP primary specifically to keep Paxton off the Senate ballot in November. A combined primary resolves that tension entirely. You don’t have to choose your tribe over your conscience.

A top-three combined primary doesn’t eliminate competition. It expands it. It gives voice to the voters in the middle — independents, crossover voters, people who don’t neatly fit into either party’s base — and it rewards candidates who can build broad coalitions rather than just mobilize the hyper-partisan minority of the electorate that currently decides primary results.

It’s not a perfect system. No system is. But it’s a serious improvement over what we have now.

Unfortunately, the very elected officials required to change the laws are in power now and could give up that power if the combined primary system were implemented, so unfortunately, there is little will to fix it.

The Independents Are Coming

Here’s the thing: the frustrations that lead to elections like the Kelly Hall outcome — and the solutions readers like J. are proposing — aren’t fringe ideas anymore. They’re the emerging mainstream.

According to new research from , nearly half of all Americans now identify as political independents.

Let that sink in. Half the country doesn’t feel represented by either major party.

And it’s not hard to understand why. When a winner-take-all primary system — stacked on top of gerrymandered districts — consistently produces candidates who appeal to the ideological extremes, voters in the broad middle have a rational response: they disengage, or they opt out of the party label entirely.

The rise of independents isn’t just a polling curiosity. It’s a signal. People aren’t abandoning their civic values — they’re abandoning the vehicles that no longer reflect them. And that creates a genuine opening for a different kind of politics: one built around competence, integrity, and the ability to actually govern.

Which brings me to two friends of mine who are doing exactly that.

Two Leaders Worth Your Attention

Seth Bodnar — U.S. Senate, Montana (Independent)

Up in Montana, my friend Seth Bodnar is running for the United States Senate — as an independent.

Seth is a West Point graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and a former Army Ranger. He’s also the former president of the University of Montana. He brings exactly the kind of record and character that voters say they want — and he’s betting that enough Montanans are ready to elect someone who doesn’t owe a party anything.

Mayor Jim Penniman-Morin — Cedar Park, Texas (Re-Election)

Closer to home, my good friend and fellow Army veteran Mayor Jim (as many hall him) is running for re-election in Cedar Park.

Jim is a West Point graduate who has brought the same discipline and integrity to leading Cedar Park that he brought to serving our country. He’s exactly the kind of local leader that makes democracy work at the ground level — the kind who actually shows up, does the homework, and earns your vote.

I’ll be co-hosting a fundraiser for Jim next week, and I’d love to see you there. If you can’t make it in person, you can send your financial support directly. RSVP or donate here.

Local elections are where the rubber meets the road. Cedar Park deserves a leader like Jim, and races like his are often decided by small margins. Your support matters.

The Thread Connecting All of This

Reader feedback. Combined primaries. The rise of independents. Friends running as the kind of candidates we say we want.

These aren’t disconnected stories. They’re different angles on the same challenge: a political system that too often produces outcomes that don’t reflect what most Americans actually want — and a growing movement of people determined to change that.

Democracy doesn’t fix itself. It gets fixed by informed voters, better rules, and people willing to step up and run.

You’re already doing your part by reading and thinking carefully. Now let’s keep pushing.

As always — reply and let me know what you’re seeing out there.

Joseph Co-Founder of USTomorrow

Over the last four months on the campaign trail for the Texas House, I got a second look from a front-row seat, seeing how the system actually works—not how we hope it works. What I saw should concern anyone who cares about accountability, participation, and results.

As we head toward the midterms, I’m launching a USTomorrow series to take a clear-eyed look at where our system is falling short—and what we can do about it.

But this isn’t just my perspective.

I want to hear from you (and the other nearly 9,000 UST readers)—what you’re seeing, what’s not working, and what needs to change. Because if we’re going to rebuild trust in the system - and overcome the gigantic effort underway to sow doubt in it - it starts with honest conversations and shared ownership of what comes next.

Do Your Homework Before You Vote

How does a candidate win an election without running a campaign at all?

That’s not a rhetorical question. Voter “preferences” sometimes deliver surprising results.

In the Texas House District 19 Democratic primary (next door to the District I ran in), a candidate who reportedly believed he had stepped aside from the race still ended up winning the nomination. He (Kelly Hall) had spent only about $750 covering filing fees, put up no yard signs, and did little of any traditional campaigning. No website. And yet he won by nearly 20 points. In mid-January, Kelly changed his mind to not run for Texas House and decided to run for mayor of Round Rock.

Meanwhile, the opponent he defeated (Javier Andrade) was an Army veteran and cybersecurity professional who had received the endorsement of the Austin American-Statesman.

When the results came in, the outcome surprised nearly everyone—including the winner himself. Friends reportedly interrupted a Call of Duty session to let him know he won the primary.

So how does something like that happen? Seriously. I’m asking you, the reader, to reply and let me know how you think it happens. I have my theories that I plan to lay out in the next several USTomorrow newsletters.

For now, let’s take a look at a few underlying factors. Because the answer isn’t just about one contest. It reveals something deeper about how voters behave—especially in primary elections and down-ballot races.

The Information Problem in Down-Ballot Races

Political scientists have studied voting behavior for decades and consistently find the same pattern:

The farther down the ballot you go, the less information voters tend to have.

When voters lack information, two things usually happen:

Ballot roll-off – some voters simply skip the race entirely.

Shortcut voting – others rely on cues instead of research.

Those cues can include:

• Name recognition

• Incumbency

• Ballot order

• Perceived gender or ethnicity inferred from names

Researchers call these heuristics—mental shortcuts that help people make decisions quickly.

Sometimes they work well.

Sometimes they don’t.

And in low-information environments, they can produce surprising outcomes.

Primaries Magnify the Problem

Primary elections amplify this effect.

Unlike our currently hyper-partisan, gerrymander entrenched general elections, where party labels provide a strong signal, primaries usually feature candidates from the same party. Voters cannot simply choose the candidate with the (D) or (R) next to their name.

Without that cue, voters must rely on other signals to make decisions.

At the same time, primaries usually have lower turnout and less media coverage.

That means fewer voters—and less shared information.

Which is exactly the environment where unexpected outcomes become possible.

Civic Literacy Matters

This is where civic education becomes critical.

Surveys from the Annenberg Public Policy Center show that about 70% of Americans can name the three branches of government.

That’s encouraging. (And a little discouraging its not 95%)

But it also means millions of voters struggle with even basic civic knowledge—making complex ballots harder to navigate.

Civic education isn’t just about memorizing facts.

It’s about learning how to find credible information, compare candidates, and evaluate sources.

In other words:

It’s about learning how to do your homework as a voter. Don’t vote unless you really know who you are voting for. In this case, 7,887 voters “for” Kelly Hall are likely to have done literally zero homework on the race before casting a ballot.

The Ballot Box Is Powerful

Every election season, one song captures the essence of American democracy.

Willie Nelson sings it simply:

“The biggest gun we’ve got… the ballot box.”
“If you don’t like who’s in there, vote ’em out.”

He’s right.

The ballot box is one of the greatest inventions in human history.

It allows citizens to change leadership without violence.

But powerful tools only work when we use them carefully.

If the ballot box is the “weapon” of democracy, then responsible citizens have two jobs:

Show up.

Aim.

Showing up means voting—especially in primaries, where fewer voters determine who appears on the November ballot.

Aiming means taking a few minutes to understand the candidates before casting your vote. Or skip that race and don’t vote.

A Simple Civic Habit

Doing your homework doesn’t require hours of research.

It might simply mean:

• Filling out a sample ballot before voting

• Reading one or two trusted voter guides

• Looking up the candidates’ backgrounds

• Checking credible journalism or endorsements

Those small steps replace guesswork with knowledge.

And when millions of voters do that together, democracy becomes stronger.

Granted, the Texas House District 19 race may be unusual.

But the conditions that produced it—low information, primary turnout, and shortcut voting—exist in elections across the country.

If we want the ballot box to do its job, we have to do ours.

Because democracy works best when citizens vote with reasons.

Before we end, why do you think Kelly won by nearly 20%?

Let me know what you think and what you’re seeing out there.

Joseph

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

Yesterday the voters of House District 47 made their decision.

While it wasn’t the outcome we worked so hard toward, I want you to know how deeply grateful I am for the trust, the encouragement, and the belief you placed in this campaign.

Running for office is a humbling experience. You knock on doors in the heat (yes, in Texas in Feb/March it was hot!). You have conversations with neighbors who agree with you and others who don’t. And along the way you are reminded that democracy is not an abstract idea — it’s a very human process, one conversation at a time.

Now that the voters have had their say, it’s now our job to ensure the elected are working to break the partisan expectations are holding our communities and our country back.

Over the past months I met thousands of people across our district. Parents worried about their kids’ schools. Small business owners trying to navigate an uncertain economy. Veterans looking for leaders who understand service. Young people eager to participate in shaping the future of Texas.

Those conversations will stay with me going forward. I would welcome you to join us to power that effort.

From the beginning, this campaign was about doing things differently in our politics. Moving closer to the center to push back on the politics of division.

Many of you stepped up to be part of that experiment.

You donated your hard-earned money.
You opened your homes.
You volunteered your evenings and weekends.
You shared the message with your friends and neighbors.

Together, we raised resources, reached thousands of voters, and built a community of people who believe that leadership should still be about service.

That matters.

Because elections come and go, the work of building stronger communities never really stops.

As many of you know, my life has always been guided by service — first as a Soldier, later as a husband, father and entrepreneur, and now through my work writing and speaking about the future of our country through USTomorrow. That mission doesn’t end because of an election result.

If anything, the lessons of this campaign reinforce what I’ve long believed: our country doesn’t just need better politics — it needs more citizens willing to engage, listen, and lead.

You helped prove that spirit is still alive.

Thank you for standing with us.

Thank you for believing that leadership grounded in service still matters.

And thank you for the friendships, conversations, and community that came out of this campaign. Those will last far longer than a single election cycle.

Lastly, congratulations to Pooja Sethi on her victory. Primaries matter.

With gratitude,

Joseph Kopser

PS— I’ll be following up soon with my next chapter.

I ask the tough questions. I don’t back down to bullies, and I’m not afraid to buck the line with my own party because I want results.

In business, it’s called disruption.
In politics, it’s called caring.

Thank you for caring and standing with your neighbors to build a better Texas. Polls are open tomorrow 7 am and as long as you’re in line by 7 pm, no one can turn you away. So if you haven’t yet, please VOTE!

Our ad on Youtube now has over 375,000 views. I plan to keep it running through 7 pm tonight. Click here to help us make that happen.

Thanks again for everyone that donated with their time and money to support our efforts to make a change.

Take care,

Joseph

www.KopserForTexas.com

PS-- It’s not too late to be a donor yourself!

And something important is happening.

Turnout is at record levels.

For the first time since 2002, more Democrats have voted in the Texas primary than Republicans. No matter where you fall politically, that kind of participation matters. Engagement matters. Showing up matters.

When more people participate, democracy gets healthier. My friend, mentor and Harvard Professor Robert Putnam writes extensively about the benefits of civic participation. I’ve written extensively about him in the past.

That’s the USTomorrow lens.

When I zoom out and look at the long arc of civic life in Texas, I see something encouraging: people are paying attention again. They care. They are taking ownership of the direction of their communities.

That’s a good thing.

But let me switch hats for a moment.

When I put on my candidate hat for House District 47, record turnout creates both excitement and urgency.

Excitement — because engagement means voters are listening.

Urgency — because in HD-47 alone, there are still more than 20,000 eligible voters that have not yet voted.

Twenty thousand. In a race where about 25,000 voters will end up voting, that is a HUGE unknown factor in the outcome.

That’s not a statistic. That’s neighbors. That’s parents at pickup line. That’s young professionals. That’s veterans. That’s entrepreneurs. That’s people who care about Austin’s future but haven’t yet plugged into the system.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

We’ve done what campaigns do.

Mailers have gone out.
Doors have been knocked.
Canvassers have walked neighborhoods.
Volunteers have made calls.
Data has been analyzed.
Neighborhood ambassadors have stepped up.

And digitally — we’ve leaned in.

One of our YouTube ads is approaching 200,000 views.

That sounds like a big number.

But think about your own daily scroll. How many videos do you fly past in seconds? How many messages do you barely register?

Attention today is fleeting.

Which means consistency matters.
Repetition matters.
Presence matters.

If we want to reach voters where they are — we have to meet them there. Over and over again.

Luckily, Mother Nature gave us a gift this weekend.

Blue skies. Great weather. The kind of weekend where you can knock every possible door and still feel grateful to be outside.

So that’s what we’re doing.

All gas, no brakes as Coach Sark likes to say.

Because participation doesn’t just happen. It’s built.

Here’s what I believe — whether I’m writing USTomorrow or running for office:

• High participation is healthy.
• Engagement strengthens institutions.
• Showing up changes outcomes.

And the more we build that muscle now, the stronger our country will be in the years ahead.

If you haven’t voted yet — today is the last day of early voting in Texas.

If you’ve already voted — thank you.

And if you believe in what we’re building in HD-47 and want to help keep the fuel in the rocket, you can visit the campaign website and chip in to help us finish strong. I want to keep our ads running all the way through the Tuesday night at 7 pm!

Because democracy only works when we power it.

See you at the polls.

— Joseph

The campaign trail has a way of consuming every spare hour. But before I go any further, a quick public service announcement:

If you live in Texas, early voting starts on Tuesday, 17 February. Have a plan. March matters. Check out commercial that just dropped called, “Fighting Forward.”

Now back to the reason for this newsletter.

I recently joined my friend Brett Hurt — Austin entrepreneur, investor, philanthropist, and host of the podcast Love Conquers Fear — for a wide-ranging conversation about AI, consciousness, spirituality, entrepreneurship, and public service.

It may have been one of the most personal interviews I’ve ever given.

And I’d love for you to watch it and tell me what you think.

You Are the Average of the Five People Around You

Early in the conversation, Brett asked:

How do you prevent yourself from being programmed?

I’ve told audiences for years:

You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.

If you’re constantly angry about politics…
If you believe the world is falling apart…
If everyone around you reinforces that belief…

Pause.

Look left. Look right.

The people around you may be amplifying your fear.

And fear is profitable. Algorithms reward outrage. “If it bleeds, it leads” didn’t start with social media — but social media perfected it.

If you want to deprogram yourself, don’t start with technology.

Start with your relationships.

Spend time with people who see the world differently.
Break the echo chamber.
Choose curiosity over certainty.

Faith, Loss, and the Unexplainable

Brett and I went deeper than AI.

We talked about faith.

I shared two moments that changed me.

The first was when our firstborn, Keaton, was an infant. One afternoon she was in her crib, babbling — but it wasn’t random baby noise. It sounded like a conversation. A rhythm. A response. As if she were talking to someone.

No one was there.

But it didn’t feel imaginary.

The second was the night my father died.

I had spoken to him on the phone. Something felt off. Deeply off. I told Amy I thought it might be the last time I’d hear his voice.

That night I woke up in a startle from a dream — an ambulance coming straight toward me. Minutes later, the phone rang.

He was gone.

You can call that coincidence.
You can call it grief.
You can call it subconscious processing.

Or you can call it something else. I call a believe in a higher being. I call him God. You might have a different name, but I’ve been a big fan of God and Jesus for a long time.

I’ve come to believe we are more connected than our five senses allow us to perceive.

Science is starting to hint at what faith traditions have whispered for centuries:
We may be connected in ways that defy our current vocabulary.

Flatland and the Fourth Dimension

In the podcast, I described an idea that has stuck with me for years.

Imagine a two-dimensional world — “Flatland.” If you place your hand through it, the inhabitants would see five separate lines. They would not see the hand that connects them.

What if we are like that?

What if our three-dimensional selves are shadows of something more?

Quantum entanglement tells us particles can be connected across vast distances. Spiritual traditions tell us we are one body.

Maybe those are not competing ideas.

Maybe they are describing the same reality from different angles.

AI: God’s Final Exam?

Brett asked me about artificial intelligence and abundance.

Here’s what I believe:

I am a 99% AI optimist.

(That last 1% is reserved for the 2006 movie Idiocracy.)

AI is a tool — like fire, electricity, or the printing press. It can accelerate destruction or unlock abundance.

But here’s what’s different this time:

The rate of change.

When Bret Boyd and I wrote Catalyst, we argued that change itself isn’t what disrupts societies — it’s the speed of change.

AI is moving at breakneck speed.

Used wisely, it could:

• End scarcity in energy.

• Transform healthcare.

• Personalize education.

• Increase productivity beyond anything we’ve seen.

Used poorly, it could amplify fear, division, and concentration of power.

Which brings us back to something spiritual.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Love conquers fear — or fear conquers us.

Those are the only two long-term options.

Texas, Humanity, and Abundance

Brett asked me what I hope for Texas.

My answer:
Let Texas be Texas — at its best.

Texas has always been a place of misfits, entrepreneurs, immigrants, risk-takers, oil wildcatters, technologists, and dreamers. It is a crossroads state.

But we must remember:

Your success is not my loss.

We can build abundance — in energy, in education, in opportunity — if we stop believing that someone else’s gain diminishes us.

That applies to Texas.

It applies to America.

And it applies to humanity.

The Real Question

The real question isn’t whether AI will change the world.

It will.

The real question is:

Will we use it to deepen connection — or to widen division?

Will we become more thoughtful?
More empathetic?
More aware of one another?

Or will we allow ourselves to be programmed by fear?

We are entering a moment of enormous technological acceleration.

But the deeper shift required is a heart shift.

I’d love for you to watch the full conversation.

What do you think is the long-term impact of artificial intelligence on society?

Are you optimistic? Concerned? Somewhere in between?

Reply to this email or blog with your comments. I read them all.

And if you live in Texas — vote.

— Joseph

But I was lucky enough to be shaped by someone he deeply influenced.

Her name was Mrs. Audrey Grevious—my sixth-grade teacher at Maxwell Elementary School. And on this MLK Day, I want to honor them both.

Back in 2020, the week John Lewis passed away, I shared a short video tribute to Mrs. Grevious. Today, I’m reposting it—not as nostalgia, but as a reminder. The truths from that moment still hold. Maybe even more so now.

Mrs. Grevious lived in the same era as John Lewis. She sat at lunch counters demanding equal service. She stood up, quietly and consistently, for dignity and fairness. But what made her extraordinary to generations of students wasn’t only her place in history—it was how she showed up for us, personally.

She knew us. She remembered our names. She cared about who we were becoming.

Whether it was her favorite annual production (the Nativity), overseeing graduation, or reminding a bunch of awkward sixth graders that clip-on ties could, in fact, be cool—she made sure every one of us felt seen. More importantly, she taught us something simple and enduring:

When you see a problem, go fix it.

That lesson stuck.

When I later watched Good Trouble, the documentary about John Lewis, the connection clicked even more clearly. For people alive today who struggle to understand the anger, the frustration, or the urgency they see around them, Lewis’s life offers context. He didn’t protest because it was fashionable. He protested because democracy demanded participation—and courage.

That, to me, is the through-line.

From MLK, to John Lewis, to Mrs. Audrey Grevious. From lunch counters, to classrooms, to ballots cast. American history isn’t a straight line. We’ve had progress and setbacks, hope and heartbreak. But we grow better together when we remember that democracy is a shared project.

If this moment feels confusing—or heavy—I’ll offer two simple suggestions. First, learn the history. Watch the films. Read the stories that explain how we got here. Second, listen.

One place to start is with my friend and mentor, Rick Lynch. He hosts leadership tours of Selma, Alabama and it’s reported to be quite moving for all those involved. He writes:

An immersive event for your team to develop leadership skills through the lens of the Civil Rights Movement and the events that occurred in Selma, Alabama.— Rick Lynch

MLK Day isn’t just about remembering a great man. It’s about honoring the teachers, mentors, and quiet leaders who carry those ideals forward—one classroom, one conversation, one act of courage at a time.

Today, I’m grateful for all of them.

—Joseph

People still seem genuinely surprised to meet a combat veteran running as a Democrat, or a tech entrepreneur campaigning from the center-left. But what’s been most refreshing this political season is something else entirely: the re-emergence of faith as a message rooted in humility, service, and moral accountability—rather than as an interpretive tool to divide Americans.

For decades, the political right has tried to claim faith as its exclusive moral high ground, extrapolating policies that too often disparage, exclude, and harm. And, too often, the left has put the lessons of faith aside in attempts to build a bigger tent. That’s why the voice of James Talarico, currently running for US Senate as a Democrat in Texas, is such a welcome disruption and one that has provided much appreciated leadership to candidates up and down the ticket, on both sides of the aisle.

Many first encountered Talarico during his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience—a masterclass in calm, thoughtful civility.

More recently, a conversation with Ezra Klein went deeper, exploring the complexity of faith and its uneasy relationship with modern politics.

Talarico speaks openly as a Christian, but not in the performative way we’ve grown accustomed to in politics. Like me, he appears to center his faith on the red-letter words—the actual teachings of Jesus—rather than the layers of interpretation that so often become tools of control. He reminds listeners that Jesus wasn’t only gentle and welcoming; he also flipped tables in the temple when religious authorities drifted toward corruption and power.

One of Talarico’s most pointed observations stuck with me: if far-right evangelical politics truly reflected the Gospel, we’d see far more energy devoted to caring for the poor, the sick, the stranger, and the meek—and far less to protecting entrenched power structures.

If you want to go deeper into how faith has been warped into a political weapon, I’d point you to a USTomorrow piece I wrote last year reflecting on The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory—a powerful examination of how parts of evangelical Christianity migrated from the teachings of Christ toward the pursuit of political dominance.

More recently, in a conversation with Ezra Klein, Talrico explored money, capitalism, and the role of billionaires in society—another area where labels tend to replace nuance. It reminded me of a terrific interview from my friend Brett Hurt on his show Love Conquers Fear, featuring John Mackey.

Mackey—co-founder of Whole Foods Market—describes himself as a “conscious capitalist.” His argument isn’t that markets are perfect, but that when guided by values, capitalism can lift people out of poverty, provide dignity through work, and strengthen families and communities. It’s a message that shows up not just in conversation, but in how he has chosen to lead his life.

Here’s the connective tissue: when any institution—political parties, churches, corporations—consolidates too much power, it starts to behave like a monopoly. And monopolies tend to confuse ownership with virtue. Military service. Business experience. Patriotism. Faith. None of these belong to one side of the political aisle. Rather, they provide the appropriate foundations from which to build (or rebuild) a better future for humankind.

Seeing someone like James Talarico speak openly about faith—with depth, compassion, and moral courage—is causing many voters to pause and rethink long-held assumptions. Democrat. Republican. Independent. Left. Right. Every day, each of us get to redefine what service, contribution, and belief in something larger than ourselves really means.

And one final point that’s vitally important. Research increasingly shows that as young people feel more detached—from community, from purpose, from one another—they often fall deeper into isolation, anxiety, and the hollow substitutes of online life. Faith communities, at their best, offer something profoundly human: gathering, belonging, shared responsibility across generations. Political gatekeeping and polarization have the potential to deprive an entire generation of the strength many of us have been offered by these communities. At our core, we are tribal creatures. We are wired for community. For taking care of one another. For building something that lasts longer than any election cycle.

Restoring faith in our politics doesn’t require everyone to believe the same things. It requires that we look within ourselves and listen to each other, not the political industry and related donor lists. It requires remembering that faith, service, and contribution were never meant to be weapons. They were meant to be shared commitments—toward a healthier society, and a more hopeful tomorrow.

Designing for Connection, Not Just Convenience

In a recent newsletter, makes a cultural case for walkable cities, shared spaces, and infrastructure that reconnects us to one another—not just to our destinations. It’s less about zoning codes or traffic studies and more about how the environments we build quietly shape our health, our relationships, and our sense of belonging.

It’s not an argument about zoning codes or traffic studies. It’s about how the environments we build quietly influence our health, our relationships, and our sense of belonging.

That idea resonates with me because it echoes themes USTomorrow has been writing about for years. Long before I ever considered running for office, my focus was on how transportation and infrastructure decisions determine who gets access—to opportunity, to community, and to dignity. Mobility, at its core, isn’t about moving faster. It’s about expanding access. And when we design systems purely around speed and efficiency, we often trade away the everyday human interactions that make communities resilient. If you’re interested, you can deep dive into this Move Forward blog below. At its core, better ground mobility around a region provides for better upward mobility in life.

Craver pushes the argument further, drawing a line between car-centric cities, smartphone dependence, and the growing problem of social isolation. That framing aligns closely with ideas from The Bright Lines, where I dive into “attention” as a leadership choice—and how fragmented attention weakens our ability to connect, lead, and solve problems. It also connects to past thoughts about leadership in uncertain environments. When systems are built too narrowly—optimized for speed, efficiency, or control—they tend to fail when conditions change. Durable systems, like durable leadership, are designed to flex.

Generalists bring more value to the table… and have more experience than specialists at handling uncertainty.

Power Is Loud. Institutions Are Lasting— We need to focus on kitchen table issues.

A friend of mine, Jeremi Suri (UT-Austin professor and an accomplished thought leader on Substack explain in great detail what I’ve been trying to explain to audiences and readers for most of the year. Appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the article—“Trump Isn’t Leaving a Legacy Built to Last” by and — they point out that much of Trump work this year has been by executive order and note supported by law or Congressional action.

Their central point is a useful one. Exercising power can be disruptive, sometimes even dangerous—but disruption alone doesn’t equal legacy. What lasts in American life isn’t volume or force. It’s laws, institutions, and governing norms that shape daily behavior long after any one leader leaves office. By that measure, politics driven primarily by executive action—however dramatic—tends to be fragile.

That insight mirrors leadership more broadly. Progress that depends on constant personal authority rarely holds. Durable leadership shows up in systems that work without the spotlight—and without the leader in the room. It must be built to last.

Abrams and Suri ground this in history, contrasting presidents who reshaped American life through legislation and institutional reform with approaches built largely on reversible executive action. It’s a reminder that democracies aren’t defined by moments of dominance, but by the strength of the structures that channel power responsibly.

The Through Line

Whether we’re talking about cities or presidencies, infrastructure or institutions, the question is the same:

Are we designing for speed and convenience—or for human connection and durability?

Social mobility doesn’t emerge from slogans or singular moments of power. It grows out of everyday systems, physical, civic, and institutional, that quietly shape how we live together. Focused on kitchen table issues.

Both articles are worth reading, not because they offer easy answers, but because they push us to think more seriously about what actually lasts—and what kind of future we’re designing, often without realizing it.

A Worthwhile Watch

I’ll close with a video recommendation that fits squarely into this theme. In Jubilee’s Surrounded episode, Senate candidate sat down with with twenty undecided Texas voters and takes their questions head-on. There’s no script and no cheering section—just real people wrestling out loud with what they believe, what they doubt, and what they want from their leaders.

What makes it compelling isn’t who “wins” the exchange. It’s the reminder of how rarely we see genuine civic dialogue anymore—especially across uncertainty. The conversation offers a clearer window into the tensions shaping the 2026 election cycle and the deeper trust gaps running through our politics.

If you’re interested in how democracy actually sounds when people slow down, listen, and disagree in good faith, it’s a strong watch.

Being back on the campaign trail has reminded me of something that still surprises me: many people don’t know when the 2026 primaries are held—and even fewer understand why primaries matter so much in today’s gerrymandered political landscape.

As we look ahead to the 2026 election cycle, there will be enormous attention on the November general election. It will feel like a national referendum, and turnout will be high.

But here’s the reality we don’t talk about enough: in much of Texas—and across the country—the November outcome is often decided months earlier, in the primary.

In heavily gerrymandered systems, the real competition happens in low-turnout primaries where a small slice of the electorate effectively chooses who gets elected. Shockingly, as Marjorie Clifton, co-founder of March Matters, points out, there is very little coordinated effort in Texas to expand primary turnout—even though primaries are where political power is most often decided.

Consider this: since 1998, Texas primary elections have decided all 27 statewide offices and 145 of the 150 legislative seats. That means primary turnout doesn’t just influence politics—it largely determines it.

March Matters exists to educate and empower all Texas voters to participate – not just a small, targeted 10%.

March Matters is a non-partisan, non-profit initiative helping people understand when primaries happen, why they matter, and how to vote. They do this by partnering with trusted institutions already at the center of Texans’ lives—employers, faith communities, and community organizations.

The message is intentionally simple and relatable:

March Matters to your grocery prices.
March Matters to people of faith.
March Matters to your healthcare access.

Organizations can use a free promotion toolkit, adapting the message to their own voice and brand. There are no endorsements, no candidates, and no legislation promoted—only clear, neutral information about the most consequential election in Texas.

The near-term goal is ambitious but achievable: turn out 250,000 additional primary voters in 2026, and grow from there.

The ask is straightforward. If you’re a super-networker, business leader, faith leader, grassroots organizer, or part of any community organization, March Matters invites you to use their free toolkit to help close one of the biggest gaps in our democracy: primary election participation where decisions are actually made.

Speaking of broken systems: A Simple Ask Before the Deadline

As the year closes, candidates are judged by fundraising deadlines that favor insiders and shift the burden onto everyday people who simply want to be heard.

I’m running because that system isn’t working—for working families, or for our kids’ future.

If you believe primaries should reflect communities, not political machines…
If you believe progress and justice go hand in hand…
And if you believe we can do better than the status quo—

I’m asking you to consider making a donation today, before the December 31st midnight deadline.

Every contribution helps show momentum, independence, and a commitment to building something better.

Six Signs Democracy Still Has a Pulse

Finally, to round out the year I wanted to share a recent piece from the Builders Movement.

Spend enough time online and it’s easy to believe everything is broken beyond repair.

But step back, and 2025 told a more hopeful story—one where people kept showing up, working together, and refusing to give in to permanent division.

The Builders Movement recently highlighted six developments that quietly restored their faith in democracy:

1. Peace Came Back Into View
After years of stalemate, diplomatic efforts around Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and Russia hinted—however imperfectly—at de-escalation. Peace rarely arrives loudly. It arrives slowly, through persistence.

2. Bipartisan Work Still Happened
Despite the noise, lawmakers passed bipartisan legislation on addiction recovery, veteran support, disaster relief, and rural schools—proof that cooperation hasn’t disappeared, it’s just underreported.

3. Disasters Cut Through Politics
From wildfires in California to floods in Texas and tornadoes in St. Louis, people helped without asking party affiliation. In moments of crisis, humanity still leads.

4. Even Partisans Softened Their Tone
After political violence and tragedy, leaders across the spectrum called for civility. When those fueled by outrage begin questioning it, that matters.

5. Ordinary People Bridged Real Divides
In Builders’ Citizen Solutions sessions—including in Texas—participants with opposing views worked together on healthcare solutions and left realizing cooperation was possible.

6. Millions Chose to Be Builders
In 2025, the Builders Movement grew to more than 4 million people—a quiet majority choosing unity over outrage and problem-solving over point-scoring.

A Builderly Resolution for the Year Ahead

(Quoted in full, from Alex Buscemi’s post)

Hope isn’t passive. It’s a decision.

As we head into a new year, our resolution isn’t to pretend differences don’t exist or that hard problems will magically resolve themselves. It’s to take these moments as precedent.

People can work together.
Conversations can change minds.
Trust can be rebuilt.
Systems can improve—if citizens stay involved.

Being a Builder doesn’t mean being endlessly optimistic. It means being stubbornly committed to the idea that we’re better off building together than tearing each other apart.

And if 2025 taught us anything, it’s that we’re far from alone in believing that.

A USTomorrow Takeaway for 2026

March Matters reminds us when democracy is decided.
Builders reminds us how democracy is sustained.

Neither is flashy. Both are essential.

If we want more trust, more competence, and institutions that actually deliver, participation can’t be episodic or performative. It has to be habitual—and it has to start where decisions are really made.

That work isn’t abstract.

It’s local.
It’s practical.
And it starts in March.

I wish you the very best and a Happy New Year in 2026!

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

I encourage you to click here for more on Linkedin , X-Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, Medium, and Facebook.

This is also a central theme of my run for public office at Kopser for Texas.

Gen Z, Instability, and the End of Automatic Trust

In a recent Substack essay, draws on findings from the 51st Harvard Youth Poll to challenge a familiar narrative. Young Americans aren’t disengaged—they’re unsettled. Financial pressure, rapid technological change, and political dysfunction have combined to make traditional institutions feel increasingly disconnected from daily life.

JDV on Gen Z

A Country That Works for Young People Works for Everyone

The Backdrop…

Read more

4 months ago · 18 likes · 3 comments

Only 13% of Americans ages 18–29 believe the country is headed in the right direction. Nearly half say they are struggling financially or just getting by, with the burden falling hardest on Black, Hispanic, and non-college-educated young adults. Inflation dominates their concerns not as an abstract economic indicator, but as lived reality—rent, groceries, utilities, and childcare.

Economic stress is compounded by anxiety about artificial intelligence. As Della Volpe notes, young people are comfortable using AI for low-stakes tasks, but overwhelmingly see it as a threat to job security and meaningful work. In high-trust areas like healthcare, mental health, and major life decisions, they still strongly prefer human judgment.

Trust in institutions has eroded sharply. Both political parties and mainstream media are viewed more as threats than safeguards. While Democrats retain an edge among young voters, support is driven more by caution than enthusiasm. Many young Americans describe Democrats as “weak” and Republicans as “corrupt,” with both seen as disconnected from the realities of young adulthood.

Perhaps most troubling, Della Volpe highlights a breakdown of trust not just upward—toward institutions—but sideways, toward one another. Many young Americans avoid political conversations, feel judged for their views, and question whether those with opposing beliefs want what’s best for the country.

Young Americans aren’t asking for spectacle. They want stability—honesty, competence, dignity, and agency over their future. Addressing wages, housing, childcare, inflation, and the future of work isn’t idealism for this generation. It’s survival.

Immigration: When Execution Breaks Trust

A New York Times investigation examines how early immigration decisions by the Biden administration—made with moral urgency and a desire to reverse Trump-era policies—ended up reshaping public opinion in the opposite direction.

During the 2020 transition, advisers warned that signaling a more welcoming approach, combined with pent-up migration demand, could overwhelm the system and create visible disorder. Those warnings were set aside. The administration moved quickly on values, without the operational plan to match.

The result was a historic surge at the border. Inside the White House, responsibility was fragmented, leadership hesitated to engage publicly, and avoidance became the default strategy. Meanwhile, images of chaos hardened public opinion—accelerated when Texas began busing migrants to Democratic-led cities.

By mid-2024, tougher executive actions reduced crossings. But by then, trust had already eroded.

The lasting impact may be a durable shift in American immigration politics—driven less by ideology than by a collapse of confidence in government competence.

🎧 Listen: How Mr. Biden Ignored Warnings and Lost Americans’ Faith in Immigration (New York Times)

Gavin Newsom and the Politics of Risk

At a moment when Democrats are searching for their next chapter, The Ezra Klein Show sits down with California Governor Gavin Newsom—once viewed as a regional figure, now increasingly discussed as a national contender.

What changed isn’t just the political environment—it’s Newsom’s approach. He has shown a willingness to take risks in a party often constrained by fear of backlash. Since the last election, he’s leaned into conflict rather than avoiding it.

That shift became clear when Newsom launched a podcast and invited outspoken conservatives like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Instead of staging confrontations, he listened—an approach that unsettled parts of his own base but signaled political confidence. At the same time, he embraced the confrontational logic of modern politics, openly needling Donald Trump using Trump’s own style.

His boldest gamble came closer to home. To counter Texas’s aggressive redistricting, Newsom pushed California to temporarily abandon its independent redistricting system and draw sharply partisan maps instead. The risk was real—but voters approved it decisively.

Still, the central challenge remains California itself. In an era defined by affordability crises, the state is often cited as Exhibit A. The unresolved question is whether Newsom can convert political dexterity into durable solutions—or convincingly defend the record of the state he leads.

🎧 Listen: Gavin Newsom on Power, Politics, and the Democratic Party (The Ezra Klein Show)

All of these stories highlight a simple fact— people are looking for a new playbook. A new way to approach the issues facing us today. That, in large part, is why I have stepped forward to run again for public office. If you want to help me get there, please consider donating here.

Let me know what you are seeing out there.

Joseph

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

Candidate for Texas House District 47

Subscribe now

Most of Texas’s challenges aren’t new. But the way I’ve been trying to solve them is.

Elected Officials need a renewed approach, new ideas, new partners, and new energy, to address affordability, education, infrastructure, and climate resilience. At the same time, many of our state’s opportunities are new: a fast-growing innovation economy, a leadership role in space and advanced manufacturing as just two examples, and the chance to model pragmatic, inclusive governance for the rest of Texas.

Both realities require a willingness to move beyond politics as usual—and a recommitment to strengthening Austin’s families, communities, and leadership role in Texas and beyond. That’s why I’ve decided to run for the Texas State Legislature. And to do that, I need your help.

Why this Election in March 2026 Matters

Texas House District 47 is heavily gerrymandered (a 20 point advantage for Democrats). That means the Democratic primary in March will almost certainly determine who wins in November and represents us in the House. In practical terms, the primary is the election. You can learn more about the campaign here: www.KopserForTexas.com (Be sure to check out the Donate button!)

The Hard Part

Early voting begins February 17, 2026—just 71 days from the day I filed. We need to move quickly and build a serious team to meet this moment.

Texas places no limits on individual donations. If you’re inclined, you truly can dig deep for democracy. We don’t have a lot of time to reach voters and let them know our vision for Texas.

Donate here to help us build the team we need to win in March.

If you live in the district, you can vote with your ballot. If you live in Austin, check here to see if you live in House District 47.

If don’t live in the district, you can vote with your wallet (your donation will help us reach more voters).

Past the Crossroads

It’s become a political cliché to say “we’re at a crossroads.”
I think we’re well past that.

We’re already traveling a road few of us expected and many of us don’t like. The ride is rough, the view isn’t great, and a loud group of fellow passengers seems to be calling all the shots. The last election only reinforced how vulnerable our institutions have become—and how easily cynicism can crowd out trust.

Still, we are where we are.

That makes it incumbent on each of us to take stock of this moment and ask a harder question: What kind of future are we building for our kids? And just as importantly—what are we willing to do to help deliver it?

I believe HD-47 deserves a different kind of Democratic leadership—one that reflects Austin’s independent, collaborative, inclusive, and joyful spirit, rather than the tired assumption that we can’t evolve to meet the moment.

As Willie Nelson once put it, Austin works because it’s where cowboys and hippies get along. When we choose abundance over division, we build something far better than politics as usual.

What Drives Me

If you want to understand what drives me, a photo taken at our home in Austin last year tells the story.

At the center is a family photo from Fort Hood in 1999—back when Amy and I were raising our girls in military housing, long before our youngest, Piper, came along. We didn’t have much, but we had each other. And Texas gave us community, purpose, and the chance to build a life.

Since then, we’ve cheered through three Bowie High School graduations and three college graduations—two SMU Mustangs and a Texas Longhorn. Today, Amy and I get to watch our daughters build families of their own.

Like you, I want every family to feel proud to raise their children in Texas.
That’s what drives me.
That’s why I’m running.

Learn more about the campaign: www.KopserForTexas.com

Podcast Conversation: Vote Like a Texan (with Justin McKenzie)

Last week, I joined on the Vote Like a Texan podcast just before I decided to seriously consider another run for office.

We talked about why capitalism and democracy—working together—have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history. But I also emphasized something just as important: better policy alone isn’t enough. We need more people showing up.

We discussed how Texas electoral districts work, the difference between state and federal races, and why local elections matter far more than most people realize.

A few themes that matter for Texas’ future:

• Participation beats polarization

• Good governance requires balance and compromise

• Government shouldn’t pick winners—it should set fair conditions

At the end of the day, I don’t care who you vote for. I care that you vote, stay informed, and participate.

No matter your party—vote.

If you’re running for office in Texas — local, state, or federal — and want to have a real conversation with voters instead of trading sound bites, visit www.VoteLikeATexan.com to request an interview and share your vision.

Let me know what you see out there.

PS— Donate here to help us build the team we need to win in March. Did I mention we have less than 70 days before early voting starts?

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

Three Democrats — Mikie Sherrill, Abigail Spanberger, and — all made history. But how they won, and who they now represent, could not be more different.

And that contrast is the whole story.

The Pragmatists: Sherrill and Spanberger

Two former national-security professionals, one a Navy helicopter pilot, the other a CIA officer, will now lead New Jersey and Virginia. Their résumés matter less than how they won: by going straight to the middle.

— New Jersey’s Governor-Elect

Sherrill won with nearly 57% of the vote, flipping suburban and traditionally Republican counties by talking about the basics: education, economic stability, and support for veterans and families. She’s the first Democratic woman ever elected governor in New Jersey — a milestone grounded not in ideology, but in competence and steadiness.

Abigail Spanberger — Virginia’s Governor-Elect

Spanberger also won with 57% — the exact same signal from voters in another competitive state. She campaigned on affordability, security, and pragmatic governance. She didn’t attack the middle; she competed for it. And Virginia rewarded her with its first-ever female governor.

Together, Sherrill and Spanberger proved something important: moderation isn’t a retreat. It’s a winning strategy. It’s also where most Americans still live, no matter what our social media feeds tell us.

And for me personally, it was amazing to watch them both give their victory speeches because I got to know them when we travelled together raising money as Veterans running for office in 2018. They are both a force of nature.

The Socialist: Zohran Mamdani

New York City went in a different direction.

— New York City’s Mayor-Elect

Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, won with just over 50% of the vote, powered by activists, small-dollar donors, and an agenda designed to challenge business-as-usual at every level.

His platform is bold by any measure:

• Housing redistribution

• Strict tenant protections

• Sweeping challenges to corporate influence

• Even foreign policy pronouncements, unusual territory for a mayor

His supporters see him as the future of urban politics. His critics warn that pushing too far, too fast could drive families and businesses out of the city. Both sides agree on one thing: he represents a sharp break from the pragmatic center.

Two Paths — and One Caution

What we’re seeing is a test of two political instincts inside the Democratic Party:

1. The instinct to govern from the middle, grounded in problem-solving, discipline, and winning the trust of independents and moderates.

2. The instinct to govern from the edges, driven by activism, ideological certainty, and the belief that bold disruption is the only moral path forward.

The question isn’t which camp is louder.

It’s which one can actually build coalitions big enough to govern.

Sherrill and Spanberger showed that winning competitive states requires speaking directly to people’s lives, affordability, education, family stability, safety, and the belief that tomorrow can be better than today.

Mamdani showed that in deep-blue cities, a mobilized base can elect a mayor on an unapologetically socialist platform, but that comes with its own risks. Cities don’t run on ideology; they run on cooperation, investment, and trust. The test will be whether bold rhetoric can translate into durable results. I am truly hopeful they do, but only time will tell. I want what is best for New York. After all, my youngest daughter is moving there in the Spring.

Why This Matters for the Country

If Democrats double down on pragmatism — as New Jersey and Virginia voters seem to prefer — it forces Republicans to meet them there. Competitive politics works like gravity: both sides get pulled toward where the voters actually are.

But if Democrats move toward the edges, they energize the base while pushing moderates — the people who actually swing elections — further away.

This isn’t about left, right, or center.

It’s about what kind of leadership can hold a fractured country together long enough to make real progress.

The Simple Lesson of 2025

You can defeat division by meeting people where they are.

You lose the center when you stop competing for it.

My friends, Sherrill and Spanberger, proved that steady, pragmatic leadership still wins — and wins big. Mamdani proved that ideology can thrill a city but may strain its ability to hold onto the people and businesses who make it run.

The future of the Democratic Party, and maybe the country, hinges on which lesson leaders choose to follow.

Most Americans don’t want political theater.

• They want problems solved.

• They want leaders who show up.

• And they want a politics that feels like it’s working for them again.

That’s where USTomorrow will ultimately be decided: not on the extremes, but in the middle — the only place where a divided country can ever come back together.

Closer to home, I was proud to attend and support Mayor Jim Penniman-Morin’s re-election kickoff. Cedar Park deserves steady, thoughtful leadership that puts people first. You can learn more about him and the rise of Cedar Park here.

On a lighter note, I’m sharing this fabulous playlist created by Texas2036. It’s my current favorite (check out “Just Outside of Austin”) — a soundtrack to spark reflection and keep ideas moving.

Take care,

Joseph

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of

After a career in national security, I can tell you this: real security is about precision, not panic. Investigators focus on individual behavior, history, and warning signs — not entire nationalities or faiths. When we start blaming millions of innocent people for the actions of one individual, that’s when intelligence failures happen. We end up chasing shadows instead of following real leads.

And the data is clear: immigrants, including Afghans, commit less crime than people born in the United States. Outliers get headlines, but the headlines don’t reflect reality.

Some political voices are now using this tragedy to call for freezing asylum cases or blocking visas for Afghans who served alongside our military. That is not a security response. That is politics. Asylum seekers are already here. They’ve already been screened. Pausing their cases doesn’t protect anyone. And halting Special Immigrant Visas breaks promises we made to people who risked their lives for Americans in uniform. Every future partner we may need in a conflict is watching how we handle this moment.

The truth is, Afghan evacuees went through some of the most extensive vetting our government has ever done — multiple agencies, multiple screenings, and multiple years of checks. We should always review the process after a serious incident, but the answer is targeted improvements: better information sharing, stronger recurrent vetting, and better mental health support for people carrying the trauma of war. That’s what keeps people safe. That’s what force protection actually looks like.

Collective punishment doesn’t work. It erodes trust, discourages cooperation with law enforcement, and sends the wrong message to allies we may rely on again. It doesn’t make us safer — it makes us smaller.

There’s another piece that often gets overlooked. When moments like this shake a community, we have to recommit to giving our kids a sense of purpose and belonging. has written for years that one of the best measures of a society is how it treats its children: the opportunities we give them, the mentors they can turn to, the communities they can be part of. Kids who feel connected and supported grow up to strengthen the communities around them. Kids who don’t are left to navigate the cracks alone — and those cracks eventually show up everywhere else.

We can be secure and still keep our commitments. That means following evidence instead of fear, holding individuals accountable rather than entire communities, investing in trust rather than suspicion, and giving the next generation the chance to grow with the social capital Putnam reminds us is essential to a healthy democracy.

That’s the country we should aspire to be. And honestly, it’s the only strategy that works.

A note to brighten your day: if you need something grounding and thoughtful, listen to EconTalk with — especially the episode about the perfect tuba. It’s a surprisingly powerful metaphor for excellence, patience, and the long game of building a meaningful life and community. A good reminder of what matters, especially in weeks like this.

Take care,

Joseph

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

P.S. This moment brings me back to something I wrote back in 2012 about Afghanistan and how our energy policy, our economy, and our commitments abroad are all connected. Even then, I argued that we can’t solve hard problems without trust, community, and keeping our word. That still holds true today.

I was pleasantly surprised to watch MTG call out the “Political Industrial Complex.” As a former congressional candidate myself, I’ve seen up close how the political-industrial complex operates — the ecosystem of long-time elected officials, consultants, media, fundraising machinery, and partisan infrastructure that exists primarily to perpetuate itself. (Don’t get me wrong, there are some good ones out there, but they can be hard to find. Contact me if you want to connect with them!) Greene has been one of its loudest critics from the inside. What makes her announcement significant is not just the resignation, but the stated reason: she no longer believes in the direction of Trump or the MAGA movement. When a true believer breaks ranks, it signals internal fractures that often don’t surface publicly until much later.

To watch her struggle with the political industrial complex was refreshing because I’m not sure if she realized that it was using her like a pawn all these years. Perhaps she believed her message was being amplified because lots of people agreed with her or perhaps she now believes she was being played.

Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell speech and I’m here to tell you its a real thing. It’s not necessarily evil or dark, just like the Political Industrial Complex. But both serve to perpetuate their own power and resist change every chance they can. I’ve written a lot about the political industrial complex over the years that you can check out here:

• Both Sides of the Aisle Outdid Themselves This Week. We Must Expect Better.

• My wish for our politicians — less drama more progress

• In 1864 only White Male citizens were allowed to vote in Arizona — Would that have included you?

• I’m looking at another run for office. Here’s why.

• I’m looking at another run for office. Here’s why.

The Greene-Trump Split: A True Believer’s Reckoning?

The question now is whether MAGA, as a political identity, is independent of Trump — or whether it ever truly was. Greene didn’t just break up with a person; she hinted at breaking up with an entire political framework. While I disagree with much of her rhetoric and behavior during her time in Congress, I do believe she has been a sincere adherent to her worldview. That’s precisely why her reversal matters. When the messengers change the message, movements can shift.

Will her departure influence others inside MAGA World? Historically, it has not. Trump has always been a force of one, and movements built around a single personality tend to withstand individual defections. Still, Greene’s exit offers a rare glimpse into the cost of loyalty inside personality-driven politics — and the limits of dissent within it.

Texas Redistricting: Power Plays in the Lone Star State

Meanwhile, the broader political landscape in Texas continues to reflect the same structural pressures of the political industrial complex. Trump reportedly told Governor Abbott that he needs five additional House seats in 2026 to guarantee majority control in Congress — a reminder of how strategic the fight over district lines has become. Earlier this week, a federal court in El Paso struck down the state’s gerrymandered maps as unconstitutional. Days later, the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay, freezing the ruling. It’s another example of how redistricting has become a political ping-pong match, driven less by community representation and more by which side can shape the battlefield before voters ever cast a ballot.

This is the political-industrial complex at work: a system optimized for power retention rather than public problem-solving.

Now, shifting to something more positive — because there is still plenty of good in the world if we pause long enough to notice it.

Spotlight on the Good: Metayer, Penniman-Morin, and Beyond

This week, I had the privilege of seeing my friend Rudy Metayer honored at the ADL luncheon here in Austin. My good friend Morris Gottesman, who co-chairs the local chapter, hosted Amy and me, and we watched Rudy receive a well-deserved award for his leadership. Rudy is more than a city council member and more than an accomplished attorney — he is a genuinely good human being, someone I’m proud to call a friend (he’s also another great example of the members of the Texas Lyceum working for a better Texas). The ADL, with more than a century of work confronting antisemitism and hate in all forms, continues to play an essential role at a time when intimidation and identity-based violence remain far too common.

And speaking of public servants worth paying attention to — my friend, Army veteran, and fellow West Point graduate Jim Penniman-Morin is running for re-election in Cedar Park. Jim’s career spans military service, law, and now local government. His leadership style reflects what I wish we saw more of in modern politics: steady, principled, and grounded in service over spectacle. Join us if you can. If you can’t join us, feel free to donate here to support a great public servant.

In the coming weeks, I’ll share more about the candidates and races I’m following as we head into another consequential election cycle. As always, I’d love to hear what you’re seeing in your community.

Let me know what you are seeing out there.

Joseph

On Election Night, I was in Washington, D.C., speaking the next day at a manufacturing conference, surrounded by leaders focused on strengthening the industrial base. The next morning, I traveled to New York City for five days of panels and conversations centered on veterans, entrepreneurship, and the transition from service to civilian life.

Experiencing both cities—D.C. at the heart of policymaking and New York in the days after their high-stakes election—reminded me just how much our nation depends on finding balance in times of turbulence.

The Politicization of the Military

As an Army veteran, I am often asked whether my fellow military and veteran colleagues are concerned about the politicization of our armed forces. The short answer: yes, but I’m also hopeful.

It’s easy to blur patriotism and partisanship. Yet when our troops are used as pawns in political games, we all lose. The pendulum has swung sharply in recent years—Bush to Obama to Trump, to Biden, and back again—and it will only stabilize if we hold the center.

I was encouraged at the NDIA Conference by comments from Jen Stewart, a national security and policy expert who’s served both on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon. She believes there’s still a core of bipartisan leadership in Congress—people genuinely committed to governing—that can resist the wild swings of the pendulum when it comes to our national security, especially around the innovation needed to meet tomorrow’s threats. I share that optimism.

From Service to Startup

In New York, the focus shifted from politics to progress. At a veterans and entrepreneurship conference sponsored by the Bob Woodruff Foundation, the conversation wasn’t about elections or party lines—it was about building.

Veterans discussed launching companies, creating jobs, and shaping communities. I shared three lessons with the community in attendance:

1. Be the change you want to see.

2. Take big risks.

3. Believe in your potential.

It’s a powerful reminder that the best way to move forward is not by arguing from the sidelines but by building something worth defending.

The Machinery of New York

During my time in New York, I was struck again by the sheer scale of the city—the operating systems that keep it moving: subways, sanitation, commerce, restaurants, even the street sweepers at dawn.

New York endures. It always has.

Despite the political rhetoric surrounding its leadership, the city’s complexity and momentum make it resilient. Ironically, the loudest critics often have the greatest means to “vote with their feet,” but New York’s story has always been one of endurance and reinvention.

Echoes of 1929

While walking all through the city in places like Central Park and down past the Empire State Building, I spent 5 days listening to 1929 by —the same author of The Big Short.

It was eerie how familiar it all felt. The unchecked speculation, the promises of something for nothing, the belief that growth can defy gravity. Whether it’s margin calls in 1929 or sports betting apps today, the pattern repeats: risk, reward, and reckoning. I don’t mind people risking big money as long as they don’t expect the taxpayers to come and bail them out.

I’ll always believe that those who build real things—machines, systems, companies, communities—should be rewarded more than those who simply move money around. A nation that invests in builders, not just brokers, is a nation prepared for the future. It reminded me of a great Freakonomics podcast, “China is run by Engineers, America is run by lawyers.” It’s definitely worth a listen.

The stories of the past and our lives today

In one of those moments when the universe seems to wink at us, I came across a story in the book 1929 that felt almost fated. Sorkin describes how President Hoover urged President Elect Franklin D. Roosevelt to help Americans understand that consumer sentiment often matters more than the hard facts of the economy’s strength. He also notes that the night before his 1933 inauguration, FDR stayed at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Just four days earlier, I had stayed there myself. Before checking out for my trip to New York, I wandered through the hotel on a self-guided tour. That’s when I learned that FDR had made a last-minute, handwritten change to his inaugural address—adding the now-famous line: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Right there, in that very hotel—the Mayflower.

Builders of a Better Future

As the week closed, I was heartened to hear that Stacey Blakely has been named the new Executive Director of the Movement—a coalition focused on bridging divides and restoring civic faith.

As someone who grew up in small-town Texas, I know she’ll bring the kind of practical optimism we need right now: less “us versus them,” and more “how do we build together?”

Because in the end, whether in Washington or New York—or anywhere between—America endures because we build.

Let me know what you are seeing out there.

Take care,

Joseph

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

I encourage you to click here for more on Linkedin , X-Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, Medium, and Facebook.

And most of all, it’ s a reflection of my commitment to make sure our warfighters have the best equipment and technology to make sure they are never in a fair fight. I want them all to come home safely to their families when their country sends them overseas.

As the U.S. strives to lead the world in artificial intelligence, the infrastructure behind it—massive data centers—requires unprecedented amounts of energy. These data centers are growing rapidly, and their energy demand is projected to more than double by 2030, potentially using over 8% of the nation’s total electricity. For a system this complex, we must align policy, infrastructure, and innovation. Texas has all the components: a wealth of energy resources, remote land, a competitive electricity market, and a spirit of entrepreneurship.

Texas: Where Energy Innovation Meets the AI Economy

Texas leads the country in solar, wind, natural gas, and is laying the groundwork for a nuclear renaissance. On any given day, solar now provides up to 25% of the state’s electricity during peak midday hours. Wind continues to perform strongly, particularly at night. Together, they’ve made renewables a central pillar of our grid. To stabilize their variability, we’ve added over 5.7 gigawatts of battery storage—a 4,100% increase since 2020. These batteries smooth out supply fluctuations and provide vital capacity during peak demand. Check out Doug Lewin’s Texas Energy and Power Newsletter on Substack for more information.

The Texas Energy and Power Newsletter

Texas Energy Summit and Intersolar Texas Next Month!

There are two great events coming up next month…

Read more

6 months ago · 16 likes · Doug Lewin

More importantly, we’re starting to see these technologies combine in powerful ways. In West Texas, a 1.2 GW data center campus is being built alongside one of the country’s largest solar farms and battery installations. In Pecos County, developers are integrating a natural gas plant, battery storage, solar, and a planned AI data center all on the same site. This colocation strategy isn’t just smart—it’s transformative. By placing energy production and consumption side-by-side, we increase efficiency, reduce transmission losses, and create new revenue models for developers and communities.

Even nuclear power is getting renewed attention. New projects featuring advanced reactors and microreactors are being considered for rural deployment, with a goal of pairing them with high-demand users like data centers. These reactors promise consistent, carbon-free baseload energy that can operate independently from grid volatility. If executed well, they will complement Texas’ existing assets and elevate our ability to deliver 24/7 clean power.

