How to fight back against Trump? Look to poor people’s movements | Rev Dr Liz Theoharis and Noam Sandweiss-Back

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Reviving Poor People's Movements to Combat Legislative Cuts and Inequality"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.6
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The article discusses the detrimental impact of Donald Trump's proposed legislative cuts, which threaten essential programs like Medicaid and SNAP, exacerbating the struggles of the 60% of Americans who are already unable to make ends meet. The authors, Rev Dr Liz Theoharis and Noam Sandweiss-Back, argue that the current political climate, driven by a narrative of work requirements, aims to demean the poor while diverting funds to the wealthy and military endeavors. They emphasize the urgent need for a new social contract that uplifts marginalized communities, moving beyond merely defending existing rights to actively fighting for transformative change. This requires a long-term commitment to building popular power, drawing from historical movements that have successfully challenged systemic oppression.

The authors highlight the lessons from past poor people's movements, particularly the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) of the 1960s and 1970s, which was instrumental in advocating for welfare rights and community empowerment. The NWRO, led by poor Black women, organized significant protests and created community resources, demonstrating the potential of grassroots mobilization. Their approach, termed the 'Johnnie Tillmon model,' emphasizes uniting the poor across differences, maintaining political and financial independence, addressing community needs, and fostering leadership development through projects of survival. The authors assert that this model is relevant today as the Trump administration continues to undermine support programs. They call for a collective uprising among the poor, inspired by historical movements, to transform indignation into lasting power and ensure that the voices of the marginalized are heard and acted upon in the current political landscape.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights the challenges posed by Donald Trump’s proposed legislative cuts, particularly impacting low-income Americans. It emphasizes the urgency of fighting back against these cuts and advocates for a new social contract that prioritizes the needs of the poor. The authors argue that the current situation demands a shift from merely defending existing rights to actively fighting for greater equity and justice.

Purpose of the Article

The authors aim to galvanize support for poor people's movements and inspire collective action against perceived injustices caused by political decisions. By invoking historical movements and emphasizing the importance of grassroots organizing, they seek to mobilize a broader base of support for their cause.

Public Perception

The article attempts to create a sense of urgency and solidarity among those who are economically disadvantaged. It portrays a clear divide between the wealthy elite and the struggling poor, aiming to foster a collective identity among marginalized groups. The narrative suggests that the fight against poverty is not just a personal struggle but a societal one.

Potential Omissions

There are aspects of the broader economic context that may not be fully explored in the article. For instance, it does not delve deeply into the economic implications of the proposed cuts beyond their immediate impact on low-income individuals. This could lead to a narrower understanding of the consequences of such policies.

Manipulative Elements

The article employs emotive language and historical references to strengthen its arguments, which can be seen as a form of manipulation. By framing the situation in stark terms—such as calling Trump’s policies "grotesque"—the authors aim to provoke a strong emotional response rather than a nuanced discussion of policy implications.

Truthfulness of the Content

While the article is rooted in real socio-political issues, it is presented through a particular lens that may emphasize certain narratives over others. The authors’ perspectives as anti-poverty organizers could lead to bias, affecting the overall impartiality of the message.

Target Audience

The article is likely to resonate more with progressive communities, activists, and individuals who are already aware of and concerned about economic injustices. It aims to mobilize support from those affected by poverty, as well as allies who might not yet be engaged in these issues.

Economic and Political Impact

The sentiments expressed in the article could influence public sentiment and political action, potentially leading to increased activism around economic justice. This may have repercussions for local and national elections, particularly as these issues become central to political campaigns.

Broader Contextual Relevance

The themes discussed are timely given the current political climate and the ongoing debates around economic inequality. The article connects to larger discussions about social safety nets and the role of government in addressing poverty, making it relevant to contemporary socio-economic issues.

AI Involvement

While it’s possible that AI tools could have been used in the writing process, the article exhibits a style and depth of analysis that suggests a significant human touch. If AI were involved, it could have assisted in organizing thoughts or generating initial drafts, but the final product reflects a clear ideological standpoint.

In conclusion, while the article raises valid points about the struggles faced by low-income Americans, it does so in a manner that could be seen as biased or manipulative. The urgency and emotional weight of the message are clear, yet the overall trustworthiness is compromised by a potential lack of nuanced discussion on broader economic impacts.

Unanalyzed Article Content

For tens of millions of people, Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” is a grotesque nightmare. The proposed legislative cuts, includinghistoric attacks on Medicaid and Snap, come at a time when60% of Americansalready cannot make ends meet. As justification, Maga Republicans are once again invoking the shibboleth of work requirements to demean and discredit the poor, even as they funnel billions of dollars into thewar economyand lavish the wealthy withtax cuts.

As anti-poverty organizers, we’ve often used the slogan: “They say cut back, we say fight back.” It’s a catchy turn of phrase, but it reveals that for too long we’ve been on the back foot. In the world’s richest country, in which mass poverty exists beside unprecedented plenty, we’re tired of just fending off the worst attacks. Too much ground is lost when our biggest wins are simply not losing past gains. Amid Trump’s cruelty and avarice, it’s time to fight for a new social contract – one that lifts from the bottom of society so that everybody rises.

There are no shortcuts to building the kind of popular power necessary for us to shift from defense to offense. The task is a generational one, requiring even greater discipline, sacrifice, perseverance and patience. But as we consider the best way forward, the past offers clues.