The future isn’t about one technology—it’s about integration. Across West Texas, developers are pairing solar, storage, and gas plants with data centers, creating self-sustaining ecosystems that blend energy production and consumption on the same site. It’s the same story with nuclear: small, modular reactors could anchor data centers and rural economies alike, bringing 24/7 carbon-free power where it’s needed most.

The reason this matters goes beyond kilowatts and gigawatts. What’s happening in Texas could serve as a model for the rest of the country. Our independent ERCOT grid allows us to move quickly and experiment with innovative market mechanisms. Developers know that in Texas, they can respond directly to demand without waiting on lengthy regulatory approvals. This agility is exactly what’s needed in an era when the energy transition and the digital revolution are colliding.

But it’s not just about speed—it’s about coordination. As a policy entrepreneur, I’ve spent my career trying to bring people together across silos. Whether it was founding RideScout after watching soldiers risk their lives delivering fuel, launching the Defense Energy Summit to connect military and clean-tech leaders, or working with CleanTX to promote bipartisan energy policy, my focus has always been on systems thinking. If we can align incentives, empower innovators, and engage communities, Texas can lead the nation in both energy security and technological progress.

Looking forward, we need smart investments in grid infrastructure, updated market rules that value flexibility, and support for a workforce trained in advanced energy and computing systems. This isn’t a red or blue issue—it’s an economic opportunity. Data centers don’t just need electricity; they need reliability. And Texas, with its mix of resources, policy tools, and entrepreneurial mindset, is ready to deliver.

This award is more than recognition—it’s a challenge. To keep bridging sectors that rarely talk to one another. To ensure the clean energy transition also strengthens our national security. And to keep working toward a Texas that powers not just the AI revolution, but a safer, smarter, and more sustainable future.

Thank you for being part of the USTomorrow community—together, we can turn this potential into reality.

Let me know what you’re seeing out there,

Joseph

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

I encourage you to click here for more on Linkedin , X-Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, Medium, and Facebook.

What happens when elections become instruments of revenge instead of renewal? In this week’s USTomorrow, I argue that America’s next chapter only works if it’s anchored in the center—and I show why the data backs it up.

1) A Thought Experiment for a Hyperpolarized Moment

Close your eyes and imagine the next president—whoever it is—taking office with one goal: payback.

Every lever of power is trained not on public service but on political enemies. Investigations become weapons. Appointments become loyalty tests. The bureaucracy is purged and rebuilt to reward friends and punish opponents. The other side, seeing this, vows to do the same when they win it back—and the pendulum swings wider, faster, and meaner.

That cycle doesn’t end in a stronger America. It ends in brittle institutions, a demoralized civil service, and a public that stops believing the rules apply to everyone. I’ve seen versions of this dynamic abroad in my military service around the world and studied it at home: once politics becomes retribution, governing becomes impossible.

My thesis: The next chapter of American leadership has to be moored at the center—not the status-quo center that avoids hard choices, but the anchoring center that keeps the ship from lurching hard to port or starboard (left or right for my fellow Army folks) with each election. The center is ballast, not boredom. It’s how you deliver change without capsizing the country.

2) Proof the Center Wins (and Governs)

The New York Times Editorial Board laid out compelling evidence that America still has a political center—and candidates who credibly occupy it outperform their parties’ brands.

Key takeaways from their analysis of recent races:

• Moderates over-performed their presidential ticket—on both sides—by those crucial few points that decide outcomes.

• The only House candidates who won against their party’s presidential tide were pragmatic moderates, not ideological firebrands.

• Today’s effective centrism is often economically populist and culturally measured, signaling independence from party orthodoxies.

• Independents and heterodox candidates can thrive when they prove they’re not captive to their own tribe.

Bottom line: Persuasion still matters. Brand independence beats base-only maximalism—especially in the places that determine national power.

3) What “Anchored in the Center” Looks Like

To avoid the lurch, we need leaders—and citizens—who can hold two truths at once:

• Security and liberty. Robust policing and real civil-rights accountability.

• Humane borders and enforceable rules. Order at ports of entry and a system that can process claims.

• Growth and guardrails. Build here, pay well, and check monopoly power and predatory practices.

• Local schools and high expectations. Strong neighborhood districts with transparent outcomes, plus pragmatic flexibility for families.

• Reproductive freedom and widely shared moral seriousness. Broad access with sensible late-term limits guided by medical consensus.

That’s not “split the difference.” That’s solve the problem.

4) Guardrails Against the Retribution Cycle

If we’re serious about stopping the revenge pendulum, centrists of any party should insist on:

• Institutional independence as a public promise: DOJ, Inspectors General, and civil-service protections are not partisan toys.

• Regular order in Congress: Budgets and oversight through committees, not cable-news chaos.

• Sunlight over slogans: Publish metrics that matter—crime clearance rates, asylum backlogs, learning-loss recovery, time-to-permit for new factories.

• Durable coalitions on the hardest stuff: Immigration, energy permitting, AI/industrial policy—all need 60-vote durability.

5) A Free Press Is a Democratic Guardrail

There’s another stabilizer that keeps the pendulum from smashing the clock: an independent press willing to stare down the bully pulpit.

As New York Times CEO Meredith Kopit Levien said recently on the Masters of Scale podcast, attempts to intimidate or delegitimize the press—whether by “lawsuits,” “name calling,” or efforts “to denigrate the independent press”—are “an abject attempt to deter reporting… to stop us from what we’re doing.” Her vow was simple: “The New York Times is not going to be cowed. We’re not going to be stopped by that—or anything else.”

She also underscored why rigorous reporting—thousands of journalists working to high professional standards—matters in a polarized age: “People believe there needs to be a shared fact base. And how do you get to a shared fact base? Through reporting, through independent professional journalism.” In her words, the Times isn’t in the “newspaper” business so much as the understanding business—and when more people engage with trustworthy news, society gets a sturdier foundation for debate.

In a moment when power can be tempted to punish critics, a free press is not a partisan actor; it’s a constitutional counterweight. If we want a politics anchored in the center, we need watchdogs that can’t be bullied and citizens who reward fact-based reporting over performative outrage.

Recently, in Austin, I had the incredible opportunity to attend a conversation between Bob Woodward and Evan Smith—two icons of modern journalism. Both got into a really fascinating discussion about the importance of “good” reporting. Ultimately, Bob said that reporters need to be more rigorous and determined in their search for the truth, even if their stories take longer to print. “Sources close to the White House” he says are not the standard for journalists. It needs to be all first hand.

6) A Personal Note

And thanks to my friend Craig Cummings, who knows Bob personally, we were later invited to join him for dinner. Talk about a “first hand” conversation with a legend of journalism. Bob is literally a national treasure and I could not believe I was sharing a meal engaged in a riveting conversation about the state of our nation and our politics.

For nearly two hours, Bob shared stories from his career—how he followed the threads of Watergate when others turned away, how persistence and verification can still bring down the most powerful lies, and how truth, though often slow, always wins the long game.

I told Bob what I’d never had the chance to say before: that reading his books about the start of the Iraq War—while I was in Iraq—shaped my understanding of journalism’s role as the Fourth Estate. His work showed me how deeply democracy depends on those willing to ask hard questions in dangerous times.

On a further personal note, I got to know a former colleague of Bob, Bill Murphy Jr, who was a Washington Post reporter assigned to cover the territory in Iraq that included my unit HQs. It was a full circle moment in life. More about Bill here and his Substack Understandably.

7) What You Can Do This Week

• Practice “policy first” conversations. Start with the problem you want solved, not the team you’re on.

• Reward independence. Support candidates—of any party—who publicly buck their side on at least one hard issue.

• Push for outcomes. Ask for timelines and metrics on immigration adjudications, street safety, school recovery, and permitting.

If this resonates, share it with a friend who’s exhausted by the lurch. The center isn’t a hiding place—it’s a workbench. Let’s get to work.

Let me know what you’re hearing out there.

Take care,

Joseph

Joseph Kopser

Co-Founder of USTomorrow

PS— I wrote last week that American Farmers want trade not aid.

In what felt like a setback to many of them, Trump announced last week the plan to buy Argentinian Beef. Many farmers and their Republican elected officials broke with the President on his decision.