In our new book,You Only Get What You’re Organized to Take: Lessons From the Movement to End Poverty, we document insights from some of this country’s most significant poor people’s movements. As nascent fascism continues to metastasize, these largely untold stories contain some of the very solutions we need to prevent democratic decline and overcome bigotry, political violence, Christian nationalism and economic immiseration. Today, the historic demands of the poor – for safety, belonging, peace, equality, and justice – are rapidly becoming the demands of humanity. The hard-fought wisdom of the organized poor has much to teach all of us.

We’re reminded of the welfare rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, especially theNational Welfare Rights Organization(NWRO). Largely forgotten to history, NWRO was once the biggest poor people’s organization in the country. The organization, led by poor Black women, regularly staged mass marches and demonstrations and held picket lines and sit-ins at welfare offices, at a time when the poor were subject to racist, exclusionary and moralizing policies. At its height, the organization had over 100 local chapters, asophisticated operationthat offered a political and spiritual home to over 20,000 dues-paying members.

In 1971 in Nevada, where the governor was cutting the social safety net, the local NWRO chapter organized 1,000 women tostorm Caesars Palace, the luxury hotel and casino, and shut down the main drag in Las Vegas. The protest turned into a muti-year campaign of civil disobedience and a federal judge eventually reinstated the benefits. These women were unapologetically militant and willing to take big risks. They were also clear that forging power required the less visible spadework of movement-building – including looking after one another through networks of solidarity and collective care.

At the same time as the Black Panthers were feeding tens of thousands of children through theFree Breakfast Program(and provocatively asking why the government couldn’t do the same, even as it spent billions of dollars slaughtering the poor of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), NWRO created its own innovative “projects of survival”. The historian Annelise Orleckwrites that in Las Vegas, the “welfare moms applied for and won federal grants to open and run … the first health clinic in the largely Black, and thoroughly poor Westside of Las Vegas. Then came the neighborhood’s first library, public swimming pool, senior citizen housing project, solarization program, crime prevention program, and community newspaper, all organized and staffed by poor mothers and later their young adult children.”

As the experience in Las Vegas revealed, the women of NWRO were organizers, caretakers and strategists of the highest order. They were also anti-racists and feminists of an entirely new mold. At a time when many women were fighting for equality within the workplace, NWRO championed “welfare as a right”, challenging the notion that the value of a human is tied to their ability to work within the marketplace and raising fundamental questions about how a society cares for its people. This idea coalesced into their demand for a “guaranteed adequate income”, an early precursor to the expanded child tax credit in 2021. Before this pandemic-era program was abandoned by both reactionary Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats, it lifted four million children above the poverty line, thesingle largest decrease in official child povertyin American history.

In alegendary articlefor the 1972 spring issue of Ms Magazine, Johnnie Tillmon, the first chairperson of NWRO and later its executive director, wrote: “For a lot of middle-class women in this country, Women’s Liberation is a matter of concern. For women on welfare, it’s a matter of survival … As far as I’m concerned, the ladies of NWRO are the frontline troops of women’s freedom. Both because we have so few illusions and because our issues are so important to all women–the right to a living wage for women’s work, the right to life itself.”

Veterans of the welfare rights movement named their model of grassroots organizing after Tillmon. In “the Johnnie Tillmon model”, poor women, and poor people more broadly, are not simply an oppressed identity group but a latent social force with potentially vast power. Because they have the least invested in the status quo and the most to gain from big change, they are strategically positioned to rise up and rally not just their own communities, but the millions more who are one paycheck, healthcare crisis, job loss, debt collection or eviction away from poverty.

In order to harness this transformational power, the Johnnie Tillmon model proposes four strategic principles, as relevant today as they were in the 1960s and 1970s:

The poor must unite across their differences and assume strong leadership within grassroots movements.

These movements must operate as a politically and financially independent force in our public life.

The leaders of these movements must attend to the daily needs and aspirations of their communities by building visionary projects of survival.

These projects of survival must serve as bases of operation for broader organizing, political education, and leadership development.

The women of NWRO believed there was unrecognized ingenuity and untapped brilliance within their communities. Even before the organization existed, the tens of thousands of women who made up its membership were already leaders in countless ways: they knew how to pool their meager resources, feed one another, navigate treacherous government bureaucracy and protect themselves from brutal state-sanctioned violence. When such survival skills were collectivized, networked, and politicized, these women became a force to be reckoned with.

The same could be true today. As theTrump administrationintensifies its attacks on life-saving programs like Medicaid and Snap, poor and dispossessed people will not passively swallow their suffering. Already, in states as far flung as Vermont and Alaska, Michigan and North Carolina, we’re seeing an upsurge of resistance among Medicaid recipients. But we cannot be satisfied simply with righteous acts of protest and mass mobilization. The question is how to transform our growing indignation into lasting and visionary power. The Johnnie Tillmon model is a good place to start.

The Rev Dr Liz Theoharis is the director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign and co-founder of the Freedom Church of the Poor. Noam Sandweiss-Back is the director of partnerships at the Kairos Center. They are co-authors of You Only Get What You’re Organized to Take: Lessons from the Movement to End Poverty (Beacon, 2025)

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian