Top 60 Concerns Americans Face in 2025 and How Money in Politics Preserve Them

Figure: A Pew Research Center survey in early 2025 found that the role of money in politics (70% saying “very big problem”), health care affordability (67%), and inflation (63%) were among the public’s top concerns[1]. Economic issues and government dysfunction dominated the list of problems seen as “very big” by majorities of Americans[53]. 

Below is a comprehensive list of 60 major issues in 2025, each identified as primarily an Economic Issue or a Cultural Issue. For economic issues, we outline the “money barriers” – powerful interests or financial obstacles hindering solutions. For cultural issues, we describe the perceived “threat” and how political rhetoric exaggerates or misrepresents it, versus the reality on the ground. All points are backed by credible sources and public opinion data where applicable.

1. Money in Politics (Economic Issue) – Americans broadly agree that the campaign finance system is broken. About 70% say the influence of money in politics is a “very big problem,” topping national concerns[1]. Both major parties rely on wealthy donors and lobbyists, which means policies can favor special interests over voters. Money barrier: Powerful industries and ultra-rich donors pour millions into elections and lobbying, expecting favorable laws in return. This pay-to-play culture erodes trust and makes lawmakers hesitant to act against donor interests (for example, Wall Street or Big Tech lobbying can stall regulations they dislike). Efforts at reform – such as stricter donation limits or public financing of campaigns – face resistance from those benefiting under the status quo. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (2010) opened the door for unlimited “independent” spending, after which outside groups and Super PACs have flooded elections with cash. The result is that winning office often depends on raising vast sums, pricing out candidates without wealthy backers[5][3]. The public perceives – not incorrectly – that big donors and lobbyists “buy” influence in Washington, leaving ordinary citizens’ interests behind.

2. Health Care Costs and Access (Economic Issue) – The high cost of U.S. health care is a chronic concern. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) call the affordability of health care a very big problem[4]. Medical bills can bankrupt middle-class families, and tens of millions remain uninsured or underinsured. Money barrier: The health care industry (insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms, hospital systems) has a vested interest in keeping prices high and has spent lavishly to block cost-cutting reforms[5][6]. For example, attempts to create a public health insurance option or allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices have been thwarted or delayed for years by heavy lobbying in Congress[5][3]. Each sector protects its profits: insurers negotiate opaque rates, hospitals consolidate into monopolies in some regions, and pharmaceutical companies famously charge Americans far more for the same drugs than patients abroad. These moneyed interests contribute generously to both parties, ensuring that proposals like universal health care or aggressive price regulation struggle to get enacted. The U.S. thus pays about twice as much per person on health care as other wealthy nations – without better outcomes – largely because the industry lobbies to preserve its revenue. While public support for major changes is high, and recent laws have made some progress (e.g. a 2022 law allowing Medicare negotiation on a few drugs), the health care lobby’s influence means consumers still face dizzyingly high premiums, deductibles, and drug prices.

3. Inflation and Cost of Living (Economic Issue) – After decades of modest inflation, Americans were jolted by a spike in the cost of living in 2021–2022. Prices for essentials like food, housing, and gasoline surged, squeezing household budgets. About 63% of Americans now say inflation is a very big problem, one of the top issues in the country[4]. While inflation has eased somewhat by 2023, people still feel the pinch of elevated grocery and energy costs. Money barrier: There are multiple drivers of inflation – pandemic supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, geopolitical shocks (e.g. Russia’s war raising oil and grain prices). However, a notable factor is corporate pricing power. Many large companies took advantage of inflationary headlines to raise prices beyond their cost increases, fattening profit margins (sometimes dubbed “greedflation”). Analysis shows that in the early pandemic recovery, rising corporate profits accounted for over 40% of price growth – far above the usual contribution[7]. For instance, in 2022, major oil companies and food manufacturers had record profits while consumers paid record prices. Yet curbing this profit-driven inflation is difficult: executives are incentivized to maximize profits, and they face little competition in some sectors to keep them in check. The government’s main inflation-fighting tool, the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes, works by cooling demand (even at risk of recession) rather than directly restraining corporations’ pricing. Essentially, the money barrier here is that companies with market power can raise prices with relative impunity – benefiting shareholders at the expense of consumers. Until competition is increased or price-gouging regulations enforced (both of which face opposition from industry groups), Americans will continue to bear higher costs even when supply bottlenecks ease.

4. Federal Budget Deficit and National Debt (Economic Issue) – The U.S. federal government routinely spends more than it takes in, and the accumulated national debt has surpassed $33 trillion. Around 57% of Americans view the size of the deficit as a very big problem[53], expressing concern that unchecked debt will hurt the economy or burden future generations. Money barrier: Addressing the deficit means either raising taxes or cutting spending, both of which face political roadblocks. Wealthy individuals and corporations lobby fiercely to prevent tax increases (or to secure new tax loopholes), so Congress is reluctant to raise revenue from those groups. On the spending side, every major program has its defenders: the defense industry pushes to maintain high military budgets, seniors’ advocacy groups resist any cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and so on. In short, powerful stakeholders fight against deficit-reduction measures that would cost them money. The result has been continued borrowing to finance popular tax cuts and spending programs rather than making hard trade-offs. Meanwhile, the growing debt incurs ever-larger interest payments (hundreds of billions per year), which ironically crowd out other budget priorities. Efforts at bipartisan deficit reduction (like the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations in 2010) largely fell flat, in part because well-funded interest groups (e.g., anti-tax organizations or medical lobbies opposing Medicare cuts) torpedoed the tough compromises. Thus, the debt continues to mount. While there’s debate among economists on how much debt is too much, the public’s intuitive concern remains high. Yet voters also reward leaders for benefits now (tax cuts, spending) more than for fiscal restraint. This disconnect – and the money influence reinforcing it – makes serious debt reduction politically perilous, so the can gets kicked down the road.

5. Political Polarization and Partisan Divide (Cultural Issue) – The United States is deeply split along partisan and ideological lines, and Americans are worried about it. Roughly 56% say the inability of Republicans and Democrats to work together is a very big problem for the country[9]. This polarization shows up in bitter election campaigns, congressional gridlock, and even family and community tensions. Perceived threat: Each side often views the other as an existential threat to the nation’s values – fueled by extreme rhetoric on cable news and social media echo chambers. Politicians sometimes lean into divisive cultural issues (on immigration, race, elections, etc.) to energize their base, portraying opponents as enemies of America. This perceived threat (e.g. conservatives fear “socialist woke agendas,” liberals fear “authoritarian MAGA extremism”) is amplified by partisan media and fundraising appeals, which profit from anger and fear. Reality: While genuine ideological differences exist, the exaggeration of the “threat” posed by the other side often prevents any cooperation on even widely agreed policies. The public is more moderate on many issues than the loud partisan voices suggest, but money and media incentives reward those who play to the extremes. For instance, hyper-partisan PACs pour money into primary campaigns to oust politicians seen as too compromising, leading elected officials to fear bipartisan collaboration will get them “primaried” by their own base. The result is legislative paralysis on pressing problems (from immigration to infrastructure) because compromise is painted as betrayal. Socially, polarization erodes trust – a Pew survey found 63% of Americans say they have friends who have cut off contact with someone due to politics. The money barrier here is that many institutions profit from division: partisan media gains viewers and ad dollars with outrage content, and interest groups raise funds by painting the other side in apocalyptic terms. Thus, a cycle of polarization sustains itself. Breaking it would require leadership willing to find common ground and reforms (like open primaries, campaign finance changes) that reduce the incentives to cater only to the extremes – a tall order when the current system rewards doing otherwise.

6. Poverty, Homelessness and Hunger (Economic Issue) – Despite America’s wealth, over 1 in 10 citizens live below the poverty line and many more struggle to afford basic needs. About 53% of Americans say the number of people in poverty is a very big problem facing the country[53]. Visible homelessness has surged in many cities, and food banks are reporting sustained high demand. Money barrier: Alleviating poverty and homelessness requires significant investment in social programs and affordable housing, which has often been lacking. Anti-poverty programs like food stamps (SNAP) or housing vouchers often face budget cuts or strict limits due to political opposition to government spending. For instance, the expanded Child Tax Credit in 2021 briefly lifted millions of children out of poverty, but it was allowed to expire largely over cost concerns and lack of support in Congress – leading child poverty to more than double in 2022 (from 5.2% to 12.4% as the credit’s end pushed many families back into hardship)[11]. Similarly, building housing for the homeless or extremely low-income families typically requires public subsidies that some taxpayers and politicians resist. Cities like Los Angeles have approved bonds worth billions for homeless housing, but projects have been slow and costly, prompting complaints that money is being wasted. Meanwhile, powerful interests and Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) pressures sometimes block low-income housing developments or shelters in certain neighborhoods, fearing they will reduce property values or attract problems. This local opposition – often from well-resourced homeowners – can stymie efforts to site shelters or supportive housing. The reality is that addressing poverty saves money long-term (in reduced crime, health care and other costs) and is broadly supported in principle. But the perceived threat (in cultural terms) sometimes is that helping the poor will breed “dependency” or that homeless shelters will endanger communities – rhetoric that can derail solutions. The lack of a strong lobby for the poor (who have little political clout) means their needs are frequently overlooked in budgets. It often takes moral outrage or crises (e.g. an encampment fire or a viral story of a homeless veteran) to spur action, and even then funding is usually far short of the need. Until society decides to consistently devote resources – for example, building enough housing, as experts estimate millions more affordable units are needed – poverty and homelessness remain persistent.

7. Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (Economic Issue) – The United States continues to grapple with high levels of drug addiction and overdose deaths, particularly from opioids like prescription painkillers and fentanyl. About 51% of Americans call drug addiction a very big problem nationally[12]. The opioid epidemic alone has claimed over 600,000 lives in the past two decades and shows no sign of abating, with record fatalities in recent years. Money barrier: Combating addiction requires robust funding for treatment, prevention, and recovery services – which historically has been inadequate. For years, pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed opioids (like Purdue Pharma with OxyContin) while downplaying their addictiveness, reaping enormous profits. Big Pharma’s influence delayed a strong response: only after the crisis was well underway did lawsuits force some accountability and settlement funds. Even now, addiction treatment (such as medication-assisted therapies like buprenorphine or widespread rehab programs) is underfunded and often inaccessible – many insurers have limited coverage for lengthy addiction treatment, citing cost. Communities hit hard by opioids (often poorer rural or post-industrial areas) have less clout to demand resources. Another facet is the illicit drug trade: Mexican drug cartels have flooded the U.S. with cheap fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, leading to a spike in overdoses. Tackling that means spending on border security and international cooperation, but also domestic public health measures. Politically, there is bipartisan rhetoric about stopping fentanyl, yet some effective approaches (like needle exchange programs or harm-reduction sites) face ideological opposition despite evidence they save lives. Meanwhile, the prison system continues to incarcerate many people for addiction-related offenses instead of diverting them to treatment – partly because setting up drug courts and treatment infrastructure requires upfront money, whereas law enforcement funding is more readily appropriated. The perceived threat of drug addiction is very real (people fear crime and disorder associated with drug use, as well as their loved ones overdosing), but campaign rhetoric often focuses only on punitive measures (“tough on crime”) rather than the less glamorous work of funding treatment facilities and long-term recovery support. Until substantial resources are invested in addiction services – for example, making treatment readily available on demand – and until the profit motives of both legal and illegal drug suppliers are curbed, the epidemic is likely to persist. Recent settlements from opioid lawsuits (totaling billions) are starting to flow into communities, which offers some hope if spent wisely on treatment and education. However, those funds must overcome bureaucratic delays and political squabbles over usage. In short, while nearly everyone decries the drug crisis, the money barrier lies in redirecting funds toward sustained public health approaches rather than primarily punitive ones, and in overcoming lobbying from any stakeholders that might lose financially in a more regulated, health-focused regime.

8. "Moral Values” and Cultural Change (Cultural Issue) – A large share of the public believes that the country’s moral fabric is deteriorating. Exactly 50% of Americans say the state of moral values in the U.S. is a very big problem[12]. This concern often encompasses issues like perceived declines in religion, family breakdown, sexual norms, and respect for tradition. Perceived threat: To many (especially social conservatives), the rapid cultural changes of recent decades – e.g. acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities, fewer people attending church, more kids born outside marriage – are seen as a threat to the nation’s character and stability. Politicians and commentators often amplify this by claiming America is in moral decline: pointing to things like profanity in media, or controversial celebrity behavior, as signs of societal decay. This worry can manifest in campaigns to “restore American values,” calls for censorship of explicit content, or stricter laws on things like pornography, gambling, or drugs. Reality: America has indeed become more secular and permissive in many ways. But crime rates long-term are much lower than in past decades, and youth behaviors like teen pregnancy and drug use have generally improved – facts that contradict the idea of across-the-board moral collapse. Nonetheless, perception is powerful: highly publicized incidents (e.g. mass shootings, sexualized content on social media) lead many to feel things are getting worse. Money’s role: Some groups capitalize on moral panics to raise money or gain followers – for instance, organizations will fundraise off the fear of “kids being corrupted” by certain books or drag shows (as seen in current culture wars). Media outlets find that dire pronouncements about moral decline garner clicks or viewers, incentivizing exaggerated coverage of fringe examples. Additionally, the marketing of many products (from violent video games to risqué entertainment) pushes boundaries to make profit, which then fuels backlash about those very products harming values – a cycle where one side’s profit (edgy content sells) feeds the other’s outrage (outrage also sells). The moral values debate is highly subjective and tied to religious and cultural identity. It tends to be a proxy for many underlying anxieties (economic, demographic changes) channeled into a simpler narrative of “we’ve lost our way.” Because it’s hard to measure or legislate “morality,” this concern often translates into battles over specific cultural flashpoints (abortion, LGBTQ rights, school curricula – many covered as issues in their own right in this list). In sum, the perceived moral threat is often overstated by rhetoric: for example, claims that removing school prayer caused all social ills are not supported by evidence, but resonate with those for whom tradition equals stability. This issue will likely remain as long as Americans disagree on social norms – and as long as there’s a market (both political and commercial) for portraying culture change as moral decline.

9. Gun Violence and Mass Shootings (Cultural Issue) – The United States has a far higher rate of gun deaths than other developed nations, and frequent mass shootings have left Americans anxious about safety in schools, malls, and other public places. 48% of Americans view gun violence as a very big national problem[13]. There’s fierce debate, however, over how to address it, reflecting cultural and constitutional divisions. Perceived threat: Advocates for gun control emphasize the threat of mass shootings and everyday gun crime, pointing to tragic incidents of people being gunned down in churches, concerts, and classrooms. They argue that lax gun laws and the prevalence of firearms (over 400 million civilian-owned guns) are a direct threat to public safety – citing that firearms are now the leading cause of death for U.S. children and teens. On the other side, gun rights proponents frame attempts at regulation as the threat – specifically, a threat to the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves. Groups like the NRA stoke fears that “the government is coming for your guns,” especially after high-profile shootings, thus galvanizing gun owners to resist even modest new rules. Reality: The U.S. does have uniquely high levels of gun homicide and suicide – about 45,000 gun deaths per year – and states with stricter gun laws generally have lower rates of gun violence. Yet the money barrier to significant reform is strong: the gun lobby (funded by firearm manufacturers and dues from passionate members) spends millions to influence lawmakers, particularly Republicans, to block sweeping gun control measures. They succeeded for decades in preventing even federally funded research on gun violence. Meanwhile, gun sales spikes (and company profits) often follow mass shooting events due to rhetoric that new bans might be imminent[50]. This creates a perverse incentive for industry and lobby groups to keep the status quo or even loosen laws. Public opinion actually favors many specific measures – for instance, around 85–90% support universal background checks for gun buyers, and majorities favor red-flag laws to disarm dangerous individuals. However, a relatively small but fervent portion of the population views any gun regulation as unacceptable, and they are politically active and well-organized. The cultural framing of guns as tied to freedom and heritage – heavily promoted by gun rights organizations – makes the issue not just policy but identity for many. That entrenched cultural narrative, backed by lobbying dollars and political campaign contributions, has stymied major federal gun legislation for decades (even after events like Sandy Hook in 2012 when 20 first-graders were killed, Congress failed to pass new background check laws). Some states have moved on their own – leading to a patchwork where, for example, an 18-year-old cannot buy an AR-15 rifle in one state but can simply cross into a neighboring state with looser laws and do so. This patchwork undermines certain local efforts. Money in politics – from gun manufacturers and associations – combined with polarized beliefs about guns, continues to forestall many changes that experts say would reduce violence (like limiting high-capacity magazines or funding community violence interruption programs). Thus, gun violence remains a uniquely American crisis that the majority of Americans see as urgent, but the political system struggles to address amid constitutional and cultural impasses.

10. Government Dysfunction and Gridlock (Cultural Issue) – Many Americans are frustrated with how ineffective and stalemated the federal government often is. The endless partisan bickering, failure to pass budgets on time, and recurring threats of government shutdowns or debt defaults lead to the perception that Washington is broken. Polls find only about 20% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time[54], near historic lows. Perceived threat: People see the inability of Congress to compromise or solve problems as a threat to the country’s progress and even stability. For instance, narrowly avoiding (or sometimes hitting) government shutdowns every few months creates an image of chaos. Each party blames the other: one side may claim the “deep state” or opposition leaders are sabotaging the country, while the other side decries “obstructionist” lawmakers blocking important bills for political gain. This constant finger-pointing reinforces public cynicism that nothing gets done. Reality: The U.S. system’s checks and balances do require compromise, but in recent years the incentive to cooperate has diminished. Money and partisan primaries play a role: as mentioned, elected officials often fear that working across the aisle will invite a well-funded primary challenger from their party’s base. Special interest groups can bankroll such challengers to punish compromise (for example, a bipartisan immigration framework might die after groups opposed to it run attack ads targeting any Republican who worked with Democrats, or vice versa). Additionally, lobbyists sometimes actually write the complex legislation; when both parties are at loggerheads, often the only bills that pass are those pre-approved by powerful industries or interest coalitions that have donated to key committee chairs. This can mean the government acts on narrow issues (often benefiting those interests) while neglecting broader public needs. The perceived threat of dysfunction is that urgent issues (infrastructure repair, climate action, etc.) languish while politicians grandstand. This perception is largely accurate: many analysts agree that partisan gridlock has prevented the U.S. from addressing challenges in a timely way. One visible manifestation was the near-default on the national debt in 2023 when brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling rattled markets and only a last-minute deal averted disaster. Money barrier: There’s no single “gridlock lobby,” but the current campaign finance and electoral systems reward partisanship (via funding from ideological PACs, gerrymandered safe districts, and media echo chambers that raise money for outrage). Some reforms – like independent redistricting commissions, ranked-choice voting, or campaign finance overhaul – could encourage more problem-solving behavior. Indeed, 52% of Americans say they’d prefer independent commissions (not politicians) draw congressional district lines to reduce partisan gerrymandering[55]. However, those in power who benefit from the status quo are often the ones who’d have to change it, a classic fox-guarding-henhouse scenario. Thus, government dysfunction continues as a top concern. Voters routinely cite Congress’s ineffectiveness as a major problem, and Congress’s approval ratings are dismally low (often in the teens). Until structural incentives change, the cycle of gridlock and mutual blame is likely to persist, undermining faith in democracy itself.

11. Immigration and Border Security (Cultural Issue) – The issue of immigration – especially unauthorized immigration across the U.S.–Mexico border – remains a flashpoint in American politics. In a recent poll, 48% of Americans said illegal immigration is a very big national problem[56], and overall concern about immigration has risen in the past year[14]. The southern border saw record numbers of migrant crossings in 2022–2023, straining processing facilities and shelters. Perceived threat: Many Americans (predominantly conservatives) see the surge of migrants and asylum seekers as a threat to national security, jobs, and cultural cohesion. Political rhetoric often depicts the border as “out of control” or an “invasion” – with claims that immigrants bring crime or take resources. Campaign ads show footage of large migrant groups and accuse opponents of wanting “open borders.” On the other hand, progressives and immigrant advocates perceive a different threat: they worry about the humanitarian crisis of migrants fleeing violence or poverty only to face harsh detention or family separation in the U.S. They see the demonization of immigrants as a threat to American values and point out that immigrants (even undocumented ones) are statistically less likely to commit violent crime than native-born people. Reality: The U.S. does have a dysfunctional immigration system – there’s broad consensus it’s broken, but decades of partisan gridlock have prevented comprehensive reform. There are roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants already living in the U.S., many integrated into communities. Most have been here for years, working in sectors like agriculture, construction, and services. A majority of Americans actually favor letting long-term undocumented immigrants stay legally if they meet certain conditions (polls consistently show support for a path to citizenship for Dreamers, etc.). However, money and partisan framing impede legislative solutions: restrictionist groups (some with nativist backings) pour money into campaigns to oppose “amnesty,” while industries that rely on immigrant labor quietly lobby to maintain the status quo of plentiful labor without a clear path to legalization (because it keeps labor costs lower). The perceived threats of immigration are often overblown – for instance, unauthorized immigrants do not qualify for welfare benefits like food stamps, and crime data do not support the notion of higher immigrant criminality. But perception rules politics. In recent years, Republican governors have spent state funds to bus or fly migrants to liberal cities in protest, creating high-profile political stunts rather than policy fixes. Meanwhile, Congress fails to pass even piecemeal reform (like updating visa caps or providing more asylum judges). Money barrier: One subtle financial barrier is that detention and border enforcement is big business – private prison contractors have profited from immigrant detention centers, giving them a stake in stricter enforcement and prolonged detention policies. They lobby for those policies, albeit less visibly. On the flip side, agribusiness and other employers have a stake in allowing migrant labor; they often resist mandatory E-Verify employment checks or strict crackdowns that would hurt their labor supply. This push-pull from different moneyed interests (security contractors vs. business employers) results in inconsistent policy – lots of spending on border security (a $17+ billion Border Patrol and ICE budget) but little done on interior solutions or migrant integration. The net effect: borders remain under strain, migrants continue coming due to violence and instability abroad (issues the U.S. money in foreign aid could help address, but that’s another budget fight), and Americans remain divided and anxious about immigration. Until a comprehensive approach is taken – balancing security with legal pathways and humane treatment – this issue will stay near the top of public concerns, with each side fearing either “losing our country’s character” or “losing our soul” in how we treat newcomers.

12. Social Security and Medicare Solvency (Economic Issue) – America’s major senior benefit programs – Social Security (pensions) and Medicare (health care) – are lifelines for over 65 million retirees. But as the population ages, these programs face funding shortfalls. About 47% of Americans say the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare is a very big problem【17†】, and there is widespread worry that these programs won’t be there for younger generations. Money barrier: Solving the projected shortfall in Social Security (trust funds potentially running low by 2034) and Medicare will require politically difficult choices: raising taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination. Well-funded lobbying groups and ideological opposition have made lawmakers reluctant to increase taxes – for example, lifting the payroll tax cap so that high earners contribute more to Social Security is one actuarial fix, but anti-tax advocates (and many wealthy donors) oppose it. On the flip side, any hint of benefit cuts (like raising the retirement age further or reducing cost-of-living adjustments) is met with fierce resistance from the powerful seniors’ lobby (AARP and others) – and seniors vote in high numbers. So, politicians of both parties often simply promise not to touch these programs. This leads to stalemate while the clock ticks. Medicare’s challenges are tied to the overall health care cost problem – the money barrier here includes the fact that health care providers and Big Pharma lobby to block cost-saving measures in Medicare (for decades Medicare was forbidden to negotiate drug prices; only recently was that partially lifted, over industry objections[50]). Every dollar that could be saved by, say, negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare is a dollar less of revenue for pharma companies, so they fight it – and indeed, Medicare has historically paid some of the highest drug prices in the world. The result is Medicare’s hospital trust fund is projected to face shortfall in the near future as well. Perceived threat vs. reality: Younger Americans often tell pollsters they doubt Social Security will be around for them – a 2023 survey found only 24% of adults under 50 are confident in the future of Social Security (reflecting a long-held cynicism among youth). This perception can erode public support for paying into the system. In reality, if no reforms are made, Social Security would still pay about 75–80% of benefits after trust funds deplete – not zero, but certainly a cut that would harm seniors. The money barrier is ultimately the political will to tweak revenue and benefits modestly now to avoid larger pain later. Because any change has concentrated opponents (either anti-tax crusaders or seniors’ groups), Congress tends to kick the can. It came close to a bipartisan deal in the 1980s (when reforms gradually increased retirement age and payroll tax), showing it’s possible. Today’s hyper-partisanship and the influence of anti-tax pledges make similar compromise elusive. Until the political logjam is broken – likely when a funding crisis is truly imminent – the solvency issues will continue to be a looming concern for the public. On a positive note, 86% of Americans consider preserving Social Security for future generations a top priority[57][58], suggesting voters would support leaders who take responsible action. The question is whether the money in politics (from interests averse to certain solutions) can be overridden by that public will.

13. Violent Crime and Public Safety (Cultural Issue) – After falling for decades, violent crime rates rose somewhat during the pandemic (2020–2021), and although they remain well below 1990s peaks, Americans are again anxious about crime. 47% now say violent crime is a very big problem nationally【17†】. High-profile incidents – from mass shootings (covered earlier) to spikes in homicides in some cities – drive the perception that safety is deteriorating. Perceived threat: Many people, especially in urban areas, express fear of becoming victims of crime. Politicians play on these fears: campaign ads in 2022 and 2024 often accused opponents of being “soft on crime” and highlighted news footage of robberies or assaults. Conservative media in particular have emphasized crime in Democratic-run cities, painting a picture of lawlessness. This led to the perception of a crime wave – for instance, polls show Americans consistently believe crime is rising nationally even in years when it is not. Reality: The spike in homicides in 2020–2021 was real (about +30% in 2020, the largest one-year jump on record), but homicide rates have since leveled off or begun declining in many areas in 2022–2023. Overall violent crime (which includes robbery, assault, etc.) remains far below early 1990s levels. However, certain types of crime (carjackings, retail thefts) have been more visible or concentrated in certain neighborhoods, fueling public anger. Social media and local news magnify isolated incidents – for example, viral videos of brazen store thefts in California led to a perceived threat that all of California was overrun by crime, even though statewide crime statistics did not show an extreme surge. Money barrier: Addressing crime in a balanced way is tricky. There’s big money on certain sides: police unions are very influential in local politics and typically resist reforms like stricter accountability or reallocating some funds to mental health crisis response. Private prison companies profit from higher incarceration rates and have lobbied for tougher sentencing laws in the past. On the other hand, calls to “defund the police” after 2020 protests scared some moderate voters, and many jurisdictions actually increased police budgets in response to crime fears[59]. Meaningful investments in crime prevention – such as youth programs, poverty alleviation, substance abuse treatment – often get less funding (their benefits are long-term and diffuse, making them less attractive in budget fights than immediate hires of more officers or more jail capacity). The result is a cycle: a crime uptick leads to pouring money into traditional law enforcement crackdowns (sometimes effective, sometimes not, depending on strategy), while underlying causes of crime (poverty, drug addiction, firearms proliferation) remain insufficiently addressed. Partisan framing: Republicans generally hammer on crime as a failure of liberal governance, often blaming reforms like bail reform or prosecution policy changes for any problem. Democrats are split internally – some progressive prosecutors advocate for alternatives to harsh sentencing (arguing that overly punitive approaches haven’t solved root causes), while more centrist Democrats now emphasize supporting police and tackling crime aggressively, trying to shake off the “soft on crime” label. This partisan jockeying sometimes oversimplifies the issue. For example, blaming crime increases purely on reformist policies is often inaccurate (the 2020 crime rise was nationwide, including in cities with traditional tough prosecutors). Conversely, dismissing legitimate public safety concerns as just media hype can make reformers seem out-of-touch. Ultimately, crime is both a real policy issue and a politicized one. The perceived threat – Americans thinking they could be victimized any time – undermines public confidence in government’s basic duty to provide safety. Rebuilding that confidence likely requires both smart policing (focused on the small percentage of repeat violent offenders) and community investments, but the money barrier is aligning budgets and political incentives to do both. As long as it’s easier to gain votes or viewer ratings by stoking fear rather than implementing nuanced solutions, crime will remain a top, yet unresolved, concern.

14. Quality of K-12 Education (Cultural/Economic Issue) – Education is often called the great equalizer, but many Americans worry that the public K-12 school system is failing to provide a high-quality education for all children. 45% of Americans say the quality of public schools is a very big national problem[16]. There is concern about falling test scores, teacher shortages, and large disparities between affluent and poor districts. Perceived threat: Different constituencies see different threats in education. Many parents are frustrated by crowded classrooms, outdated materials, or their kids falling behind in core skills (especially after COVID-19 disruptions, which led to significant learning loss). On top of that, a cultural battle has emerged: conservative activists claim “woke indoctrination” in schools – objecting to how topics like race, gender, and U.S. history are taught – and portray this as a threat to children. This has led to a wave of state laws restricting certain curricula (e.g., banning critical race theory, limiting LGBTQ+ discussions) and contentious school board meetings. Teachers, on the other hand, perceive a threat in micromanagement and lack of support: being vilified or even legally penalized for what they teach, and dealing with burnout from underfunding. Reality: The U.S. education system has glaring inequities. Students in high-income neighborhoods often attend well-resourced public schools or private schools, while those in low-income (often racially segregated) areas have fewer resources – less experienced teachers (high turnover due to low pay and tough conditions), larger class sizes, and inadequate facilities. These disparities in funding (mainly due to local property-tax-based school funding) are a structural money barrier – wealthier communities simply raise more money for their schools. Attempts to redistribute school funding or increase state funding to poor districts face political resistance from affluent districts or anti-tax groups. Money barrier: The teaching profession is also in crisis: inflation-adjusted teacher salaries have declined over the past decade, and roughly half of teachers have considered quitting due to stress and low pay (recent surveys by national unions). Yet efforts to raise teacher pay or hire more staff come up against tight state budgets and politicians who prioritize tax cuts or other spending. Moreover, the cultural controversies are leading some experienced educators to leave (not wanting to work under censorship or hostility), exacerbating shortages. On the other end, some parents respond by pushing for school choice programs (vouchers, charter schools) to exit public schools – these alternatives can siphon funds from the public system, a goal of some free-market advocates (often backed by donors who fund campaigns for voucher policies). The perceived threats in education thus range from “my child isn’t learning enough basic skills” to “my child is being taught things I morally oppose.” Both can undermine faith in public schooling. Meanwhile, international tests show U.S. student achievement middling compared to peers, and pandemic-era declines in math and reading were steep[60]. Getting education quality back on track would require major investments (e.g., intensive tutoring, updated curricula, mental health support) – many of which Congress authorized only temporarily with COVID relief funds. As those expire, schools plead for more sustained funding, but some states are instead cutting education budgets or diverting public money to private school vouchers, driven by ideological preferences. Money in politics also influences education policy: textbook companies and testing companies lobby states on what content gets approved, and sometimes political donors push certain historical narratives (e.g., minimizing negative aspects of U.S. history). The end result is a patchwork of quality: some American kids get world-class educations, others barely get the basics. Americans sense this inconsistency and rank improving education as a high priority in polls. Yet the culture wars and funding battles continue to impede unified action. Without depoliticizing the classroom and adequately funding schools and teachers – essentially, putting students’ needs above partisan agendas and budget hawkishness – the quality of K-12 education will likely remain a contentious and unsolved concern.

15. Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories (Cultural Issue) – In the digital age, false or misleading information spreads rapidly, and Americans are alarmed about its impact on society and democracy. Nearly 48% say the spread of made-up news and information is a very big problem in the country[17]. From wild conspiracy theories (QAnon, “deep state” plots, vaccine microchips) to more subtle misinformation (doctored images, rumors), the challenge of discerning truth has grown. Perceived threat: Many people feel that other Americans are “living in a different reality” due to consuming unverified claims on social media or partisan media. This lack of a shared set of facts is seen as a threat to rational public debate and even to public health (as seen when COVID-19 misinformation led some to reject vaccines or treatments). Partisans on each side tend to perceive the other side’s media as the major source of misinformation – e.g., liberals point to right-wing talk shows peddling election lies, while conservatives point to mainstream outlets claiming bias by omission or spin. Reality: The volume of information online is like a firehose, and there are few controls on false content. Social media algorithms often favor emotionally engaging (and often misleading) content because it drives clicks – a money barrier to combating misinformation, since tech platforms profit from engagement. They have been reluctant to police content aggressively, fearing backlash and loss of users; when they do (e.g., Twitter labeling some false tweets, Facebook removing some conspiracy groups), they face accusations of censorship, and users spreading falsehoods often migrate to more permissive platforms. Meanwhile, many Americans lack strong media literacy skills – one study found 60% of adults at least somewhat confident in spotting misinformation, but far fewer can consistently distinguish it in practice. Foreign actors (Russia, China) also actively spread disinformation to sow discord, as U.S. intelligence has documented – making it not just a domestic issue but a national security one. Money barrier: Beyond Big Tech’s ad-driven model, the media ecosystem’s polarization is financially driven too – partisan cable networks and websites make money catering to niche audiences and reinforcing their beliefs. For example, some hosts amplified false election fraud claims in 2020 likely to retain viewers who wanted to hear that narrative – a decision that led to a defamation lawsuit settlement for one major network, but illustrates the incentive to tell audiences what they want to hear regardless of truth. Efforts to counter misinformation – like fact-checking organizations or educational programs – often operate on shoestring budgets and can’t compete with the volume of false content (e.g., one rumor on Facebook might be seen by millions before a fact-check that reaches only thousands). The perceived threat of misinformation is broadly recognized (surveys show Americans across the political spectrum worry about fake news[57][58]), but agreeing on what is misinformation often breaks down along partisan lines. For instance, to many Democrats, the claim that the 2020 election was stolen is dangerous misinformation – but a majority of Republican voters believe that claim, meaning they do not view it as “misinformation” but as truth. This makes addressing the problem extremely delicate, as efforts to remove or debunk falsehoods can themselves be cast as partisan or oppressive. Still, without some solution, the risk is a populace that cannot even agree on basic facts (as one analyst noted, “It’s hard to have a functioning democracy when 60% of Americans believe in some form of outlandish conspiracy theory”). The reality is that misinformation lowers trust in institutions and expertise – for example, only 31% of Americans have confidence in the accuracy of news from national media[61] – and that lack of trust can be exploited by bad actors or grifters selling false narratives (from bogus health cures to political lies). Combating it will likely require a combination of tech platform policy changes (which they resist if it hurts engagement metrics), public pressure on those platforms, better civic and media education in schools, and perhaps regulation (though First Amendment protections and partisan disagreements make that tricky). It’s a slow fight, and meanwhile misinformation continues to poison public discourse, making this a persistent top concern.

16. Climate Change and Environmental Threats (Economic Issue) – The changing climate – marked by more extreme weather, rising sea levels, and ecosystem disruptions – is a growing worry for many Americans, though partisan divides persist. Overall, about 41% of Americans rate climate change as a very big problem[20] (a number that masks a huge gap: most Democrats feel this way, while most Republicans do not). Even aside from climate, issues like air and water pollution and natural disasters concern people. Money barrier: Transitioning to a low-carbon economy and mitigating climate risks require major investments and shifts that threaten entrenched financial interests. The fossil fuel industry (oil, gas, coal) has long lobbied aggressively to slow climate policies – from funding climate skepticism campaigns to opposing regulations on carbon emissions. For years, they successfully sowed doubt about climate science, delaying consensus on action. Even now, while public acceptance of climate reality is higher, oil and gas companies spend millions to influence Congress and state governments to favor drilling and resist restrictions. They frame climate policies as “job killers” and warn of higher energy prices if we move off fossil fuels. Indeed, in the short term, gas prices might tick up or coal miners might lose jobs when polluting energy sources are curtailed – those costs are very visible and politicized (no politician wants to be blamed for $5 gas or a coal town’s collapse). The benefits of climate action, however – avoiding future catastrophe, developing new green industries – are longer-term and diffuse, making it harder to rally consistent support. Perceived threat vs. reality: Many Americans – especially younger generations – perceive climate change as a dire threat to the planet’s future. They point to reality already here: stronger hurricanes battering coasts, megadroughts and wildfires in the West, unbearable heat waves (the summer of 2023 was the hottest on record globally). These events align with climate scientists’ warnings about unchecked warming. Yet a portion of the public (and politicians) downplay or dismiss climate concerns, seeing them as overhyped. They worry more about economic threats from climate policies (e.g. losing oil/gas jobs or paying more for electricity) than about climate itself. That perception is reinforced by moneyed interests: for instance, some libertarian and industry-funded think tanks churn out reports exaggerating the cost of climate regulations and minimizing the cost of inaction. This skewed narrative often finds audience in regions economically tied to fossil fuels. Another money aspect: renewable energy companies (solar, wind, electric vehicles) are now rising in influence and push for supportive policies (like tax credits, which were included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act). These companies provide a counter-lobby to fossil fuels, which is helping – in fact, that law mobilized an estimated $370 billion for clean energy, spurring factory construction in many states. However, even implementing that faces challenges: local opposition (sometimes funded quietly by fossil interests or NIMBY groups) to big wind and solar farms or new transmission lines can slow progress. Also, some climate measures require global coordination, which is outside U.S. control and subject to geopolitics. The reality is urgent per science (the world is already ~1.1°C warmer than pre-industrial times, and on track for more, with severe projected harms). Every year of delay locks in more fossil fuel infrastructure that lasts decades. The money barrier is that those making money from the status quo (and consumers enjoying cheap gasoline or the conveniences of current infrastructure) are resistant to rapid change. Yet, survey data show 60% of Americans believe stricter environmental laws are worth the cost[62], and majorities support initiatives like planting trees, incentivizing clean energy, etc. The Inflation Reduction Act’s climate investments (though politically divisive in DC) actually direct a lot of money into red states for clean manufacturing – potentially softening opposition on the ground. Still, the partisan split – fueled by ideological groups and fossil fuel donor influence – means U.S. climate policy has zigzagged (federal actions undone by the next administration, etc.), undermining consistent progress. Many view climate change as a slow-burning (no pun intended) crisis that politicians don’t prioritize because short-term election cycles favor issues with immediate payoff. If the perceived threat of climate disasters continues to grow (say, a mega-hurricane devastates Florida, or Phoenix heat becomes unlivable for weeks), public demand might finally overwhelm the money barrier. In the meantime, climate remains a top-tier concern for those who look to the future, and a politicized issue for others who focus on present costs – a disconnect that money in politics and media messaging has only widened.

17. Racism and Racial Inequity (Cultural Issue) – America has grappled with racial divisions for centuries, and many believe much work remains to achieve equality. About 36% of Americans say racism is a very big problem today[21] – with the number much higher among Black Americans and lower among white Americans. The murder of George Floyd in 2020 and subsequent protests brought renewed attention to systemic racism in policing, housing, and other areas, but also sparked a backlash from those who feel the issue is overblown or weaponized. Perceived threat: From the perspective of communities of color, the threat is continued discrimination and injustice – whether it’s disproportionate police brutality against Black people, the racial wealth gap (the median white household holds many times the wealth of the median Black household due to historical inequalities), or subtle biases that affect daily life (like job or housing discrimination). Many activists argue that structural racism threatens not just minority groups but the nation’s stated ideals of fairness and unity. On the other hand, some white Americans (especially conservatives) have been persuaded that anti-racism efforts themselves are the threat – a narrative that teaching about racism = “indoctrinating guilt” or affirmative action = “reverse racism.” This has led to moves like banning “critical race theory” (a scholarly framework usually not actually taught below college) in K-12 schools and curtailing diversity training in government or corporations. Right-wing media often portrays initiatives around diversity or discussing racism as attacks on American heritage or as divisive. Reality: Racial disparities remain stark in many metrics. Black Americans are about 3 times more likely to be killed by police than whites (adjusted for population) and have significantly higher poverty and lower homeownership rates, largely due to historical and ongoing inequalities. Indigenous and Latino communities likewise face specific challenges (like Native Americans having some of the worst health outcomes and infrastructure on reservations). These outcomes are not simply due to individual behavior but to long-standing exclusionary policies (from Jim Crow to redlining in real estate to underfunded segregated schools). Recognizing those facts, however, has become a partisan flashpoint. Money barrier: Racial justice movements typically lack big financial backing – they rely on grassroots activism and philanthropy. Meanwhile, opponents of some racial equity policies sometimes have the backing of wealthy donors who fund “culture war” campaigns to resist, say, school curricula that highlight racism. There is a constellation of advocacy groups and think tanks (some funded by affluent individuals) that have driven the push for laws restricting how teachers can discuss race or banning certain books dealing with racial history. They essentially use racial wedge issues as political tools to energize a segment of voters, arguably distracting from economic policies that also carry racial dimensions (like tax or welfare policies that disproportionately affect certain races). The debate over remedies like reparations for slavery – which would involve substantial money – is another area where a money barrier looms large: even if morally argued, the financial cost (trillions by some estimates) makes such federal action highly improbable in the foreseeable future. On a smaller scale, even funding programs to reduce racial gaps (like investing more in majority-Black schools or businesses) often meets resistance from those not seeing the need or not wanting resources reallocated. The perceived threats are inverted: those pushing for racial equity see the threat of enduring racism; those pushing against some equity measures claim the threat is to national cohesion or to whites being treated unfairly. As a result, racism remains a polarizing topic. Polls show a majority of Black Americans think racism is a serious problem, whereas a majority of white Republicans say racism is talked about too much. The summer 2020 protests increased awareness but also spurred a counter-movement (laws against “divisive concepts” in classrooms in dozens of states). Until there’s more shared understanding of U.S. racial history and empathy across communities – something education and dialogue could foster if not impeded by politics – racism will stay a contentious top concern. It’s an area where moral suasion and generational change might gradually shift views, but money in politics sometimes amplifies racial resentments for short-term gain, hindering progress toward the broadly shared goal of E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).

18. International Terrorism and Global Conflict (Cultural Issue) – Although the threat of extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda has receded from its early 2000s peak, concerns about terrorism remain. Roughly 36% of Americans still rate international terrorism as a very big national problem[22], and events like the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and ongoing instability in parts of the Middle East keep the issue alive in public consciousness. Additionally, Russia’s war in Ukraine and tensions with nuclear-armed adversaries (Russia, North Korea, Iran) have raised fears of broader conflict or even nuclear escalation. Perceived threat: Memories of 9/11 still shape Americans’ view of terrorism – many fear that groups like al-Qaeda could regroup or that new terror cells could target the U.S. or its allies. Politicians often remind voters of the threat (sometimes overstating it to justify policies): for instance, arguments to restrict immigration from certain countries or to increase defense spending frequently invoke the danger of terrorists sneaking in or hostile nations striking. The ongoing war in Ukraine has also led a majority of Americans to see Russia as a grave threat – in 2023, 52% said the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a “critical threat” to U.S. vital interests[63] – and there’s widespread concern that escalation (like Russia using a nuclear weapon) could drag the U.S. into direct conflict[64]. Reality: International terrorism against the U.S. homeland has thankfully been very limited in the past decade (no major attacks since 9/11, due in part to robust counterterror measures). However, overseas U.S. forces and interests have faced occasional terror attacks, and regions like the Sahel in Africa have seen rising jihadist activity – which could eventually pose broader challenges. Meanwhile, great-power competition has reemerged: Russia’s aggression and China’s military expansion. The risk of a broader war – even nuclear war – while still low probability, is no longer unthinkable as it seemed post-Cold War. That said, the U.S. spends over $800 billion a year on defense, far more than any rival, and has extensive intelligence and counterterror capabilities. Money barrier: A huge national security bureaucracy has grown since 9/11 (Department of Homeland Security, TSA, expansive surveillance programs). This apparatus, while aiming to prevent terrorism, has its own inertia and vested interests. Defense contractors profit enormously from an atmosphere of global threat – every time tensions rise, it bolsters arguments for buying more weapons systems. For example, the war in Ukraine has led to booming orders for missiles, tanks, and other hardware (and indeed, the U.S. rushed tens of billions in arms to Ukraine, which defense firms will replenish via new contracts). These contractors lobby to ensure that perceived threats (Russia, China, Iran, terror groups) are kept in the forefront of policymakers’ minds, to justify high defense budgets[50]. While genuine threats exist, there is an incentive to sometimes exaggerate them or resist scaling back when threats ebb. For instance, even after bin Laden was killed and ISIS territorially defeated, defense hawks argued against any reduction in the counterterror apparatus. The perceived threat of terrorism has been politically useful as well – it can rally public support around leaders (the “rally ’round the flag” effect) and has been used to curtail civil liberties (like expanded surveillance, detention policies), which persist long after the immediate threat fades. The Afghanistan War, which cost over $2 trillion and thousands of lives, continued for 20 years partly because of inertia and fear of admitting failure – a factor being the money flows to military contractors and local power brokers who benefited from the status quo. Summarily, while Americans absolutely want protection from external threats, money and politics can lead to threat inflation – portraying the world as more dangerous than it might objectively be – to justify policies that benefit certain elites (be it defense budgets or continued presence in conflicts). The reality is that diplomacy and targeted counterterror operations have neutralized many threats, but new ones (like a more assertive Russia and China) do require vigilance. The public’s top concern should arguably shift toward domestic threats (as some officials note, homegrown extremism is now equally or more of a danger than foreign terrorism). However, foreign threats remain potent in the public psyche, and leaders often focus on them – sometimes to distract from domestic issues. Managing this set of concerns involves honest communication about risks (not scaremongering), and balancing hard power with diplomatic solutions. If money and entrenched interests push only military responses, it could entangle the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts or arms races. Therefore, while international terrorism and conflict are serious issues, treating everything as the next existential threat can itself become a problem – consuming resources and attention that might be better spent on peacetime challenges.

19. Domestic Extremism and Political Violence (Cultural Issue) – The United States has also seen a rise in homegrown extremism and incidents of political violence in recent years. The January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob was a stark illustration, as were plots like the foiled plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan in 2020. Americans increasingly view domestic terrorism – whether from far-right militias, white supremacist lone actors, or other extremists – as a serious threat. In one survey, 64% said white nationalist groups are a major problem for the country[65][66]. Perceived threat: After years of focusing outward on Islamist terrorism, many now see the enemy within. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (particularly white supremacists) are the most lethal threat to the homeland in recent years. The public watched in shock as fellow Americans stormed their own seat of government; many realized that deep polarization and conspiracy-fueled rage could erupt into violence. Each high-profile hate crime (e.g., the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting or the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting targeting Black shoppers) reinforces the perception that extremist ideologies present a mortal threat to minority communities and democracy itself. Reality: Domestic political violence is not new in the U.S. (the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by anti-government extremists was then the deadliest terror attack pre-9/11), but it has surged somewhat recently. The FBI has hundreds of open cases related to domestic extremism, and intelligence agencies report that online forums are breeding grounds for radicalization – from neo-Nazi recruitment to accelerationist groups urging civil war. The perceived threat on different sides can diverge: some on the right focus on left-wing violence (like Antifa property damage during protests or the 2017 congressional baseball shooter who targeted Republicans), whereas data shows far-right and white supremacist actors have been responsible for the majority of recent extremist killings. Nonetheless, partisan media sometimes amplify incidents fitting their narrative (e.g., right-wing media highlighted the 2020 unrest and looting during racial justice protests as evidence of “violent leftists,” while left-wing media highlight militia plots and the Capitol riot as evidence of “violent MAGA”). This tit-for-tat can muddy the waters instead of forging a unified front against all political violence. Money barrier: Combating domestic extremism is sensitive – government officials worry about infringing on civil liberties or appearing to target one ideology. Also, unlike foreign terror, there’s no broad consensus or dedicated funding stream solely for domestic counter-extremism efforts. In fact, when DHS tried initiatives to counter violent extremism domestically, some programs lost funding under political pressure (the Trump administration cut grants aimed at deradicalizing white supremacists, for instance). Law enforcement often faces pressure from powerful gun rights groups when trying to disarm potentially violent extremists (since many stockpile weapons legally). Meanwhile, money and political rhetoric sometimes fuel domestic divisions: politicians have raised campaign funds by demonizing opponents as dangerous (one mailing might call the other party “radicals who want to destroy America,” implicitly giving license to treat them as enemies). This overheated rhetoric doesn’t directly call for violence but contributes to a climate where violence can spark. Social media companies have belatedly taken action against some domestic extremist content (Twitter and Facebook banned some QAnon accounts, for example), but many such groups migrate to fringe platforms with little moderation. And of course, the ease of obtaining firearms (with lobbying by gun manufacturers preventing many restrictions) means when someone does radicalize to violence, the tools are readily at hand to inflict mass casualties. The reality is that domestic extremism has led to more deaths on U.S. soil in the past two decades than foreign terrorism post-9/11, yet public policy has not pivoted proportionately. Some steps have been taken (the Justice Department after 2021 put more resources into domestic terror units), but politically it’s tricky: efforts to surveil or infiltrate extremist networks run into First Amendment issues and partisan mistrust (e.g., right-wing commentators claim the Biden administration is trying to label all conservatives as “domestic terrorists”). Thus, a money and trust barrier exists in mounting the same level of national mobilization that foreign terror prompted. The perceived threat among average Americans is definitely there – polls show over two-thirds fear political violence could increase – but translating that into policy (like stronger hate crime laws, or cracking down on extremist militia organizations) is slow. If polarization continues or worsens, domestic extremism might grow, potentially requiring far more intensive (and expensive) countermeasures later. Many experts call for investing now in community-based prevention (educating people to spot and counter radicalization, much like anti-gang programs), but that requires funding and political will in short supply. In summary, domestic extremism is a concern that unites Americans in worry if not in solution, and it represents a challenge of confronting enemies that arise from within our own populace – historically one of the hardest tasks for any society.

20. Abortion and Reproductive Rights (Cultural Issue) – The contentious issue of abortion exploded back to the forefront in 2022 when the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights. This led to bans or severe restrictions in about half the states and sparked a national debate. For one side, restricting abortion is seen as a moral imperative to protect unborn life; for the other, banning abortion is viewed as a dire threat to women’s health and freedom. Surveys show the country roughly split – around 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while about 37% say it should be illegal in most or all cases (with much intensity on both sides)[57][58]. Perceived threat: Abortion-rights advocates warn that pregnant women’s lives are now at risk in states with bans, and indeed, there have been reports of women facing life-threatening complications (like septic infections in miscarriages) yet being denied prompt care because doctors fear legal consequences under strict abortion laws. They cite examples of women having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment or even being prosecuted for pregnancy loss in certain jurisdictions. This is seen as a grievous threat to women’s fundamental rights and health – stories of women nearly dying because doctors couldn’t legally intervene until a fetal heartbeat stopped have garnered national attention[24][25]. Conversely, anti-abortion activists perceive legalized abortion as the threat – a moral atrocity of millions of unborn lives lost, and they celebrate Dobbs as an opportunity to save lives. Some even push for national abortion bans, indicating they view continued legal abortion in some states as an ongoing evil. Reality: The immediate fallout of Dobbs has been chaos and patchwork rules. States like Texas now ban nearly all abortions even in medical emergencies, leading doctors to delay care until women are at the brink of death (to fit the “life of the mother” exception)[25][67]. On the other hand, states like California and Illinois have moved to protect and even expand abortion access, becoming refuges for out-of-state patients. This divide means women’s rights vary drastically by state – a profound change after 50 years of federal protection. Money barrier: Both sides have mobilized significant funding. Abortion-rights organizations and many Democratic campaigns have seen a surge of donations post-Dobbs, using the issue to galvanize voters (the surprise defeat of anti-abortion measures or candidates in conservative states like Kansas in 2022 showed the power of the issue). Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups, often backed by religious donors and churches, have long invested in the political and legal strategies that led to Dobbs and continue to push bans at the state level. They also fund “crisis pregnancy centers” (which encourage women to carry pregnancies to term) more than actual maternal health support – critics argue this shows that once babies are born, many anti-abortion lawmakers don’t prioritize funding healthcare, child care, or family leave, suggesting some inconsistency in a purported “pro-life” stance. Indeed, Dobbs triggered a collision between rhetoric and reality: in many banned states, maternal mortality rates (especially for Black women) are high and likely to worsen without abortion access for emergencies. Yet legislatures in those states have not correspondingly increased funding for maternal healthcare or social services. This mismatch indicates that the money and policy focus has been on banning abortion, not on mitigating the downstream effects on women and families. The public, for its part, appears to side more with abortion rights – in several state referendums since Dobbs, voters have chosen to protect abortion access (even in red states like Kansas and Kentucky). However, the perceived threat by anti-abortion activists (that America is committing mass immorality) means they will keep fighting in legislatures and courts regardless of public polling. Conversely, pro-choice advocates see Dobbs as a dire precedent that could lead to broader erosions of privacy rights (e.g., they warn same-sex marriage or contraception could be targeted next – a concern Justice Alito called unfounded, but Justice Thomas mused about revisiting those precedents too). This issue epitomizes America’s culture wars: deeply moral, deeply divisive, heavily funded on both sides, and intimately tied to personal autonomy and religious belief. The reality unfolding is that women in banned states are indeed suffering – doctors in Texas and Tennessee report “women are getting sick or dying because we cannot treat them in time under these laws.” This human cost has begun to sway some public opinion and even some conservative politicians now cautiously advocate adding exceptions (like for rape or health) to extreme bans. However, core activists resist any dilution. In sum, abortion remains one of the most fraught concerns in 2025: a battle of rights and ethics playing out in courts, capitols, and at the bedside, with high stakes for millions of women and the political landscape.

21. LGBTQ+ Rights and Transgender Issues (Cultural Issue) – In recent years, issues of LGBTQ equality – especially the rights of transgender individuals – have become a national flashpoint. While acceptance of lesbian, gay and bisexual people has grown markedly (over 70% of Americans now support same-sex marriage, up from 27% in 1996), the focus has shifted to transgender rights, which face more polarized views. Since 2021, dozens of states have proposed or passed laws restricting transgender youths’ access to gender-affirming healthcare, sports teams, or even bathroom use. To LGBTQ advocates, this is a threat to an already vulnerable minority’s existence; to some social conservatives, the rapid visibility of trans people is perceived as a threat to traditional gender norms or even to children’s safety (based on unfounded fears of “grooming”). Perceived threat: Anti-trans activists – often backed by certain religious or conservative organizations – argue that allowing minors to take puberty blockers or hormone treatments is dangerous and tantamount to abuse, framing gender-affirming care as a threat to children’s health or suggesting (without evidence) that kids are being “recruited” to be trans. They also claim letting trans women (who are assigned male at birth) compete in women’s sports or use women’s facilities threatens fairness or safety. This has led to laws banning trans girls from school sports in at least 20 states and banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth in at least 25 states as of 2025[18]. On the flip side, LGBTQ+ people and civil rights advocates see these bans as a grave threat to transgender individuals’ well-being and even lives – noting that lack of gender-appropriate care and acceptance is linked to very high rates of depression and suicide among trans youth (for example, a 2022 Trevor Project study found suicide attempt rates increased 7-fold for trans youth in states with anti-trans laws[19]). They view the surge of anti-LGBTQ legislation (also including “Don’t Say Gay” laws limiting discussing LGBTQ topics in schools) as a politically driven attack on an already marginalized group, often to rally a conservative base. Reality: Medical experts (the American Academy of Pediatrics, Endocrine Society, etc.) endorse gender-affirming care for trans youth (which typically involves puberty-delaying medication and counseling, and only older teens in some cases starting hormones) as beneficial and reducing suicide risk[26][19]. These treatments are not given lightly – comprehensive evaluations are standard – but the politics have overridden that consensus in many places. Transgender Americans (an estimated 1.6 million adults and youth) have become targets of an intense culture war out of proportion to their share of the population. The money barrier: A lot of the anti-trans movement’s momentum comes from a network of well-funded conservative legal groups and think tanks (some of the same behind anti-abortion and “religious liberty” campaigns). They have crafted model legislation and funded ads to sway public opinion that framing trans people or drag performances as an imminent threat to children. One religious lobbying group spent millions pushing “bathroom bills” (forcing people to use restrooms matching birth sex) a few years back. On the other side, LGBTQ advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign have also mobilized funding to fight these laws in courts and via corporate pressure. Notably, some big corporations (Disney, for instance) spoke out against anti-LGBT laws, but then faced retribution from certain politicians (illustrating how even business money clashing with culture war politics can create conflict). The public is somewhat split: polls show solid majorities support protections for gay and trans people in jobs and housing, yet about 60% of Americans say they are uncomfortable with trans athletes competing on teams of their gender (especially trans women in women’s sports). That nuance leads to inconsistent policy preferences. What is clear is that 25 states have enacted blanket bans on gender-affirming care for minors[18], affecting an estimated 100,000+ trans youth[18] – essentially forcing many families to either cease care or travel out of state. Already, cases have emerged of teens put into crisis by these disruptions in care. The perceived threat of the anti-trans side (that teens are being “turned” trans or that cisgender girls are at risk in bathrooms) has little factual basis – but it has been an effective political rallying cry in certain regions. Meanwhile, the real threat is to trans people’s mental health and safety: one survey found nearly half of trans youth have seriously considered suicide, and that supportive healthcare and social environments drastically improve outcomes[26][19]. Removing those supports, advocates warn, is literally life-threatening. The clash over LGBTQ rights in 2025 is thus a top concern encapsulating how cultural anxieties, often stoked by strategic political campaigns, can lead to tangible harm for a minority group. Until either courts or shifts in public sentiment turn the tide, LGBTQ Americans – especially trans individuals – will remain at the center of a see-saw battle over whether they are fully accepted or legislated against.

22. Voting Rights and Election Integrity (Cultural Issue) – The right to vote freely and fairly is fundamental to democracy, yet in recent years it has become a fierce point of contention. One side worries about voter suppression – states enacting strict ID laws, cutting polling places or hours, purging voter rolls – which disproportionately affect minorities and young voters. The other side is animated by fears of voter fraud – often fueled by false claims about recent elections (notably the baseless assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen). Roughly 60% of Americans are very or somewhat concerned that new voting restrictions will deny eligible voters the franchise, while a similar percentage are concerned about insufficient security in elections[65][66]. Perceived threat: For many (especially Democrats and civil rights groups), the spree of new voting laws in GOP-led states – such as limiting mail-in voting, shortening early voting, banning ballot drop boxes, or aggressive purging of infrequent voters – is seen as a threat to fair access and aimed at reducing turnout among communities of color or young voters. The memory of the historic struggle against Jim Crow-era voter suppression in the South looms large; new laws like eliminating Souls to the Polls Sunday voting (popular for Black churchgoers) or rejecting ballots over trivial signature differences appear, to them, as modern echoes of old tactics. Conversely, many conservatives have been convinced by repeated (and largely unfounded) claims that voter fraud is common – Donald Trump’s relentless false claims of 2020 fraud moved the needle in GOP opinion such that about 70% of Republicans now doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 result. They perceive lax voting rules as a threat to election integrity, envisioning scenarios of illegal immigrants voting en masse or partisan operatives stuffing drop boxes – again, claims for which there’s no credible evidence on any significant scale. This has driven a push for tighter rules and even vigilante “election watchers” in some places. Reality: Study after study has found voter impersonation fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare (e.g., one comprehensive Loyola Law analysis found 31 credible instances of fraud out of over 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014). On the other hand, the new restrictive laws (since the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and more after 2020) unquestionably make voting less convenient and accessible for certain groups – for instance, Native Americans on reservations (who often lack residential addresses for IDs or mail voting) or urban voters (facing longer lines when polling sites are consolidated). While these laws might only shave off a few percentage points of turnout, in close elections that can matter. Money barrier: Both sides have poured money into the fight. Billionaire-funded advocacy groups like Heritage Action are actively lobbying and writing model legislation for stricter voting laws (they boasted on a leaked call in 2021 about helping craft Georgia’s controversial voting law). On the flip side, progressive organizations like Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight or the ACLU are raising and spending millions on litigation and voter mobilization to counteract these laws. The partisan polarization on this issue has prevented federal remedies; the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore oversight of state voting changes, was blocked in the Senate by a Republican filibuster (despite nearly all Democrats supporting it). Republicans in Congress argue federal involvement isn’t needed and that state laws guard against fraud; privately, some admit that higher turnout (especially among certain demographics) doesn’t favor them – a candid expression of this came when a state GOP lawmaker said out loud, “We rely on low turnout to win.” The Big Lie about 2020 – thoroughly debunked but persistently believed – has also become a money-maker for some: Trump and allied groups raised over $250 million post-election ostensibly for “election defense,” much of which was not used for recounts or lawsuits but funneled to PACs and Trump’s operations. Thus, false claims of fraud turned into a lucrative grift, incentivizing continued sowing of doubt about elections. The result is a chunk of the electorate deeply distrustful of our voting system – a dangerous situation. In 2022, election denial was on the ballot: many election-denier candidates for offices like Secretary of State (who oversee elections) lost in swing states, indicating voters do want election stability. Yet the conspiracies haven’t fully abated, and some states are even empowering partisan poll watchers in ways critics fear could lead to voter intimidation. The perceived threats on both sides – fraud vs. suppression – have some basis (suppression historically real, fraud small but not zero), but have been vastly magnified by partisan narratives. Ensuring that every eligible citizen can vote easily and that elections are secure and trusted should not be mutually exclusive; most democracies achieve both. The U.S. though has allowed money, mistrust, and power interests to make voting itself a partisan battlefield. Without a reset – possibly via bipartisan agreement on some baseline national standards (like voter ID combined with robust voter registration opportunities, as many developed countries do) – the integrity of elections will remain a divisive concern, with each major election result likely to be disputed by the losing side’s supporters, to the detriment of democracy.

23. Policing and Criminal Justice Reform (Cultural Issue) – The role of police and the fairness of the criminal justice system have been at the center of American debate, especially since the high-profile killings of Black individuals by officers and the 2020 nationwide protests for racial justice. About 47% of Americans believe police brutality is a very serious problem, per some polls, though partisan and racial divides are sharp[65]. Simultaneously, concerns about crime (discussed earlier) intersect with calls for more effective policing. Thus, the public is torn between wanting better safety and demanding accountability for law enforcement misconduct. Perceived threat: For Black Americans and other communities of color, the threat is over-policing and unjust policing. Incidents like the murder of George Floyd, the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor in her own apartment, or the beating of Tyre Nichols in 2023 reinforce a lived reality that people of color (particularly Black men) are treated more violently by law enforcement. This has led to the chant “Stop killing us” at protests – a stark statement of the perceived physical threat posed by policing as currently practiced. The movement slogan “Defund the Police” – often misunderstood – emerged from this: not necessarily to literally eliminate police, but to reallocate some funding toward prevention and community services (mental health responders, etc.) so that police aren’t the only answer to every problem. However, that slogan was seized by opponents and reframed as a threat to public safety itself. For many Americans (especially conservatives), the idea of reducing police budgets was perceived as a threat of lawlessness – they instead see under-policing as the issue and were alarmed by footage of riots or looting that occurred amid largely peaceful protests in 2020. They argue the threat is crime and chaos if police are “demonized” or constrained. Reality: Police in America do kill about 1,000 people each year, far more per capita than in other advanced democracies – and Black Americans are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than whites, even when unarmed[68][65]. There is clearly a systemic problem in use of force, training, and accountability. At the same time, being a police officer in the U.S. is also a dangerous job in certain areas, and officers face immense stress and often insufficient support (like mental health care for trauma). The reality is that reform is needed, but outright abolition of policing is not widely desired – even most reform advocates acknowledge society needs some form of public safety apparatus. Money barrier: Police unions are among the most powerful labor organizations – they have strong political clout, especially in city and local politics, often negotiating contracts that make it difficult to discipline or remove bad officers. They have often resisted reforms like civilian oversight boards or changes to use-of-force protocols, framing them as anti-police. These unions donate to politicians (usually those opposed to aggressive reform) and can sway elections with endorsements (or the threat of withdrawing them). On the other side, activist groups calling for reform (like Movement for Black Lives) have passion but not nearly the financial resources or insider access to counterbalance police union influence in legislatures and city halls. Another money aspect is municipal budgets: policing often takes a huge share (in many big cities, 20–40% of the general fund). Redirecting any of that to social services is a zero-sum fight in budgets. Calls to shift even, say, 5% of a police budget to fund violence prevention programs face fierce pushback from police leadership and some residents worried about slower 911 response. The federal government did enact some modest reforms – e.g., banning chokeholds for federal agents, tying some grants to improved practices – via executive order, but major legislation (the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act) stalled in the Senate due to disagreement (and likely, lobbying from police associations). Thus, accountability measures like ending qualified immunity (which shields officers from civil lawsuits) or creating a national misconduct database to stop wandering officers (fired in one department, hired in another) have not passed, even though a large majority of the public support many of these reforms. Polls show about 50% of Americans say policing needs “major changes”[69] – a number that spiked after 2020. Yet partisan polarization (with Republicans largely siding with police and Democrats more with reformers) prevents consensus action. Meanwhile, cities like Minneapolis that considered dramatic changes to policing structures largely backed off after public safety concerns and political tussling. Perceived threats on each side – “the police are out of control” vs “the police are under siege” – both carry truth and exaggeration. A clear-eyed view is that improving policing (better training in de-escalation, removing unfit officers, focusing on serious crimes rather than minor drug or traffic enforcement that can escalate) would benefit both the public and good officers. But the money and influence structure resists some of these changes. Until political leaders are willing to overcome union pressure and invest in alternative approaches (like sending mental health teams to certain 911 calls, which some cities are piloting successfully), the cycle of tragic incidents followed by unrest followed by polarization will likely continue. The public remains concerned both about crime and about police violence – two issues that in fact feed each other (distrust of police in communities leads to less cooperation solving crimes). Reducing that distrust by reforming police practices is arguably a win-win. The challenge is aligning budgets and political will to implement reforms even when parts of the electorate (and powerful interest groups) perceive them, however incorrectly, as a threat to order rather than a path to justice.

24. Privacy and Surveillance (Economic Issue) – In an era of Big Data, Americans are increasingly anxious about their privacy. From government surveillance programs tracking phone and internet use, to tech companies collecting vast troves of personal data, people sense that almost everything they do is being watched or recorded. Surveys show roughly 66% of Americans believe the government collects too much information about citizens[70], and an even higher share worry about how businesses use their data. Money barrier: The trade-off often presented is between privacy and security or convenience. After 9/11, the Patriot Act and NSA programs enabled bulk collection of communications (exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013), justified by combating terrorism. That surveillance apparatus has institutional momentum and budget – many defense contractors and intelligence agencies have vested interests in continuing large-scale data collection. They lobby to renew broad authorities (like Section 702 of FISA, up for renewal in 2023) despite concerns they incidentally sweep up Americans’ data. On the corporate side, tech companies like Google, Facebook, and countless data brokers built incredibly profitable business models on harvesting user data to target ads or sell insights. They resist strict privacy regulations because it would cut into their revenues. For example, proposals to ban tracking-based advertising or to require opt-in consent for data collection are fought by internet industry lobbyists who argue it would ruin “free” online services. Essentially, personal data is the oil of the digital economy – a valuable asset that companies monetize (often without users fully realizing). The perceived threat: Many Americans now feel resigned to giving up privacy for modern life. One Pew study found 60% believe it’s impossible to go through daily life without companies and the government collecting data on them. They fear identity theft, their sensitive info being leaked (indeed, 95% are worried about data breaches exposing their personal data[71]), or their every online move being monitored and used in unknown ways. Government surveillance is harder for people to gauge, but controversies like the FBI’s use of cell phone location data without warrants, or local police using facial recognition on street cameras, raise alarms about a “Big Brother” state. Reality: Data breaches are rampant (hundreds of millions of records get compromised yearly), and often individuals bear the cost (through fraud or the hassle of credit monitoring) while companies face minimal penalties. And it’s not imagination that smartphones and IoT devices create a constant stream of location and activity data – which can be and is used to profile people. For instance, data brokers compiled location tracks that have been used to identify women visiting abortion clinics in post-Dobbs states – illustrating how personal data can be weaponized in unforeseen ways. Yet U.S. privacy laws are patchwork and relatively weak – a few states like California have passed comprehensive privacy laws, but there’s no broad federal law akin to Europe’s GDPR. Why? Money in politics. The tech industry spends heavily to influence Congress and has successfully stalled federal privacy legislation for years, even as scandals (Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data, etc.) made headlines. They sometimes express openness to a federal law – but only if it’s a lax one that overrides stricter state laws (industry lobbyists are pushing Congress to preempt stronger state regulations). So far, gridlock prevails. Meanwhile, digital advertising giants and data firms continue about their business largely unchecked. Government surveillance reforms face similar headwinds: intelligence agencies are adept at lobbying (quietly) lawmakers about needing tools for national security. Privacy advocates – often nonprofits with limited budgets – fight an uphill battle to get reforms like requiring warrants for certain data access. They had a win when Congress ended the NSA’s bulk phone metadata program in 2015, but many other surveillance powers remain and even expanded (the use of AI and big data analytics by government is rising, largely outside public view). The perceived threat of privacy loss is somewhat abstract until someone experiences a harm (like cyber theft or doxxing). Many Americans express concern but also feel powerless – they click “agree” on dense privacy policies and keep using apps because life without them seems impractical[72][73]. This apathy or helplessness is part of what companies bank on. They often make opting out of tracking difficult (dark patterns in interfaces) because every bit of data is profit. Changing this dynamic likely requires strong regulation (mandating easy opt-outs, minimizing data collection, giving people rights to their data). That would shift default power from companies to individuals. However, until the money barrier – tech lobby influence – is overcome, the U.S. will lag behind on privacy protections. And as technology like AI and biometric monitoring grows, the stakes for privacy get higher. Americans could end up in a world where everything they do is recorded and exploitable, a reality many fear but see unfolding regardless. The challenge is translating public discomfort into political pressure strong enough to override the deep-pocketed interests who prefer the status quo of maximal data harvest.

25. Power of Big Tech and Monopolies (Economic Issue) – A handful of giant technology companies – Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft – exert enormous influence over commerce, information flow, and innovation. Similarly, other sectors have consolidated (telecom with a few internet providers, entertainment with a few studios/streamers, etc.). Americans increasingly worry that these monopolies and oligopolies reduce competition, exploit consumers, and stifle small businesses. Polls show about 60% of U.S. adults believe big companies have too much power and should be reined in[59][74]. Money barrier: These dominant firms have massive financial resources to fend off regulation or competition. Big Tech in particular has deployed armies of lobbyists – for instance, Amazon, Google, and Facebook each spent over $10 million annually on lobbying in recent years – to influence Congress against aggressive antitrust action or privacy laws that might weaken their data advantage. When proposals arose to update antitrust laws to address tech platforms’ conflicts of interest (like Amazon favoring its own products on its marketplace, or Google preferencing its services in search results), the tech companies launched extensive PR campaigns arguing such regulations would harm consumers or “break” popular services. Indeed, legislation like the American Innovation and Choice Online Act had bipartisan support on paper, but never got a floor vote – widely attributed to Big Tech’s lobbying push (including courting key senators and funding ad campaigns in their districts). These companies also strategically hire former regulators and staff them in D.C. offices, making it harder for government to act decisively. Perceived threat: For consumers, the threat of monopolies is felt in ways like higher prices (e.g., cable/internet bills where there’s only one provider, or fees on app stores controlled by Apple/Google), lack of choices, and potentially lower quality or innovation. Small businesses perceive a threat in how big players can bully them – for instance, a small seller on Amazon lives at the mercy of Amazon’s platform rules and algorithms, and sometimes finds Amazon copying their successful product with an Amazon-branded version (a common complaint[50]). Similarly, app developers must pay a 30% commission to Apple’s App Store, a policy some call monopolistic. For workers, monopolies can mean fewer employment options and thus suppressed wages (economists note “monopsony” power in labor markets). So the public and many experts see monopolistic power as a drag on the economy and consumer welfare. Reality: The U.S. has laws against monopoly, but court interpretations over decades (influenced by a school of thought funded partly by business interests) made it harder to win antitrust cases unless consumer prices obviously rose. Tech giants often offer free services, complicating traditional antitrust arguments that rely on price harm. However, momentum has shifted: the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department in 2023–24 have active cases to break up or constrain Google (for search dominance)[63] and possibly Amazon (for e-commerce dominance). Big Tech is fighting these tooth and nail, hiring top lawyers – and their trials may drag on for years. Meanwhile, consolidation continues in other areas: airlines, banks, agriculture (a few companies control meat processing, for example). Each industry’s giants have trade associations and lobbyists flooding lawmakers with warnings that regulating or breaking them up would cause job losses or loss of American global competitiveness. Money’s role is stark: Congress has not meaningfully updated antitrust laws since the 1970s despite huge changes in the economy, arguably because monopolies themselves wield political influence to keep the rules favorable. Also, monopolistic firms can use campaign donations to curry favor – e.g., tech PACs donate to key committee members. The result is often inertia or industry-friendly policies (some critics note how many tax loopholes or subsidies benefit entrenched incumbents, raising barriers for new competitors). The perceived threat of unchecked corporate power resonates across partisan lines to some extent – a rare cross-ideology concern. Polls show both majorities of Democrats and Republicans think Big Tech should be regulated more[59][74]. Yet the legislative gridlock and heavy lobbying have stalled tangible action. If court cases fail and Congress doesn’t act, these few companies’ power will likely grow further (e.g., into AI, finance, healthcare data). Some fear an economy where innovation is only possible by permission of a few giants or by being acquired by them (Big Tech routinely buys startups before they can become threats). That could stifle the next generation of entrepreneurs. In summary, monopolies represent a hidden tax on consumers and a chokehold on competition – but the money barrier in politics has so far allowed them to mostly self-regulate. Cracks are forming (even conservative antitrust theorists now urge breaking up firms like Google), but it’s a David vs. Goliath fight, with Goliath extremely well-funded. Whether public concern can translate into enough political courage to overcome corporate lobbying remains an open question in 2025.

26. Artificial Intelligence and Automation (Economic Issue) – The rapid advancements in AI and robotics have brought both excitement and anxiety. Americans worry about automation eliminating jobs and about AI algorithms making consequential decisions that humans can’t control or understand. In one poll, 74% of Americans said they expect increased automation will lead to fewer jobs available for humans[75], and nearly half fear that their own jobs could be impacted within their lifetimes. The release of powerful AI chatbots (like GPT-4) in 2023 demonstrated AI’s leap in capabilities, raising questions about everything from misinformation (AI easily generating fake news or images) to the future of creative work. Money barrier: Adopting AI and automation can greatly improve efficiency and profits for companies – so there is a strong financial incentive for businesses to automate tasks traditionally done by workers. From manufacturing plants installing robots (which, for example, contributed to the loss of an estimated 1.7 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 due to increased productivity) to white-collar firms using AI to handle customer service or writing tasks, corporations stand to save on labor costs. This drive is backed by massive investment: big tech companies and many startups are pouring billions into AI R&D, racing each other to dominate the market. The benefits – higher productivity, new AI-driven products – also promise economic growth, but the distribution of gains is uneven. Workers whose tasks can be automated may lose jobs or see wages suppressed, while owners of AI tech (and highly skilled engineers) reap gains. Historically, when technology disrupted jobs, new industries eventually arose – but not without pain and transition for affected workers, sometimes lasting years or decades. One barrier to smoothing that transition is reluctance to spend money on worker retraining or social safety nets. For instance, while policymakers talk about retraining coal miners for solar jobs or truck drivers for other careers when self-driving trucks arrive, actually funding extensive retraining programs at scale is expensive and often lacking. Corporations benefiting from automation don’t necessarily invest in helping displaced workers (unless compelled by government or public pressure). Perceived threat: Many workers, especially those in routine or repetitive jobs, perceive AI and robots as a direct threat to their livelihoods. Even professionals are not immune – AI is now writing basic news stories, drafting legal contracts, diagnosing illnesses from scans, etc., tasks that were once thought safe from automation. This creates both fear of job loss and, for some, fear of purpose loss – people worry what their role will be in an AI-driven economy. The public also fears AI making decisions: for example, algorithms used in hiring or lending have shown biases (if trained on biased historical data, they can perpetuate discrimination). There’s concern about AI safety too – prominent tech figures have warned about uncontrolled AI potentially causing harm (though these existential AI scenarios are contested among experts). Reality: AI is likely to augment many jobs rather than fully replace them in the near term – e.g., a human doctor assisted by AI diagnosis tools, or a customer service rep handling more complex cases while AI deals with simple FAQs. But even augmentation can disrupt workforce needs (maybe you need fewer junior employees if AI boosts each senior employee’s productivity). The impact of AI and automation will vary by industry and is hard to predict precisely, which itself is unsettling for workers and policymakers. Meanwhile, countries like China and those in the EU are heavily investing in AI to gain a strategic edge – so there’s a competitive pressure on the U.S. to push AI deployment or risk falling behind economically and militarily. This adds another barrier to slowing down or carefully managing AI’s rollout – money and strategic rivalry pushes full steam ahead, possibly at the expense of thoughtful regulation. Indeed, calls for an AI “pause” or stronger oversight (voiced by some AI developers and public figures) have so far not led to concrete policy, as companies vie for AI leadership. Money in politics also plays a role: tech companies developing AI lobby against heavy-handed regulation that might limit innovation or require transparency of their models. For instance, proposals to mandate revealing the data AI is trained on or to assess algorithms for bias meet resistance from industry, claiming it’d be burdensome or reveal trade secrets. Additionally, automation’s potential to increase corporate profits means executives and shareholders are not naturally inclined to slow it down for the sake of workers – unless there are strong unions or government policies ensuring workers share the gains or have safety nets (both of which have weakened in recent decades). So, while the perceived threat of AI/automation is significant – roughly 3 in 4 Americans expect it to worsen inequality between rich and poor – the policy response is lagging. Without intervention (like education reform, social support for displaced workers, or possibly measures like a universal basic income), AI could exacerbate economic divides and social unrest. The challenge is balancing innovation with humanity: ensuring AI serves humans broadly, not just profit margins. Given the pace of advancement and money incentives, that balance is tricky. Thus, AI and automation remain a top worry: people are excited by new tech’s promise but anxious about its disruption, and they sense that society is not yet prepared to handle the consequences.

27. National Infrastructure and Decay (Economic Issue) – America’s roads, bridges, water systems, and power grid – much of it built in the mid-20th century – have been aging and, in many cases, deteriorating. High-profile failures like the Flint, Michigan water contamination (2014-2015), the collapse of a bridge in Pittsburgh in 2022, or massive power outages in Texas after a 2021 winter storm, highlight the risks of neglect. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2021 rated the overall U.S. infrastructure a “C-” (mediocre), noting that the country is spending only about half of what is required to meet infrastructure needs[31][32]. Money barrier: Upgrading infrastructure requires hefty upfront investment – literally trillions of dollars over decades. Politically, big spending bills on things like highways, transit, or pipes sometimes garner bipartisan support (because they create jobs back home and everyone uses infrastructure). Indeed, after years of talk, a major bipartisan infrastructure law was passed in 2021, providing about \$1.2 trillion for projects. That’s a significant boost, yet experts note it’s still playing catch-up on deferred maintenance rather than truly modernizing everything. Part of the barrier is that infrastructure funding had been a low priority in budgets compared to short-term needs or partisan fights. Perceived threat: When bridges suddenly collapse or lead-tainted water poisons children, the threat is stark and immediate. Polls show about 60% of Americans consider the condition of infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) a big problem, and more – around 74% – believe their everyday life is impacted by infrastructure quality (like traffic delays, etc.). Many Americans worry the U.S. is falling behind other countries (for example, China spends over twice as much on infrastructure relative to GDP). Reality: Many U.S. systems are indeed past their design life: over 45,000 bridges (about 7.5% of the total) are rated “structurally deficient,” meaning they require significant repair[31][76]. In some cities, water main breaks are common due to century-old pipes. The electric grid struggles with extreme weather – in the 2020s, the average American experienced more hours of power outage per year than in decades prior, partly due to underinvestment in grid resilience. The money barrier historically was that infrastructure is expensive and often not politically “sexy” – lawmakers prefer cutting ribbons on new projects rather than allocating funds to maintain old ones. Also, the tax-averse climate made raising the gas tax (which funds highways) or other user fees nearly impossible since the 1990s, so the Highway Trust Fund has repeatedly verged on insolvency. Money influence: Construction and engineering lobbies actually favor infrastructure spending (it means contracts for them). The 2021 bill’s passage was partly aided by those industry voices aligning with public interest. However, sometimes local politics misallocate resources: pork-barrel projects (like a new highway to nowhere) might get funded due to a powerful legislator, while less visible maintenance goes unfunded. Additionally, private utility companies (like power and water providers) balance shareholder profit with infrastructure upgrades – sometimes skimping on upgrades to maximize short-term profits, leading to failures (e.g., some blame Texas’s largely deregulated power sector for not winterizing equipment to save money, contributing to the 2021 grid collapse). Regulatory bodies often struggle to enforce long-term investment, especially if companies successfully lobby to avoid strict standards. The cost of inaction or patchwork fixes is high: ASCE estimates deficient infrastructure costs every American household \$3,300 per year in hidden costs (like car repairs from potholes, lost time, water leaks, etc.). Lawmakers finally recognized some of this with the 2021 law and additional funds in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act earmarked for grid and water improvements. The question is if those funds will be efficiently used and sustained. Perceived threat vs. political will: Americans absolutely notice when infrastructure fails – it’s not partisan when a bridge collapses under drivers or a dam breaks. Those moments create spurts of political will (like a bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 spurred some bridge repairs nationwide). However, because infrastructure spending tends to be long-term and the benefits diffuse (preventing a disaster is less visible than reacting to one), it’s historically been kicked down the road. The current infusion of money is a major step, but implementation will take years. Meanwhile, climate change is testing infrastructure in new ways (stronger storms, floods, heat buckling rails), requiring even more investment to adapt. The money barrier is partly that it requires sustained commitment across election cycles – something our system isn’t great at without constant public pressure. For now, infrastructure remains a concern on Americans’ minds, but with cautious optimism as projects break ground thanks to new funding. Keeping up momentum (and avoiding diversion of funds to pet projects or waste) will determine if this concern lessens in coming years or if more catastrophes reinvigorate it.

28. Jobs and Unemployment (Economic Issue) – While the headline unemployment rate in 2025 is relatively low (~3.5%), Americans still rank the economy and jobs as top concerns. Issues like job security, wage stagnation, and the availability of good-paying jobs (especially for those without college degrees) weigh on workers. Polls show about 60% of Americans worry a great deal about the economy generally[77], and by extension the job market. Perceived threat: Many people fear losing their job to either outsourcing, downturns, or technology (as discussed with automation). Even in a statistical “full employment” scenario, not all jobs are equal – there’s a perceived threat that the new jobs being created are mostly gig work or low-benefit service jobs that don’t support a middle-class life. When inflation spikes (as it did in 2022), any wage gains can feel negated, renewing anxiety about living paycheck to paycheck. Younger workers are concerned that they might not achieve the same career stability or upward mobility their parents did. Reality: The U.S. economy has undergone a shift from manufacturing to service and digital jobs. Manufacturing employment dropped from 17 million in 2000 to about 13 million today, partly from automation and trade competition. While new industries (IT, renewable energy, healthcare) have grown, they often require different skills, leaving some workers behind. There is also regional disparity – coastal and metro areas have boomed with tech and finance jobs, whereas many rural or Rust Belt communities still haven’t recovered the jobs lost in past decades. Government policy can influence job growth (through investments in infrastructure, incentives for certain industries, job training programs). Indeed, the recent federal laws (infrastructure act, CHIPS Act for semiconductor manufacturing, and Inflation Reduction Act for green energy) are in part job-creation bills – aiming to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in construction, chip fabs, battery factories, etc. If these succeed, they could alleviate some job worries, but it will take time for projects to ramp up. Money barrier: However, companies are often more focused on maximizing efficiency (sometimes cutting jobs to save costs) than on providing stable employment. Wall Street pressures for short-term profit can lead to layoffs even when a company is profitable (to please investors with higher margins). This dynamic – shareholder primacy – can put workers in a precarious spot despite overall economic growth. On a policy level, big business lobbies tend to oppose extensive labor protections or programs that could increase their costs (like robust training programs funded by employer fees, or higher minimum wages). They argue such measures hurt job creation, though evidence doesn’t always bear that out straightforwardly. Meanwhile, labor unions – which fought for job security and better pay – now represent only 10% of U.S. workers[78][79], a historic low. The decline of unions is a factor in wage stagnation for many jobs (workers have less bargaining power). But efforts to strengthen unions or enact new labor laws (like the PRO Act) face strong opposition from corporate interests who pour money into lobbying against them. So the money barrier to improving job quality is partly that those with wealth and power often benefit from the status quo of a flexible, less organized labor force. Another angle: when unemployment is low, as now, the Federal Reserve often raises interest rates to prevent “overheating” – which can deliberately cool off hiring. This happened in 2022–2023: to fight inflation, the Fed tightened monetary policy, risking higher unemployment as a trade-off. This policy lever is somewhat blunt and can disproportionately hurt certain sectors (housing, for example, when rates rise, construction jobs slow). So macroeconomic management itself sometimes treats a rise in unemployment as necessary medicine – a concept that doesn’t feel great to workers about to lose jobs. All these factors feed the public sentiment that good jobs (with decent pay, benefits, stability) are not as easy to come by as they should be. People see low unemployment but also see many friends juggling multiple gig jobs or leaving the workforce out of frustration. Perceived threat vs. political will: Historically, both parties promised jobs, but they differ on method (tax cuts and deregulation vs. public investment and raising minimum wage). Money in politics influences this debate: big corporations and the wealthy generally push for policies favoring capital (low taxes, free trade) which, while they can create some jobs, also often lead to offshoring or emphasis on shareholder returns over employee pay. Those policies dominated for decades (the “trickle-down” approach). Now, there’s a bit of shift – even conservatives talk about bringing back manufacturing jobs or confronting China’s trade practices, and liberals talk about “good union jobs” in green energy. Yet, the money barrier ensures incremental moves. For example, even as large bipartisan majorities of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage (stuck at \$7.25 since 2009) to around \$15, it hasn’t happened – primarily because business lobbies (restaurants, retailers) successfully warn lawmakers (especially Republicans, but also some moderate Democrats) that it could hurt small businesses. Thus, the minimum wage remains so low that in no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom apartment at market rent. These disconnects keep job concerns alive. In summary, Americans want not just “jobs” but good jobs, and fear a future where those are scarce. Until policy – shaped by who has influence – shifts more toward empowering workers (through education, stronger labor standards, innovation that creates new industries) rather than solely catering to capital, the job anxiety will persist even if the unemployment rate is low on paper.

29. Income Inequality and Wealth Gap (Economic Issue) – The United States has one of the highest levels of income and wealth inequality among advanced economies, and this has been rising since the 1980s. The richest 1% now accumulate about 20% of national income and hold over 30% of wealth – while the bottom 50% of Americans have a relatively tiny share. This vast gap troubles many: 61% of Americans say the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy[57][80], and about 60% are bothered a lot by the feeling that corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes[57][58]. Money barrier: The very fact of inequality means those at the top have outsized political influence to preserve their advantages. Billionaires and large corporations, through campaign donations, lobbyists, and think tanks, have successfully pushed for policies that keep their taxes relatively low and their profits high. For instance, the 2017 tax overhaul significantly cut corporate tax rates and estate taxes, delivering the biggest benefits to the top 1% – those cuts were lobbied for aggressively by business groups and wealthy advocates. Attempts to raise taxes on the rich (such as a proposed “millionaires surtax” or taxing capital gains at the same rate as wages) face unified opposition from moneyed interests, who often frame such measures as harmful to economic growth or “unfairly punishing success.” The result: in recent years, billionaires often pay lower effective tax rates than middle-class workers[81][80] (due to loopholes and capital income being taxed lightly). That fuels the wealth gap further – during the pandemic recovery, U.S. billionaires’ combined wealth jumped by over \$1 trillion, even as many low-wage workers struggled. Perceived threat: Many ordinary Americans feel the American Dream is slipping away – that no matter how hard they work, they can’t get ahead, while the ultra-rich get richer by the day. Stagnant wages for the bottom half (when adjusted for inflation) over decades feed this perception. It’s demoralizing and seen as a threat to social stability – historically, extreme inequality can breed unrest or erode faith in democracy (if people believe the system is rigged for the rich, they lose trust in institutions). This sentiment crosses party lines to an extent: populists on both left and right decry elites and big corporations (though they identify different culprits – left-wing populists blame Wall Street and corporate greed; right-wing populists often blame “globalist” tech or media elites). There is broad support for certain remedies, like raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, or taxing the wealthy more – all aimed at reducing inequality. Reality: Reducing inequality is challenging because the forces driving it are structural (technology favoring skilled labor, globalization outsourcing jobs, decline of unions, etc.) and the wealthy have means to shape policy in their favor. But policy can make a difference: other countries with similar economic forces use taxes and social programs to redistribute more, resulting in less post-tax inequality. The U.S., however, does less of that. Money in politics is a big reason – the wealthy lobby against redistributive policies, and campaign finance rules allow them huge influence (e.g. the Koch network or Sheldon Adelson spent fortunes backing candidates who oppose expanding social welfare or raising taxes; on the other side, some left-leaning billionaires like George Soros fund progressive causes, but the scale is smaller relative to national needs). When inequality is discussed in DC, often proposals get watered down. For example, the 2021 Build Back Better plan initially included things like free community college and extended child tax credits (which had temporarily cut child poverty nearly in half[11]), but these were dropped or sunset due to resistance from a few key moderate Democrats (who faced heavy lobbying from business groups to limit spending and taxes). Thus, popular and effective anti-poverty measures lapsed because the political will was thwarted by the influence of a wealthy minority’s interests (e.g., hedge fund managers intensely lobbied to preserve the “carried interest” loophole, and succeeded again). Perceived threat vs. political reality: Polls consistently show Americans think the rich and corporations should pay more in taxes – about 60% say so[57][80] – yet Congress often does the opposite (as in 2017). This gap between public preference and policy outcome is a classic case of money overriding majority. The reality of inequality is visible in daily life – homelessness across from luxury high-rises, medical bankruptcies while billionaires launch space rockets. These contrasts have begun to stir more concern (even some high earners voice that it’s too extreme). Until the influence of wealth in our political system is tempered (through campaign finance reform, lobbying rules, or electing more populist candidates responsive to people not donors), it’s difficult to enact policies that significantly narrow the gap. Still, public pressure has had some effect: in 2023, the Biden administration imposed higher taxes on corporations via the minimum book tax in the Inflation Reduction Act – a modest step that polls very well – after years of reports of huge companies like Amazon paying $0 in federal tax. This shows change is possible when momentum builds. Overall, inequality remains a top concern because it encapsulates many economic frustrations – and addressing it is seen as key to restoring the broadly shared prosperity that many feel has been lost in recent decades.

30. Housing Affordability and Home Ownership (Economic Issue) – The cost of housing – whether renting or buying – has soared in much of the country, far outpacing incomes. Many Americans name housing affordability as a major concern: about 74% say the lack of affordable housing is a significant problem in their community[82][83]. Rents hit record highs in recent years, and home prices jumped over 30% in 2020-2022, pushing the dream of home ownership out of reach for many middle-class families (especially younger adults and those in expensive coastal cities). Money barrier: The housing market is a complex interplay of supply and demand, but moneyed interests and policies have contributed to the crunch. On the supply side, decades of restrictive zoning (like forbidding apartments or requiring large lots) – often influenced by homeowner groups protecting property values – have severely limited building in many high-demand areas. This NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) reduces housing supply and drives up prices. Attempts to loosen zoning (to allow duplexes, say, or taller buildings near transit) frequently meet fierce local opposition and lobbying by some real estate interests or community associations. On the demand side, record-low interest rates (until 2022) and investor activity have poured money into housing: large Wall Street firms have bought up single-family homes as rental investments, competing with regular families and driving prices higher. In some cities, foreign investors parking cash in real estate also bid up prices for scarce units. Thus, housing became not just shelter but a financial asset class – and government policies (like tax breaks for mortgage interest or capital gains exclusions on home sales) further incentivize treating homes as investments. These policies mainly benefit wealthier homeowners and can indirectly raise prices (by boosting purchasing power and thus bids). Perceived threat: For young adults, housing costs are a top frustration – many are stuck renting indefinitely or living with parents because buying a house requires huge down payments amid skyrocketing prices. Renters of all ages see a threat to stability, as rent hikes can force moves or evictions; over 49% of renter households are cost-burdened (paying over 30% of income on rent)[84][85]. In extreme cases, high rents contribute to homelessness surges (e.g., in California, lack of affordable housing is widely cited as a root cause of the homelessness crisis). Middle-class families worry their kids won’t be able to afford to live in the same community due to costs. These fears are causing political backlash: in recent elections, local measures to allow more housing or fund affordable units have sometimes passed as voters recognize the urgency, but other times NIMBY attitudes prevail. Reality: The U.S. simply hasn’t built enough housing where people need it. By one estimate, the nation is short over 3.8 million homes relative to population growth and household formation. Construction hasn’t kept up (except at the luxury end), and now rising interest rates and material costs are slowing building again. The Biden administration has encouraged zoning reform at the local level (offering incentives), and some states like California have forced cities to plan for more housing. But those changes take time to translate to actual homes. Meanwhile, rent relief or assistance often falls short: the federal Section 8 voucher program only serves about a quarter of eligible low-income renters due to limited funding (and many landlords don’t accept vouchers, another barrier). In the home ownership realm, high prices plus now higher mortgage rates (around 7%) make monthly payments extremely steep; for example, a typical mortgage payment is up nearly 50% from 2019. This locks out first-time buyers and widens wealth inequality, since existing homeowners gain equity while renters hemorrhage income to landlords. Money in politics: The housing industry (realtors, builders) does lobby for some positive things like looser zoning or first-time buyer credits, but they also resist others (like any change to the mortgage interest tax deduction, which inflates demand). Local governments often rely on property taxes, and some have incentives to keep values high (which limited supply helps do). Homeowner associations are well-resourced and vote in large numbers, often pressuring officials to block dense housing that could "change neighborhood character." All this creates a money/power asymmetry: those who need more housing (renters, new buyers) are not as organized as those who benefit from scarce housing (owners enjoying rising values). Thus, lawmakers often cater to the latter – maintaining restrictive zoning or doing little to mandate affordability – despite public polls indicating broad concern. Finally, interest groups like private equity landlords quietly lobby at federal and state levels too – for instance, to ensure regulations don’t restrict their ability to buy large portfolios of homes or to prevent rent control expansion (they argue it would deter investment in new housing). Perceived threat vs. political will: The threat of a housing bubble burst or generational disillusionment is real if this issue isn’t addressed. Housing touches everything – employment decisions (people can’t move for jobs due to cost), family formation (some delay having kids because they lack space), retirement security (some can’t downsize because there’s nowhere cheaper to go). It’s creeping toward a social crisis. The passage of some funding in the 2021 infrastructure law for housing and the pushing of zoning reform show momentum, but not nearly at the scale needed. Until more politicians treat housing as core infrastructure – investing public funds in it and overriding parochial blocks – housing affordability will remain an intense worry for the average American household.

31. Labor Rights and Decline of Unions (Economic Issue) – The American labor movement has dramatically weakened over the past few decades, with union membership plummeting from about a third of workers in the 1950s to just 10% in 2023 (only 6% in the private sector)[78][79]. This decline in unions correlates with stagnant wages, reduced benefits, and less bargaining power for workers. Many Americans are concerned that ordinary workers have lost their voice, while corporations and executives have gained outsized power. In fact, 65% of Americans express a positive view of unions and many say the decline of unions has been bad for the country[86]. Money barrier: A key reason union membership fell is sustained corporate and political opposition. Employers often aggressively fight unionization efforts, hiring expensive “union avoidance” consultants and even illegally firing pro-union workers (the penalties for doing so are minimal). Whole industries that used to be heavily unionized (manufacturing, trucking, airlines) saw companies busting unions or shifting operations to non-union regions/states (or abroad) to cut labor costs. The money advantage in these battles is usually on the employer’s side: unions rely on worker dues and shoe-leather organizing, while companies can deploy vast resources to delay or intimidate – e.g., holding mandatory anti-union meetings, drawn-out legal challenges to election results, etc. Government labor law provides a formal process for unionizing, but it has weak enforcement teeth (a company can violate it and just get a slap on the wrist). Efforts to reform labor laws – such as the PRO Act, which would strengthen penalties and possibly enable easier union elections – are stalled in Congress due to fierce opposition from business lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce. These groups spend heavily on lobbying and campaign contributions to politicians (mostly Republicans, but also some moderate Democrats) to prevent any legislation that would empower unions. Perceived threat: For many workers, the threat is that without collective bargaining, they are at the mercy of employers for wages, schedules, and job security. The frustrations erupted visibly in recent years with high-profile strikes and union drives: for instance, Amazon warehouse workers and Starbucks baristas pushed to unionize as they perceived they were being overworked and underpaid by hugely profitable companies. These efforts have broad public sympathy – polls showed majority support for Amazon and Starbucks workers seeking unions – but the companies have fought them vigorously. Amazon spent millions on anti-union consultants and even got one warehouse union vote overturned by flooding the zone with misconduct (the union still won a separate facility vote on Staten Island in 2022). The reality is that it is very hard to form a new union under current law; employers legally can saturate workers with anti-union messaging and can force a new vote even after one is won, dragging things out until momentum fades. For existing unions, many have seen weakened contracts over time due to competitive pressures (e.g., auto unions gave concessions during the 2009 crisis to save jobs, which they are only now trying to claw back in the 2023 UAW strike). The decline of unions is connected to inequality (unions helped set wage standards even for non-union workers in industries like trucking or telecom – their absence lets companies push wages down across the board). Money in politics also directly shapes labor policy at state levels: many conservative-led states passed “right-to-work” laws (which allow workers to opt out of union dues while still benefiting from union contracts, thereby draining union resources) – these laws were often championed by business-funded think tanks and interest groups. With union membership falling, unions also have less political clout to advocate for pro-worker policies (like higher minimum wage or paid leave), though they still are influential in some sectors and elections (especially supporting Democrats). Meanwhile, corporations and wealthy donors have far more political spending ability, often aligned against union interests (like advocating for free trade deals that can outsource union jobs, or resisting labor regulations). Despite these headwinds, there’s been a slight resurgence of labor action – 2022 and 2023 saw an uptick in strikes (teachers, nurses, Hollywood writers/actors, auto workers) and new organizing drives (Starbucks unionized over 300 stores). Public support for unions is at a 50-year high (around 67% approval in Gallup polls)[86]. This suggests people see the value in collective worker power as an antidote to corporate power. But unless labor laws change or unions find new models to organize (e.g., sectoral bargaining by entire industries), the structural decline may continue. Perceived threat vs. political reality: Many policymakers pay lip service to valuing workers but stop short of truly tilting the balance. For instance, President Biden – a self-declared “union man” – had a mixed record: he voiced strong support for Amazon workers unionizing and appointed pro-labor officials to the NLRB (which did help speed up union elections), but he also signed a law in 2022 forcing rail unions to accept a contract and avert a strike (denying them their leverage to push for paid sick days – a move criticized by many unionists). This showed the tension between avoiding economic disruptions and bolstering union demands. In summary, the decline of unions and worker bargaining power remains a key concern tied to many others (inequality, stagnant wages). Overcoming the moneyed barriers to a revival of labor rights would likely require sweeping reforms (which business interests fiercely oppose) or significant worker-driven action that shifts the status quo. For now, workers’ share of economic gains continues to lag, and the struggle for a more level playing field in the workplace remains a core worry for those who see today’s economy as giving too much power to employers and too little to employees.

32. Tax Fairness and Complex Tax Code (Economic Issue) – The U.S. tax system is notoriously complex, and many Americans feel it is tilted in favor of the wealthy and corporations. Polls consistently find about 60% of Americans are bothered “a lot” that some corporations and rich people do not pay their fair share of taxes[57][80]. Additionally, more than half of Americans (53%) say the complexity of the tax code itself is a major problem, creating frustration and potential unfairness[87][88]. Money barrier: The complexity of the tax code is not accidental – it is, in part, the result of decades of intense lobbying carving out myriad deductions, credits, and loopholes for specific interests. Tax preparation companies (like Intuit, maker of TurboTax) also have a stake in a convoluted system; they lobbied strongly to prevent the IRS from offering simple pre-filled tax returns or free online filing for all (they even struck deals with the IRS historically to keep such services limited). This lobbying was successful for years – the U.S., unlike many countries, makes taxpayers do the heavy lifting instead of government calculating your bill for you. Intuit spent millions in Washington to ensure filing taxes remained difficult enough that Americans felt compelled to buy their software[39][40]. Only recently, under pressure, is the IRS piloting a free filing portal, and the tax prep industry is still trying to quash it. Meanwhile, wealthy individuals and corporations lobby to preserve favorable tax provisions: for instance, the hedge fund and private equity industry has fiercely defended the “carried interest” loophole (which taxes their earnings at low capital gains rates) – and succeeded in defeating attempts to close it, even though closing it would increase fairness and raise revenue. The result is that billionaires often pay lower effective tax rates (when including all taxes) than their secretaries[81][80], fueling a sense of injustice. Corporate lobbying likewise achieved the 2017 tax cut that slashed the top corporate rate from 35% to 21%, and though supporters promised it’d stimulate massive investment and wage growth, much of the benefit went to stock buybacks and shareholders. Many mega-corporations still exploit loopholes to pay far below the statutory rate – in 2020, 55 large U.S. companies paid $0 in federal income tax despite substantial profits, thanks to breaks and prior losses[50]. This led to the new 15% minimum tax on book profits in the 2022 IRA law (aimed to ensure even profitable companies pay something), a rare win for tax fairness. But even that modest measure was hard-won and opposed by business lobbies. Perceived threat: For the average citizen, the tax system’s unfairness and complexity is demoralizing. People see small businesses and regular workers having taxes withheld like clockwork, whereas wealthy investors or multinational companies can hire accountants to exploit every trick to zero out their bill. It creates a cynicism that the system is rigged. The complexity also wastes enormous time – estimates say Americans spend billions of hours on tax compliance. It often takes money to save money on taxes: sophisticated advice that normal folks can’t afford. All this feeds the perception that taxes are both too high on the middle class and not high enough on the rich – indeed, 60% say the wealthy and corporations pay too little[57][80], while relatively few (~20%) say the same about the poor. Yet, money in politics stymies attempts to remedy this. When politicians float raising the top tax rate or imposing new taxes on billionaires, well-funded anti-tax campaigns mobilize, warning of economic harm or portraying it as class warfare. For example, Biden’s proposal to tax unrealized gains of ultra-millionaires to prevent the super-rich from deferring taxes indefinitely went nowhere, largely due to unified Republican opposition and a few Democratic defectors under heavy donor influence. Another example: Intuit and H&R Block lobbying (and even deceptive practices) forestalled simpler filing for decades[89][90], costing taxpayers money and stress every year. The reality is the IRS could calculate many returns automatically (they have your wage data) – in countries like Japan or the U.K., most people just get a notice of how much tax is due or refunded. But here, industry pressure kept that convenience at bay. However, momentum may be shifting: revelations that billionaires like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk paid zero federal tax in some years[50] angered the public and put pressure on Congress to act. And the IRS has been beefed up with funding to crack down on wealthy tax evaders (though that too faced opposition – ironically, some politicians falsely claimed the IRS funding was to “harass regular folks,” when in fact the intent is to focus on complex evasion by the rich). Money barrier within government: There’s also an internal issue – decades of budget cuts to the IRS (cheered on by anti-tax lawmakers) left it with outdated technology and too few auditors specialized in complex returns, meaning many rich filers went unaudited. The new funding aims to fix that, but opponents are still trying to claw that money back, essentially protecting wealthy tax cheats under the populist guise of stopping IRS overreach. Summing up, Americans’ desire for a simpler, fairer tax system is clear, but those benefiting from the confusing status quo – be it tax prep firms or wealthy taxpayers – have resisted change effectively. Achieving tax fairness likely requires sustained public outcry to overcome the entrenched money influence that has preserved loopholes and complexity for so long. Recent steps like the minimum corporate tax and increased IRS enforcement on high-earners are positive, but whether these remain or get rolled back will depend on whether voter sentiment can outweigh the well-funded anti-tax lobby in the coming years.

33. Veterans’ Care and Support (Economic Issue) – The United States has about 19 million military veterans, and ensuring they receive proper healthcare, benefits, and support after service is a widely shared priority – at least in words. Yet, recurring scandals and shortfalls in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system have made many doubt whether the country is living up to its promises. For instance, a 2019 poll found that 64% of veterans felt the government wasn’t doing a good job meeting the needs of veterans[91]. Issues include long wait times for VA medical appointments, high rates of veteran homelessness (over 30,000 veterans are homeless on a given night), and bureaucratic delays or denials in processing disability claims. Money barrier: Adequately funding and reforming the VA is expensive and often gets caught in broader budget fights. While politicians routinely express reverence for veterans, the money allocated hasn’t always matched the rhetoric. The infamous 2014 Phoenix VA scandal – where some veterans died while waiting months for appointments – was largely a result of capacity shortages and poor management at an under-resourced VA hospital. Congress did respond with the Veterans Choice Act to allow more outsourcing of care to private providers when VA wait times are long, which helped some but also introduced new complexities and costs. The push to outsource (championed by some as giving vets “choice”) sometimes came at the expense of investing in the VA’s own capacity – and was influenced by private healthcare companies who stood to gain from VA patients. That raises the money influence question: some lawmakers ideologically or financially aligned with the private sector advocate partial privatization of veterans’ care, rather than pouring money into fixing the VA. Critics say this approach threatens to hollow out the VA, which is a specialized system attuned to veterans’ unique needs (PTSD, traumatic brain injury, etc.). So a tug-of-war exists between fully funding the VA versus diverting funds to private care – with veteran groups themselves split at times on which is better. Perceived threat: Veterans, particularly those of recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, face elevated health issues (both physical like amputations, burn pit exposures and mental like PTSD, at a rate of about 15% for those deployed). Many transitioning to civilian life struggle with these issues – the threat is that they fall through the cracks. The high suicide rate among veterans (about 17 per day) is often cited as a national shame and crisis. Veterans see delays or denial of benefits as a personal betrayal by the country they served. The public largely agrees veterans deserve top-notch care – surveys show extremely high support for funding VA services. But in practice, money and bureaucracy get in the way. For example, the backlog of disability claims can number in the hundreds of thousands, partly because the VA’s IT systems and staffing haven’t kept up; appropriations for modernizing those systems have been piecemeal. Reality: Some improvements have happened – e.g., the post-9/11 GI Bill significantly expanded education benefits, which many younger veterans have utilized. And in 2022, Congress passed the PACT Act, which expands healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances (like burn pits) – a major win that could help millions. Notably, that law only passed after a strong advocacy campaign and public pressure shamed some previously opposing senators (who cited cost concerns) into supporting it. Initially, budget hawks balked at the potential $280 billion cost over a decade, illustrating that even veteran care bills can face money barrier arguments about the deficit. Ultimately, public sentiment (“we owe it to them”) overrode the cost issue in that case. Yet, day-to-day issues persist: rural veterans often must travel hours to a VA clinic (if they even have transportation), and while telehealth has expanded, not all older vets are comfortable with it or have internet access. Efforts to hire more VA doctors and nurses run into competition with higher-paying private hospitals – the VA has about 50,000 vacancies for medical staff. Filling those would require raising pay or otherwise incentivizing service in the VA, which again comes down to funding decisions. The perceived threat if we don’t address these issues is that future young people may be less willing to volunteer for the military if they see veterans not cared for, and that we will morally fail those who bore the burden of war. Public and bipartisan political will is generally strong for veterans in principle, but following through consistently (especially once wars are over and the public’s attention moves on) has been the challenge. Money tends to flow readily to active defense (we quickly fund new weapons or military actions), but the more invisible costs of long-term veteran care can be harder to keep in focus. In summary, veterans’ care is a concern that unites Americans in theory – no one openly opposes helping vets – but the money barrier comes through in budget allocations and political prioritization. Only sustained pressure and perhaps structural changes (like automatic funding triggers for VA based on veteran population needs) will ensure reality matches the promises. Until then, veterans and their advocates will continue to fight – sometimes literally protesting or lobbying – to get the care and support they were guaranteed, making this an enduring item on the public’s list of concerns.

34. Public Health and Future Pandemics (Economic Issue) – The COVID-19 pandemic brutally exposed gaps in America’s public health preparedness. While the acute crisis has ebbed (as of 2025, COVID is much better controlled), Americans remain wary that another pandemic or health emergency could emerge – and worry that we may not be better prepared next time. A Gallup poll in late 2022 found 58% of Americans are concerned there will be another pandemic in the future. Moreover, many noted shortcomings in the COVID response: inadequate early testing, confusing guidance, political interference in health agencies, and unequal healthcare access. Money barrier: U.S. public health infrastructure has been underfunded for decades – only about 3% of national health spending goes to public health (preventive programs, health departments, etc.), with the vast majority on medical treatment. Between crises, political leaders often cut public health budgets. For example, after the 2008 recession, local and state health departments shed tens of thousands of jobs (over 56,000 between 2008 and 2017), leaving them thin when COVID hit. Emergency funding did flow during COVID (over \$100 billion for health response), but much was one-time. As COVID wanes, some of that funding is ending, and already states are laying off contact tracers or closing testing sites. The money barrier is that sustained investment in preparedness (stockpiles, vaccine research, surge capacity in hospitals, etc.) doesn’t have an obvious immediate payoff and is thus easy prey for budget cuts – until an emergency comes and the lack of readiness costs far more in lives and dollars. Perceived threat: The public clearly sees health emergencies as a threat now – COVID killed over a million Americans, devastated the economy, and disrupted every aspect of life. There’s a broad desire not to repeat that scenario. People worry about known threats like new COVID variants, or other diseases like monkeypox (which had an outbreak in 2022) or even the spread of chronic conditions like opioids or obesity which also constitute public health crises. They also fear government overreach in health crises – pandemic mandates became very politicized, and many, especially conservatives, felt their personal freedoms were threatened by measures like lockdowns or mask/vaccine mandates. This means future public health orders might face more resistance, making managing an outbreak harder. Reality: Experts say another pandemic is not a question of “if” but “when” – could be influenza, another coronavirus, something unknown. The reality is we need to strengthen early warning systems, supply chains for protective equipment, and vaccine development pipelines. The money barrier to doing so is partly political short-termism (spend on urgent issues now, not hypothetical future ones) and partly the fragmentation of the U.S. healthcare system (public health is largely state/local run, leading to uneven capabilities). Some post-COVID improvements are underway: the government created a new agency (ASPR’s BARDA division beefed up) specifically to accelerate medical countermeasures, and there’s discussion of increasing domestic manufacturing for medical supplies to avoid the shortages seen in 2020. But those require funding that must be appropriated each year, and already Congress in 2023 failed to pass additional COVID response funds due to spending disputes. Public health departments are also dealing with burnout and resignations (after facing intense pressure and even threats during COVID); recruiting and retaining skilled epidemiologists or health officers will need competitive pay and better working conditions, which again ties to funding. Another money influence factor: industries often push back on certain public health measures due to profit concerns – e.g., travel and hospitality industries lost greatly in shutdowns and lobbied to lift restrictions early; food and beverage lobbies often oppose health regulations like sugar taxes or advertising limits aimed at improving health. So, in tackling chronic public health issues (like diet-related illness), the economic interests of powerful companies can impede progress. We saw during COVID that even vaccine distribution was influenced by pharmaceutical companies’ pricing and patent control (initially limiting generic global production). Moving forward, balancing profit and public good remains a challenge – for instance, will vaccine makers share technology quickly in a new crisis or will profit motives slow things? In summary, the pandemic made Americans painfully aware of the threat of emerging diseases and biothreats. The lesson was that preparedness saves lives, but the money barrier is keeping that lesson implemented when the immediacy fades. Ensuring robust public health funding and authority when memories of COVID grow distant will be crucial – otherwise, as many fear, we risk repeating mistakes and suffering avoidable losses when the next pathogen strikes.

35. College Affordability and Student Debt (Economic Issue) – The cost of higher education in the U.S. has ballooned over the past few decades, far outpacing inflation and wage growth. Consequently, student loan debt has swelled to about \$1.7 trillion nationwide, held by over 43 million Americans. This has become a pressing concern: young adults fear they’ll be indebted for life, and parents worry about how to pay for their children’s college without sacrificing retirement. Surveys show roughly 6 in 10 Americans say college is not affordable for most people and that high debt is a problem for the economy. Money barrier: Several factors drive college costs. Public universities have faced funding cuts from state governments (especially after the 2008 recession), shifting more burden to students via tuition. Private colleges have less incentive to lower prices as long as demand stays high – in fact, some use high “sticker prices” as a signal of prestige, offsetting with selective aid. The availability of federal student loans (which expanded greatly in the 2000s) ironically allowed colleges to keep raising tuition, knowing students could borrow more – a phenomenon critics call the “college financing bubble.” While those loans help more people attend, they also saddle many with debt, especially if they don’t graduate or get a degree with sufficient earnings. The higher ed sector has also invested in amenities and administrative staff over the years (some say excessively), adding to costs. Perceived threat: For young people, the prospect of taking on tens of thousands in loans – often at interest rates of 5% or more – is daunting. This leads some to skip college or pursue cheaper alternatives (community college, trade school). For those who did borrow, many delay milestones like buying a home, marrying, or starting a business due to debt burdens. There’s a social threat too: a sense that the American promise of upward mobility via education is broken if only the wealthy or those willing to incur huge debt can get degrees. Polling shows broad support (even majority of young Republicans) for some student debt relief measures[72][92]. Indeed, in 2022, President Biden ordered a one-time cancellation of \$10k-\$20k per borrower (for those under certain income limits), citing the pandemic emergency. Reality: That relief would have erased or reduced loans for about 40 million people, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023 as exceeding executive authority. Now, the administration is trying a different avenue (using a law for income-driven repayment reforms) to forgive some debts – but meanwhile, student loan payments resumed after a pandemic pause, squeezing many budgets again. The economic reality is that student debt weighs on consumer spending and entrepreneurship; some economists liken its drag on millennials’ finances to that of the housing bubble on previous generations. Why hasn’t this been fixed? Money and politics. The student loan servicing industry (companies contracted to collect payments) and some private lenders profit from the status quo and lobbied against broad forgiveness (which would cut their revenue). More broadly, the partisan divide in views of government spending and personal responsibility plays a role: many Republican lawmakers (and donors who may not have student debt themselves) opposed cancellation, framing it as an unfair giveaway or complaining it doesn’t solve root costs. Meanwhile, universities continue raising fees, knowing demand remains and loans or grants will cover some. Efforts to reduce future borrowing – like boosting Pell Grants (which once covered 3/4 of public college costs, now barely 1/3) – require budget allocations that often get neglected amid other priorities or tax cut zeal. Some innovative ideas (like tying federal aid to states maintaining funding or penalizing colleges with poor graduate earnings outcomes) often die under lobbying by higher ed institutions who fear too much regulation or loss of autonomy. Money in politics and education: The for-profit college industry in particular spent heavily to block regulations – e.g., Obama-era rules to cut off aid to predatory for-profit programs were delayed and diluted after lobbying and then rolled back under DeVos, leading to many students at fraudulent colleges ending up with debt and worthless credits. Only after scandals did the government finally cancel loans for some defrauded borrowers (like at Corinthian Colleges), but that took years of legal fights. So, money and influence have often stymied student protections. Public sentiment: Overwhelmingly, Americans want college to be more affordable. Many support ideas like tuition-free community college (part of Biden’s agenda that failed in Congress due to a couple of centrist Democratic senators objecting to the cost). Those objectors cited fiscal concerns (and pressure from some private college interests perhaps), illustrating again how money barriers (not wanting to raise taxes on the rich or spend more) block systemic change. Without tackling root issues – underfunding of public colleges, lack of accountability for tuition hikes, and an economy requiring credentials – the student debt crisis will likely persist. Already, 24% of adults with college experience say they or their family have taken on debt that will be hard to pay off[72]. The perceived threat is a generation financially crippled by education, and a country missing out on the full economic potential of well-educated but debt-burdened citizens. Until political will and funding align to reform the system (be it through debt relief, cost control, or alternate training pathways), college affordability will remain a top-tier economic worry for American families.

36. Child Care Costs and Family Support (Economic Issue) – For working parents, especially those with young children, finding affordable, quality child care is a major challenge in the U.S. Child care costs rival rent or mortgage payments in many areas: the average cost of center-based daycare for one infant is over \$11,000 per year – more than in-state college tuition in many states. This is untenable for many families and keeps some parents (usually mothers) out of the workforce. A 2023 survey found 74% of parents of children under 5 worry that lack of affordable child care is negatively affecting their household finances and careers[93][94]. Money barrier: The U.S. has historically treated child care as a private responsibility rather than a public service. Unlike many advanced countries that heavily subsidize child care or provide public daycare, American parents mostly pay out of pocket (unless they qualify for limited programs like Head Start or state pre-K). The Build Back Better plan in 2021 had a large child care subsidy and universal pre-K proposal – which economists said would help up to 13 million parents and cut child care costs significantly – but that provision was dropped after moderate Democrats balked at its \$400+ billion cost over 10 years. Essentially, the political system didn’t prioritize that spending, partially due to money biases (child care providers are not powerful lobbyists, whereas other budgetary interests are; and opponents decried it as big-government or inflationary spending). Yet, the lack of child care itself holds back economic growth: Federal Reserve estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of women remain out of the labor force because they can’t find or afford care. This puts the burden on families and results in lost income and tax revenue – a classic case of failing to invest upfront and paying for it in other ways. Perceived threat: Parents fear that without reliable child care, they might have to sacrifice careers or leave kids in suboptimal conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored this when daycares closed: a “she-cession” occurred as women disproportionately left jobs to care for kids at home. Many child care facilities never reopened (about 16,000 closed permanently, often in lower-income areas), worsening the shortage. The threat extends to children’s development – quality early childhood education is proven to improve long-run outcomes, but many kids miss out due to cost. For society, there’s also a worry about declining birth rates – surveys show young adults cite affordability of raising kids (including child care) as a reason for having fewer children than they’d like. Reality: Child care is extremely labor-intensive, and child-care workers are among the lowest paid (often barely above minimum wage, with no benefits). Many left the field during the pandemic for better-paying jobs (e.g., retail or warehousing) – causing staffing crises at daycares and thus fewer available slots. Yet raising their pay to attract workers means raising parent fees in a vicious cycle, unless public subsidies fill the gap. So far, the U.S. has only done short-term fixes: pandemic relief bills included grants that kept many child care centers afloat and temporarily allowed more families to get subsidies. But those funds expired in 2023, nicknamed the “child care cliff,” risking another wave of closures and cost hikes. Lawmakers had an opportunity to extend that aid, but it got cut from budget deals as other priorities took precedence – again reflecting how those without political clout (infants, their parents, child-care staff) often get left behind. The money barrier is partly a cultural one: some policymakers are reluctant to spend on child care, either viewing it as a private family matter or not wanting to raise taxes to fund it. Yet polls show broad support for helping with child care costs, across party lines, because it impacts so many. Business groups even support it to some degree, knowing it would expand the workforce. But the old attitude of “this is not the government’s job” dies hard among certain politicians. There’s also gender bias historically – because caregiving is seen as “women’s work,” it hasn’t been valued (and paid for) as much as, say, “building roads,” which government readily funds. Money-in-politics aspect: The child care industry has almost no lobbying presence compared to, say, defense or pharma. Parents of young kids are often too busy to engage in sustained political organizing (though some groups exist). This imbalance means the political cost of inaction is low – no politician lost their seat solely for failing to pass a child care bill. That dynamic may shift as millennials (who are currently deep in the weeds of child-rearing) gain more representation. In the meantime, families scrape by: using informal care (relatives), staggering work schedules, or going into debt to pay preschool. Perceived threat vs. progress: People increasingly see the child care crisis as not just personal but a national economic problem – the threat being if we don’t solve it, workforce participation and child development suffer long-term. This recognition grew due to COVID shining a light on the essential nature of child care (Biden even called child care infrastructure). Whether that converts to enduring policy change will depend on overcoming the money barrier of “who pays.” Either taxpayers invest now, or families continue to pay the price – literally and figuratively. With each year of legislative delay, countless parents (mostly mothers) forgo career opportunities and children miss early education benefits. That is why child care affordability remains near the top of concerns for American families and economists alike.

37. Foreign Wars and U.S. Global Engagement (Cultural Issue) – While domestic issues usually rank higher, Americans also express concern about international conflicts and the U.S. role in the world. The ongoing war in Ukraine, tension over Taiwan with China, and conflicts in the Middle East (like renewed violence in Israel and Palestine) all have Americans wary of entanglement. Roughly 52% call Russia’s war in Ukraine a critical threat to U.S. interests[63], and majorities worry it could widen into a broader war or even nuclear exchange[64]. At the same time, fatigue from two decades of U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has left many Americans cautious about deep involvement overseas. Perceived threat: One threat perception is that adversaries like Russia, Iran, or extremist groups could drag the U.S. into conflicts or directly attack allies, requiring U.S. intervention. Events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered fear that NATO (and thus U.S. troops) could be drawn into direct war with nuclear-armed Russia if Putin isn’t stopped in Ukraine. Similarly, China’s military posturing around Taiwan raises worry that the U.S. might face a decision to defend Taiwan, potentially sparking a superpower war. Polls show Americans are split but leaning toward support for defending Taiwan if attacked, yet also acutely aware that would be a very dangerous war. Another perceived threat is from rogue states or terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction – for example, Iran’s nuclear program or North Korea’s missiles still concern Americans (roughly 60% say North Korea’s nukes are a major threat). The flip side is many Americans also feel the U.S. shouldn’t be the “world’s police” at the expense of domestic needs. There’s a sentiment, especially after Iraq/Afghanistan, that endless wars waste lives and money (some \$6 trillion spent) that could have been better used at home – this view crosses ideological lines (progressives and some Trump-aligned conservatives agree on focusing inward). Reality: The U.S. is still the preeminent military power and by far the largest funder of organizations like NATO and foreign aid for stability. When major crises happen (Ukraine, Israel-Hamas war), calls come for U.S. support – and the U.S. has been providing tens of billions to Ukraine and now additional military aid to Israel. These commitments are generally popular short-term (majorities back helping Ukraine[63], seeing it as standing up to authoritarian aggression). But if conflicts drag on, support can wane as people question the cost or risk of escalation (e.g., by 2023, partisan divides emerged with more Republicans wanting to cut Ukraine aid). The money barrier here is interesting: the defense industry is happy to support more aid and arms transfers (it means more orders and production – indeed U.S. weapons makers have ramped up to replenish stockpiles and supply allies[50]). So they lobby in favor of robust foreign engagement. However, war fatigue among the public can turn into pressure on politicians to rein in spending abroad and direct money to domestic priorities instead. For instance, some members of Congress oppose bundling Ukraine aid with Israel aid or other domestic funding, reflecting isolationist streaks that have gained traction. In foreign policy decisions, the influence of military contractors and foreign lobbying (like allies urging U.S. involvement) is significant but must be balanced against voter sentiment. Right now, American voters broadly prefer diplomacy over military intervention (polls after Afghanistan withdrawal showed most approved ending that war). So leaders tread carefully: aiding allies but avoiding putting “boots on the ground” if possible. The risk is miscalculation – as in 1914 or 1941, a series of events could spiral beyond anyone’s control. That specter (say a direct Russia-NATO clash or a Chinese move on Taiwan) is a top fear of strategic planners, but average Americans mainly sense it as a general anxiety about global instability. Perceived threat at home: Additionally, foreign conflicts can fuel domestic polarization (e.g., differences in views on support for Israel or Ukraine break along partisan lines to some extent, each side accusing the other of being too hawkish or too sympathetic to adversaries). This interplay shows how external wars can strain internal cohesion. Reality in budgeting: The U.S. spends \$800B+ on defense but far less on diplomatic and economic tools. Some argue that imbalance makes war more likely, since we underfund “soft power.” Changing that balance is hard because the defense budget has a strong constituency (military jobs, contractors in many states) whereas foreign aid or State Department funding often lacks vocal champions and is an easy target in budget cuts (some proposed slashing Ukraine aid or even pulling from UN contributions to fund domestic needs). Money and politics: The military-industrial complex (to use Eisenhower’s term) tends to ensure continuous support for robust military spending and engagement posture – they fund think tanks that warn of threats and lobby Congress to not retrench. Meanwhile, populist currents (with less financial backing but some voter backing) push for focusing resources at home. Thus, U.S. foreign involvement is a pendulum swinging between interventionism and restraint. Right now, concerns about foreign wars remain high on the public’s list because of the immediate conflicts and news – but if those fade without direct U.S. entanglement, domestic issues likely reassert dominance. Nonetheless, given nuclear weapons and global terrorism, Americans know that foreign wars can swiftly become our problem if mismanaged. The key will be leadership and multilateral efforts to prevent wars (like deterring adversaries through alliances, which 52% of Americans consider crucial), but that often requires spending and political capital that leaders may be reluctant to expend without strong public support – which circles back to how Americans perceive the threat. In sum, the concern about foreign wars is a mix of fearing being dragged into conflict and fearing what happens if the U.S. doesn’t lead and things spiral. Balancing those fears drives much of current U.S. foreign policy debate.

38. China’s Rise and Global Competition (Cultural/Economic Issue) – The emergence of China as a superpower rival to the U.S. is one of the defining geopolitical shifts of our time, and Americans are increasingly concerned about it. In Pew polls, 42% of Americans name China as the country posing the greatest threat to the U.S., more than any other nation[46]. They worry about China’s growing military might (especially in Asia-Pacific), its expanding technological and economic influence (from 5G networks to Belt and Road projects), and its human rights and trade practices. Perceived threat: For decades, American attitudes toward China were mixed with optimism about trade and cooperation. But in recent years – due to factors like job losses attributed to offshoring, China’s assertiveness in Hong Kong and the South China Sea, and the COVID-19 pandemic (initially in China) – U.S. public opinion has turned sharply negative. Today, about 83% have an unfavorable view of China, and majorities see specific threats: 64% say China’s military power is a serious threat, and 52% say the same about China’s economic power. Some fear that China could overtake the U.S. as the world’s top economy (in aggregate GDP it already has on a purchasing power parity basis). There’s also concern about Chinese espionage (e.g., the balloon incident in 2023) and intellectual property theft affecting U.S. security and business secrets. Politically, China’s authoritarian model is viewed as a threat to global democratic norms. The Chinese government’s rhetoric of replacing U.S.-led international order with one more favorable to China raises alarms in Washington think tanks – warnings that echo to the public via media. Reality: China indeed has grown to be the U.S.’s peer competitor economically and regionally militarily (though the U.S. still has far superior global military reach; China, however, has made rapid advances in areas like missile tech and navy size focused on deterring U.S. near its shores). On trade, the U.S. runs a large deficit with China (over \$300B/year), and many American manufacturing workers feel – with justification – that competition from China (some of it unfairly aided by subsidies or currency manipulation) cost them jobs. This led to a bipartisan shift toward a tougher stance: tariffs on Chinese goods (started under Trump, largely continued under Biden) and new industrial policies to reshore supply chains (like CHIPS Act to bring semiconductor fabs to America rather than rely on Asia). The threat perception is translating into policies that break from the free-trade consensus of prior decades. Money barrier: However, decoupling from China is not simple. U.S. multinational companies have deep interests in the Chinese market (for sales) and Chinese manufacturing (for cost). These corporate interests lobby to prevent too-severe restrictions – for example, Apple and others quietly lobbied against sweeping bans on imports from Xinjiang over forced labor concerns, as it would disrupt supply chains. Wall Street banks also generally favor stable U.S.-China ties and may lobby against extreme confrontational measures that could upset markets. Still, national security hawks (with defense industry backing) lobby for limits on Chinese tech like Huawei, stricter export controls on sensitive chips, and increased defense budgets keyed to the “China threat.” Both impulses are at play: some moneyed interests want engagement (to preserve profits), others benefit from a framing of China as a looming military threat requiring trillions in defense spending and allied arms sales. The result is a somewhat schizophrenic U.S. policy – strong rhetoric and selective decoupling in tech areas, but still massive trade flows and investment ties continuing. American public opinion reflects both economic worry (jobs, trade) and security worry (Taiwan, military rivalry). In 2023, for instance, a majority supported aiding Taiwan if China invades, but they also dread the war that would cause. Cultural factor: There’s also a cultural dimension – some U.S. politicians stoke not just strategic but civilizational fears, portraying China (and Chinese Communist Party) as an existential menace. This sometimes spills into prejudice against Chinese people or Asian-Americans (as seen by a surge in anti-Asian incidents during COVID). That domestic effect is concerning and often decried by others, but when superpower tensions rise, such cultural fallout historically happens (e.g., anti-Japanese sentiment in WWII). Responsible leaders try to distinguish the Chinese government from the Chinese people or diaspora, but not all do, leading to some xenophobia. Money and soft power: The U.S. also competes with China in the realm of global investment and aid – China spends heavily on infrastructure in developing countries, gaining influence. The U.S., by contrast, often struggles to fund its own foreign aid or development finance at competitive levels, due to a lack of domestic constituency (no powerful lobby pushes for foreign aid budgets, whereas many push for defense budgets). This can be a money barrier in countering China’s reach – Congress underfunds diplomacy and development relative to military tools, which could be a misallocation in addressing the China challenge comprehensively. Americans see China's rise as a threat, but also many don’t want war – they prefer strong diplomacy backed by military readiness. The challenge is balancing competition and avoiding catastrophic conflict. The perceived threat from China will likely remain high on Americans’ list as long as headlines talk of spy balloons, island bases, trade disputes, and human rights abuses in Xinjiang or Hong Kong. Dealing with it effectively may require investing in American competitiveness (R&D, education – which comes back to many domestic issues we've covered) and forging alliances – all of which demand political will and funding. Summarily, China’s challenge to U.S. primacy is a top concern that ties together economic, military, and ideological components, and navigating it will test U.S. leaders’ ability to manage fear at home while avoiding war abroad. Only through careful strategy and shoring up strengths at home (often meaning overcoming money barriers in education, industry, etc.) can the U.S. feel secure in facing the perceived “China threat” of the 21st century.

39. Supreme Court and Judicial Integrity (Cultural Issue) – Public confidence in the Supreme Court – once the most respected branch – has plummeted to near historic lows, especially after controversial decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022 and reports of ethical lapses by justices. Only 47% of Americans now have a favorable opinion of the Court[95], down from about 70% two decades ago. This concern is about the perceived politicization of the judiciary and potential corruption or conflicts of interest undermining the court’s legitimacy. Perceived threat: Many Americans, particularly Democrats, view the current 6-3 conservative Court as a threat to progressive laws and even to democracy itself (given the Court’s pivotal role in issues like voting rights and gerrymandering). The Dobbs decision, which removed a 50-year constitutional right to abortion, was a shock to liberal Americans and even many moderates – it signaled that this Court majority is willing to upend precedent to advance a certain judicial philosophy. On the other side, conservatives perceive liberal court decisions of the past as the threat (they applauded the Court correcting what they saw as overreach in Roe, etc.). But even some conservatives worry now about damage to the Court’s reputation: the fierce partisan battles over confirmations (like Merrick Garland’s blockade, Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings) and the fact that several justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote have created a sense that the Court is “out of step” with majority public opinion. Furthermore, revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas accepting lavish gifts and trips from a billionaire donor without disclosure[68][65], and other justices’ potential conflicts (spouses involved in politics, etc.), make many fear the Court is not ethically accountable. The threat perceived is that the judiciary might be becoming just another partisan branch, undermining the rule of law and public trust – if people see Court decisions as predetermined by politics or possibly influenced by wealthy interests, the legitimacy of those decisions erodes. Reality: The Court historically has waxed and waned in approval depending on decisions, but current disapproval is especially high among one party (only ~20% of Democrats approve after Dobbs, versus ~70% of Republicans). So the Court is now seen as an instrument of conservative policy – a dramatic shift from its liberal reputation mid-20th-century. Real ethical lapses have been identified: for example, Justice Thomas’s benefactor had interests before the Court (though Thomas says he never discussed cases, the optics are awful)[68][65]. Yet the Court polices itself on ethics – unlike the executive or Congress, it has no binding code and justices rarely recuse. Efforts in Congress to impose an ethics code or stronger disclosure rules have gained traction (even Chief Justice Roberts acknowledges the concern, though he resists outside regulation citing separation of powers). Money barrier: The intersection of money and the judiciary is subtle but significant. Dark money groups have spent millions in recent years to influence the judicial nomination process – for instance, a network tied to the Federalist Society and donors like Leonard Leo orchestrated campaigns to support confirming conservative justices, and they in turn often sided with business and right-leaning positions in rulings. Similarly, wealthy donors fund amicus briefs and legal organizations that bring cases hoping to get friendly outcomes at the high court. While justices are not directly bribed, the ecosystem around them is awash in money trying to shape what issues reach the Court and how they are framed. The perceived threat is that the Court’s decisions favor the rich and powerful (e.g., the Citizens United ruling which removed limits on independent political spending – decided by this Court to benefit free speech, but many view it as empowering the wealthy in elections[96]). So, many Americans feel ordinary people’s interests may not get a fair hearing. Polls show strong support for reforms like term limits for justices or expanding the Court (though the latter is divisive) – all stemming from declining trust. The reality is that significant Court reform is unlikely because it requires heavy political lift (ethics code being the easiest maybe; term limits would need constitutional change or at least broad consensus which is lacking; expansion is seen as “court packing” and opposed by moderates). Thus, the Court’s image may remain bruised. This is troubling long-term because the judiciary relies on perceived legitimacy to have its rulings accepted (it has no army to enforce them). If nearly half the country rejects the Court’s authority or sees it as partisan, that’s a crack in rule of law. Money in politics exacerbates this because as the Court gets more openly political, interest groups invest even more in capturing it (the millions spent on confirmation fights attest to that). And as cases with huge financial stakes come (like ones affecting regulations on industries), there is fear that justices – consciously or subconsciously – are swayed by the ideology of the movement that placed them or by personal ties (e.g., a justice’s spouse getting paid by political groups). The Thomas scandal highlighted that risk: a justice taking luxury vacations from a GOP megadonor while ruling on cases that donor is interested in creates at least an appearance of justice for sale. If not corrected (through stricter ethical rules and transparency), this could cement public cynicism. In summary, what was once a high-trust institution is now in the public’s worry list – Americans fear a partial, compromised Court. Restoring that trust likely requires the Court adopting clearer ethics guidelines and perhaps moderating some decisions to appear less one-sided. Otherwise calls for drastic reforms will grow louder as more people see the Court as just nine unelected lawyers with too much power and not enough accountability – a sentiment that indeed shows up in polls as contributing to concern about the direction of the country.

40. Government Corruption and Ethics (Cultural Issue) – A majority of Americans believe that corruption is widespread in government: Gallup has found about 75% consistently say there is significant corruption among government officials[96]. This includes both illegal quid-pro-quo corruption and the more pervasive “soft” corruption of money influencing policy (often legal but seen as corrupting). People point to phenomena like members of Congress trading stocks in industries they oversee, officials becoming lobbyists (“revolving door”), and scandals from local city halls to the halls of Washington. Perceived threat: The sense is that government serves special interests or itself rather than the public – that lawmakers may be more interested in enriching themselves or catering to donors than doing the right thing. Each revelation – say a Congressman indicted for bribery, or insider trading, or a federal agency official caught in a kickback scheme – reinforces cynicism. The perceived threat is that democracy is subverted – that decisions are made based on money or favor exchanges, not merit or public good. This worry ranks high on lists of problems: as noted, about three-quarters call government corruption a big problem, placing it alongside inflation and healthcare cost in some polls. Both conservatives and liberals articulate it, though they may emphasize different examples (conservatives might say "Deep State" or Hillary Clinton’s emails, liberals might cite Trump administration officials convicted or unethical practices by certain justices – but both agree corruption is there). Reality: There have indeed been numerous ethical lapses: dozens of lawmakers have been caught in corruption cases over decades (e.g., the “ABSCAM” sting of the 1980s, the conviction of Rep. William Jefferson in 2009 for bribery, etc.). Many more engage in borderline practices like excessive junkets, campaign funds used for personal perks (or hiring family). Enforcement of ethics (like by House and Senate Ethics Committees) is often weak – Congress tends to police itself lightly. On the executive side, conflicts of interest can arise (e.g., a cabinet secretary awarding contracts to a friend’s company). And at state/local levels, corruption can be quite blatant (some big-city political machines or state officials busted for selling contracts). The U.S. isn’t as openly corrupt as some nations where bribery is rampant in everyday bureaucracy, but at high levels there’s a lot of "legal corruption" – lobbying and campaign finance essentially allow wealth to buy influence in ways average folks see as corrupt even if technically lawful. One measure: the U.S. score on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has slipped in recent years. Money barrier: Money is at the heart of why corruption (or its perception) persists. Political campaigns rely on big donors and those donors often expect access or favors – which may not be a direct quid-pro-quo but creates a culture of undue influence. Attempts to change this (campaign finance reform, public financing) face – ironically – corrupted opposition: those in power benefiting from current rules resist change. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (2010) was a watershed that equated money with speech and struck down many campaign spending limits[96]. That unleashed super PACs and dark money that now saturate elections – fueling the view that politicians are bought. Efforts to legislate around that are stymied partly because many lawmakers rely on that system to stay in office. Another money aspect: members of Congress, for instance, have power to pick stocks or industries to invest in based on inside knowledge (Congress only passed a weak STOCK Act in 2012 requiring disclosure, but not banning trading). Many still trade actively – reports show dozens of members or spouses did trades that intersected with their committee work. They deny wrongdoing, but public sees at best a conflict of interest, at worst corruption. Yet attempts to outright ban congressional stock trading keep failing because, well, those same members block it quietly. It's the classic money barrier – those with power to change rules benefit from current ones. On a larger scale, some fear the government is effectively for sale to the highest bidder: e.g., pharma industry spends millions and then no meaningful drug pricing regulation passes for years; or defense contractors lobby and get unneeded projects funded, etc. Each such instance adds to public cynicism. Perceived threat vs. responses: People often rank corruption as a key reason for trust decline in institutions. If unchecked, it threatens democracy because citizens lose faith and disengage or become attracted to authoritarian-sounding "drain the swamp" populism. Ironically, one populist slogan was exactly that – "Drain the Swamp"40. Government Corruption and Ethics (Cultural Issue) – Americans across the political spectrum are fed up with what they see as widespread corruption in government. About 75% believe that corruption is pervasive among public officials[96]. This concern covers blatant illegality – bribes, insider dealing – but also the softer corruption of special interests wielding undue influence. Scandals like officials accepting luxury gifts or lawmakers trading stocks based on insider knowledge fuel the perception that many in power are looking out for themselves or their donors, not the public. Money barrier: Meaningful anti-corruption reforms often stall because those same officials benefit from the status quo. For example, proposals to ban members of Congress from trading stocks or to tighten ethics rules have languished – in part due to lobbying by colleagues and industry. Campaign finance is another sticking point: High-priced fundraising and Super PACs create a system where big donors get access and favors, which feels corrupt to ordinary citizens even when it’s legal. Efforts to restrict big money in politics (public campaign financing or stricter donation limits) face opposition from well-funded political groups citing free speech or competitive disadvantages. The result is a vicious cycle: low public trust in government (currently near historic lows) leads to disengagement, which allows moneyed interests even more sway in policy – leading to further corruption and cynicism. The perceived threat is that if this continues, democracy erodes because people lose faith that officials serve the public rather than themselves or wealthy patrons. Recent events – from sweetheart deals for lobbyists to a Supreme Court justice failing to disclose lavish vacations from a billionaire friend[68][65] – bolster the view that the system is “rigged.” Addressing this would require stringent ethics rules (with real enforcement) and reducing the role of big money (through campaign finance reform and transparency). But those changes are difficult when insiders with financial stakes block them. Thus, corruption remains a top concern, with Americans pushing for a “clean up” of government – even as the money barrier within politics resists the very reforms that would rebuild public trust.

41. Media Bias and Erosion of Trust in News (Cultural Issue) – Public confidence in the news media has sunk to record lows. Only 31% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or even a “fair amount” of trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly[61]. Many perceive major news outlets as biased or serving agendas instead of objective reporting. Conservatives often charge that mainstream media has a liberal slant and ignores stories that don’t fit that narrative, while liberals complain that certain networks peddle right-wing propaganda or false equivalencies. The rise of openly partisan cable news and online echo chambers has reinforced these views. Money barrier: Modern media operates on an attention-and-clicks model that can reward sensationalism and confirmation bias. Outrageous or emotionally charged content (often biased or misleading) drives engagement, which boosts advertising revenue – so there is a financial incentive for media outlets to cater to a loyal partisan audience rather than present balanced news. For example, a cable network might lean hard into one perspective because it knows that’s what its core viewership desires, thus securing ratings and ad dollars, but at the cost of wider credibility. Social media algorithms (driven by maximizing user time for ad sales) similarly amplify divisive or biased content, contributing to people seeing different “realities.” Perceived threat: Many Americans feel that with such a fragmented and biased media landscape, citizens can’t even agree on basic facts, undermining democracy. They worry that media bias – whether real or just perceived – is fueling polarization and misinformation (as each side believes the other is misled by their media). For instance, coverage of political events can differ so drastically between outlets that it’s as if people are living in alternate worlds. This leads to distrust: even true information is viewed with skepticism if it comes from an “opposing” source. In one poll, 84% said the news media is critical to democracy, yet only 47% felt confident that their news sources were reporting accurately, reflecting this paradox of needing media but not trusting it. Reality: The media bias problem is complex – while some outlets do skew facts, many journalists still strive for fairness. But the public’s ability to discern bias is low; about 48% of Americans feel it’s hard to know if information is true[72]. Efforts to improve trust (like media transparency or fact-checking partnerships) are often drowned out by louder, polarizing voices. And some powerful figures exploit media distrust – e.g., politicians dismiss unfavorable stories as “fake news,” which further erodes accountability. The money barrier to fixing this is that there’s no immediate profit in moderation: a centrist, purely objective news outlet struggles for market share in an environment where partisan audiences are highly lucrative. Additionally, local journalism – traditionally a balance and fact-check on local government – has withered financially (many towns now have no local newspaper), creating a vacuum often filled by rumor mills on Facebook. Reviving trustworthy news might require public or philanthropic funding (to free outlets from chasing clicks), but such funding is limited. Meanwhile, partisan donors sometimes bankroll media ventures aligned with their ideology, reinforcing bias. In summary, Americans see the media itself as part of the cultural battleground, and the threat is that without a trusted referee of facts, societal divisions and corruption can worsen. The incentives (financial and political) currently favor bias and conflict over neutrality, so restoring trust will require systemic changes – from media literacy education to perhaps new business models for news – to overcome the corrosive cycle of bias and distrust.

42. Declining Birth Rates and Aging Population (Economic Issue) – The United States, like many developed nations, is experiencing a significant drop in birth rates and a gradual graying of the population. The fertility rate fell to about 1.6 children per woman, a record low, well below the “replacement” rate needed to sustain population size. Concurrently, the large Baby Boomer generation is retiring, meaning a growing proportion of Americans are elderly. This demographic shift raises worries about economic vitality and the sustainability of programs like Social Security. Perceived threat: Many Americans fear that fewer children and more seniors will lead to a shrinking workforce, labor shortages, and heavier tax burdens on working-age people to support retirees. A smaller youth population also impacts institutions from schools (closing or consolidating due to fewer students) to military recruitment (fewer young adults to enlist). Culturally, some lament a declining birth rate as a sign that it’s becoming harder to raise a family (often because of economic pressures like high child care and housing costs – tying to issues we’ve discussed). Polls show widespread concern that today’s younger generation might be the first to be worse off than their parents; only 42% of Americans expect children today to have a better standard of living than their generation, reflecting pessimism linked partly to these demographic headwinds. Reality: The U.S. is not yet at the crisis level of some countries (like Japan or Italy) in terms of aging – immigration has helped the U.S. keep a somewhat younger profile. But immigration policy has been erratic (as we covered, there are restrictions and lower recent immigration that exacerbated labor shortages). There are now roughly 3.5 working-age adults for every retiree, down from 5-to-1 ratio decades ago, and projected to drop near 2-to-1 by 2030. That means fewer workers paying into Social Security for each beneficiary – a key reason Social Security’s trust fund faces shortfall. Money barrier: Encouraging higher birth rates or supporting families often means investing in family-friendly policies (like paid parental leave, child allowances, subsidized childcare – issues we’ve touched on in child care and economic strain discussions). The U.S. has historically been stingy on those supports compared to other rich nations. Proposed policies like expanded Child Tax Credits (which briefly cut child poverty nearly in half in 2021[11] and likely would encourage having children) were allowed to expire due to cost concerns and lack of political consensus. Essentially, devoting money to make parenting more affordable has hit barriers – partly ideological (some politicians believe the government shouldn’t “engineer” family choices or worry about creating dependency) and partly because the benefits are long-term (a bigger future workforce) whereas budgets are short-term. Immigration could alleviate aging effects by bringing in younger workers, but as we saw, that’s entangled in political fights and moneyed interests on both sides. Perceived threat vs. action: Americans rank economic woes like job security and retirement security high, but the link to birth rates and aging is indirect, so it doesn’t always get direct policy attention. However, sharp manifestations – like smaller school districts merging or Social Security trustees reporting looming deficits – do grab lawmaker attention. Some states (especially those losing population like in the Rust Belt) have even begun offering financial incentives for having kids or moving there with a family. But a national strategy to balance the age demographics isn’t clearly in place. The threat of an aging society is manageable if productivity rises and if older people remain healthy and working longer by choice – but that too requires investment in healthcare and lifelong learning. Again, those require spending now for payoff later, which the political system is not great at. In summary, the declining birth rate and aging populace worry Americans because they imply a future with fewer workers, potentially slower economic growth, and pressure on the younger generation to support a much larger retired cohort. Overcoming the barriers to address this (through family support policies and sensible immigration reform) will be crucial to maintaining economic dynamism – otherwise, the U.S. could face stagnation similar to what some other aging societies experience. For now, it remains a concern voiced in surveys and by experts, even if it hasn’t yet reached boiling point in everyday political debate compared to more immediate issues.

43. Youth Mental Health Crisis (Cultural Issue) – America’s young people are experiencing alarming levels of mental health challenges. Even before the pandemic, rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among teens and young adults were rising, and COVID-19 exacerbated this trend. For instance, the CDC reported that in 2021, a staggering 57% of U.S. teen girls felt persistently sad or hopeless – the highest level in a decade[25]. Emergency room visits for suspected suicide attempts among adolescent girls jumped 51% during 2020. Parents, educators, and young people themselves are deeply concerned about this silent crisis. Perceived threat: Stories of teen suicides, rampant bullying (including cyberbullying), and youth turning to substance abuse to cope have made mental health a perceived public health threat on par with physical illnesses. Many fear that the very social fabric supporting kids has frayed: family economic stress, social media pressures (comparisons, FOMO, online hate), academic pressure to succeed, and disrupted routines (especially during COVID lockdowns) have combined into a toxic brew for mental wellness. There’s also reduced stigma now in talking about mental health, which is positive – more young people openly say they’re struggling – but that also brings the extent of the problem to light. The threat is not just to individual lives (youth suicide is now a leading cause of death for ages 10-18), but to society’s future: a generation that is less mentally healthy can impact productivity, innovation, and social stability in the long run. Reality: Mental health services for youth have not kept pace with need. Schools often lack sufficient counselors or psychologists (many school districts have hundreds of students per counselor). Community mental health clinics are underfunded and have long waitlists, especially for adolescents and children. Insurance coverage for therapy can be spotty, and finding providers (especially in rural areas) is extremely difficult – a shortage of child psychiatrists means many families simply go without care or rely on primary doctors to manage complex issues. The pandemic relief funds did allocate some money for school mental health programs, but as those funds dry up, it’s unclear if local or state governments will continue them. Money barrier: Treating mental health can be resource-intensive (therapy can require weekly sessions for months/years), and historically, it’s been deprioritized in budgets compared to physical health. There’s little powerful lobby exclusively championing mental health funding (though some advocacy groups exist, they lack the financial clout of, say, hospital or pharma lobbies). So, improvements – like requiring insurers to fully cover mental health (mental health parity laws) – have taken decades to enact and still aren’t perfectly enforced. Meanwhile, industries that might inadvertently contribute to youth distress (social media companies, for example) have financial interest in keeping teens hooked to their platforms even if heavy use correlates with worse mental well-being. Efforts to regulate social media for minors (like addictive design features or privacy protections) face pushback from Big Tech money and debates over censorship. Similarly, expanding access to care (through telehealth or integrating mental health into pediatric visits) requires training more providers and reimbursement reforms – which means spending more in healthcare budgets on mental health, something insurers and government payers have been slow to do. Perceived threat vs. action: Public concern is clearly high – a 2022 survey of parents found ** concerns about their children’s mental health topped concerns about their academic progress. The Biden administration announced a youth mental health initiative and many states are exploring adding mental health curriculum in schools or “mental health days” excused from school. These are helpful but relatively low-cost steps. The more expensive but necessary steps – hiring thousands more school counselors, massively boosting training slots for child psychologists, subsidizing mental health treatment so cost isn’t a barrier – require substantial public investment. The money barrier here is partly prioritization: mental health historically doesn’t attract funding until a crisis point is reached. We may be at that crisis point now. If funds aren’t allocated, the costs show up elsewhere (in juvenile justice, in lost economic potential, in adult mental health costs later). In summary, the youth mental health crisis is a top concern because it is pervasive and visible – almost everyone knows a young person struggling – yet the response is still not commensurate with the need. Overcoming stigma (which has improved) and, crucially, overcoming the funding and system inertia to deliver care will determine if this concern can be mitigated or if it will haunt this generation and the next.

44. Chronic Diseases and Declining Life Expectancy (Economic Issue) – Even before the shock of COVID-19, the U.S. was unique among rich nations for seeing its average life expectancy plateau and then actually decline in recent years. Beyond the pandemic’s toll, Americans face high rates of chronic illnesses like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Approximately 42% of U.S. adults are now obese (up from 30% two decades ago), driving related health conditions. The combined effect is that life expectancy in the U.S. dropped to around 76 years – about 3–5 years lower than peer countries and back to levels not seen since the late 1990s. This weighs on Americans’ minds as a threat to quality and length of life. Perceived threat: Many Americans worry that despite spending more on healthcare than any nation, our overall health outcomes are poor and getting worse. They see loved ones suffering from preventable illnesses and note that younger generations might live shorter, less healthy lives if trends continue. For instance, Type 2 diabetes, once called “adult-onset,” is now increasingly diagnosed in teens – a stark warning sign. The opioid overdose epidemic (discussed elsewhere) also heavily contributes to reduced life expectancy, particularly among working-class middle-aged people. The threat is twofold: personal (will I or my family be okay?) and societal (an unhealthier workforce and ballooning healthcare costs could strain the economy and public programs). Reality: The reasons for declining life expectancy are complex – a combination of lifestyle factors (poor diet, sedentary habits), social determinants (inequities in access to healthy food, safe environments for exercise), and inadequacies in healthcare or public health interventions. For example, high blood pressure and cholesterol often go uncontrolled in millions of Americans either because they lack regular medical care or medications are too costly or adherence is poor. The U.S. also has stark health disparities: life expectancy for the poorest Americans is over a decade shorter than for the richest. These chronic issues have been slow-moving threats, overshadowed at times by acute crises like COVID, but ultimately just as deadly (cardiovascular disease remains the #1 killer). Money barrier: Tackling chronic disease requires sustained investment in preventive care and public health initiatives – areas that historically receive scant funding compared to acute care. Politically, it’s hard to galvanize support for broad preventive measures (like anti-obesity campaigns, taxes on sugary drinks, or investments in parks and recreation for exercise) because the benefits, while huge, are diffuse and long-term, and there are often industry lobbies (soda companies, fast food, tobacco, etc.) that resist measures that could hurt their profits. For example, proposals to limit junk food marketing to kids or impose “sin taxes” on unhealthy products usually face heavy lobbying by the food and beverage industry casting doubt on effectiveness or framing it as government overreach. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies have lobbied to keep drug prices high (insulin cost 5-10× more in the U.S. than elsewhere until a recent push to cap insulin copays at \$35 for Medicare – a win that took years of political battle[50]). So, many Americans with chronic conditions ration their medications or skip them due to cost, worsening outcomes. The perceived threat of declining national health also hasn’t translated to a unified call to action because it’s often seen as individual responsibility (“eat better, exercise more”) rather than a systemic issue – a narrative some industries prefer because it deflects from policy solutions. However, with life expectancy now falling even for segments of the population, there’s growing recognition that something is very wrong. In recent surveys, Americans list healthcare (including managing chronic disease costs) as a top concern, and a majority support big changes like Medicare negotiating drug prices (now being implemented)[50]. Overcoming the money barrier here means confronting powerful interests and reallocating resources toward prevention: e.g., reimbursing doctors for nutrition and exercise counseling, subsidizing healthier school meals, building health clinics in underserved areas. These require upfront spending and take time to show returns (people not getting sick is less visible than people being treated). Yet, if not addressed, the threat materializes as reduced productivity, higher Medicare/Medicaid expenses for treating advanced chronic illnesses, and ultimately a generation that may live sicker and die younger than their predecessors. That prospect – essentially a reversal of the American progress in health – is why chronic disease and declining life expectancy feature among Americans’ pressing worries, even if solving it will demand sustained political will and bucking of entrenched profit motives in sectors like food and pharma.

45. Cybersecurity and Hacking Threats (Economic Issue) – As society moves ever more online, the risk of cyber attacks – whether criminals stealing personal data or hostile nations hacking critical infrastructure – has become a major concern. High-profile incidents like the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack (which disrupted gasoline supplies in the Southeast) or massive data breaches at Equifax, Target, and government agencies have highlighted our vulnerabilities. A recent survey showed 95% of Americans are worried about their personal data being exposed in a corporate data breach[71]. Likewise, experts warn that utilities, financial systems, and even election machinery could be targets of cyber warfare or terrorism. Perceived threat: Many Americans fear that a hacker could empty their bank account, steal their identity, or shut down the power grid. Businesses constantly notify customers of stolen information (Social Security numbers, credit card details, medical records), leading to a sense that no one is safe from cyber intrusions. On a national security level, people hear about foreign hackers from countries like Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea probing U.S. government networks or companies – potentially to sabotage or spy. This creates anxiety that, for example, in a future conflict our cities’ lights could go out or water systems could be contaminated via remote attack. Even local services haven’t been spared: multiple city governments and hospitals have been hit with ransomware, crippling services until they pay extortion money. The threat feels both personal (identity theft can wreak havoc on an individual’s life) and broad (a cyber “Pearl Harbor” could paralyze society). Reality: The U.S. has invested heavily in cybersecurity, but the offense-defense dynamic in cyberspace is volatile. Hackers need find only one weakness, while defenders must plug every gap – and with hundreds of millions of devices and users, that’s exceedingly hard. Many American institutions (from small businesses to county governments) lack strong cyber defenses due to cost or expertise, making them soft targets. Even large companies with significant resources – like credit bureau Equifax – have suffered breaches simply due to human error or delayed software updates. The financial toll of cybercrime is enormous (estimated in the tens of billions annually in the U.S. alone, including payouts and recovery costs). Money barrier: One challenge is that improving cybersecurity can be expensive and doesn’t generate revenue, so companies often skimp on it unless/until they suffer a breach. There’s a bit of a “market failure” – consumers can’t easily tell which company has good security, so there’s not a competitive advantage to investing in it, and executives may underinvest. They also sometimes externalize the cost: if your data is stolen, you deal with identity protection and credit watch, whereas the company may not face proportionate penalty (outside of some loss of reputation or modest regulatory fines). Efforts to mandate stronger cyber standards in critical industries face industry lobbying pushback over compliance cost. Government has started imposing some requirements (e.g., pipeline operators must now meet certain cyber rules post-Colonial hack), but many sectors (like tech companies that hold troves of personal data) aren’t strictly regulated on security. Meanwhile, on national defense, agencies like the NSA and Cyber Command have robust capabilities, but they mostly act against foreign threats – securing countless private-sector networks is beyond their direct remit, and collaboration between government and business on cyber info-sharing, while improved, is still not seamless (some businesses fear liability or exposure of their own weak points). Perceived threat vs. public action: Public concern is high, but because cybersecurity is technical and largely invisible until something goes wrong, it doesn’t drive grassroots political action the way more tangible issues do. People generally expect government and companies to handle it competently in the background. Only when a major incident occurs (like a broad outage or massive breach affecting millions) does it spike as a priority and prompt legislative interest – but by then the damage is done. For instance, after the pipeline attack and another on major meat producer JBS, there were Congressional hearings and calls to crack down on ransomware gangs (even talk of treating them like terrorists), and the administration convened global summits on ransomware. Those efforts, such as sanctioning crypto exchanges used by criminals, have had some effect, but ransomware still proliferates. The money barrier here is partly lack of immediate profit in prevention, and the diffuse responsibility between private sector (which owns most infrastructure) and public sector (which has expertise and intel). Bridging that requires sustained investment in cyber defense (e.g., incentivizing companies via tax breaks to upgrade security, funding for state and local gov’t modernization, etc.) and possibly stronger legal consequences for negligence in protecting data. So far, such measures are piecemeal. Given the ever-evolving threat, Americans remain concerned that we’re one major hack away from a crisis. As one poll showed, 69% believe the country is not prepared to prevent a cyber attack on public infrastructure. Overcoming complacency and aligning financial incentives toward better security (rather than after-the-fact cleanup) is crucial to address this concern before hackers strike in even more damaging ways.

46. “Cancel Culture” and Free Speech Concerns (Cultural Issue) – In recent years, a heated debate has emerged over “cancel culture” – the phenomenon of public figures or ordinary people facing swift backlash and potential career or social ruin for statements or actions deemed offensive. Many Americans worry that the climate of discourse has become too punitive and that people fear speaking their minds. A 2022 poll found 48% of Americans feel less free to express their political opinions openly than they did in the past. This sense spans everyday interactions to workplaces and universities. Perceived threat: Those alarmed by “cancel culture” believe it threatens free speech and open debate. High-profile instances – like a professor being fired for an old tweet, or a celebrity dropped by sponsors over a controversial comment – create a chilling effect. People become afraid that a single mistake or unpopular opinion could lead to public shaming or ostracization by peers and on social media. Even when not formal government censorship, this social sanctioning is seen as a threat to the cultural norm of robust, even uncomfortable, dialogue. On the other hand, advocates for accountability culture argue that consequences for truly harmful speech (e.g., racist or bigoted remarks) are appropriate and that what some call “cancel culture” is often just marginalized voices finally being heard. However, even many who agree hateful speech should be condemned worry the pendulum swings too far – with nuance lost and no room for apology or growth. Reality: Social media has turbocharged call-out culture; someone’s remark can go viral and global in hours, and online mobs can demand action before context is understood. Employers, fearing brand damage, sometimes overreact – there have been cases of mistaken identity or misunderstanding causing someone to be “canceled” unjustly. Surveys of young people show a majority say the climate on campus or online prevents them from saying things they believe, lest they be misconstrued or attacked. This suppression of dissent – whether about political issues, scientific debate, or comedy and art – could stifle intellectual progress and honest conversation. Money barrier: Outrage drives clicks and engagement, which in turn drives ad revenue for media and social platforms. Thus, there is a tacit incentive in online algorithms to amplify cancel culture pile-ons – divisive takedowns get far more views and shares than measured discussions. Additionally, organizations often find it cheaper or easier to cut ties with a “canceled” individual than to stand up for them and weather boycotts or bad press. So the path of least financial pain often aligns with acting quickly to appease the loudest voices calling for someone’s removal. There’s also a legal money aspect: defamation laws are narrow in the U.S., so those who feel falsely maligned by cancel campaigns have little recourse unless they can prove malicious falsehood – a high bar. Thus, media outlets or individuals can join in a cancel wave with little fear of financial consequence (lawsuits). That dynamic means reputational destruction can happen without due process. Perceived threat vs. actual policy: The concerns about cancel culture are mostly in the social domain, but have sparked calls for policy responses in some quarters – e.g., some states have passed laws to protect free speech on campus or to forbid firing employees for legal off-duty speech (except when it directly relates to job). Critics see some of these as overreach or as protecting truly offensive speech. The challenge is balancing protection of expression with accountability for genuinely harmful behavior. A lot of this debate plays out in cultural norms rather than formal laws – what do we as a society consider “beyond the pale”? Historically, social standards shift (what was once acceptable can become not, and vice versa). Right now, many feel the standard is unpredictable and enforced capriciously. The threat perceived is that instead of civil dialogue to handle disagreeable speech, we have tribunals-by-Twitter. Polls indicate about 56% of Americans say people are too quick to judge and punish others for things they’ve said. This concern spans left and right, though with different emphases (the right often cites conservative voices being silenced; the left might cite how cancel culture can turn purity tests inward). Overcoming the darker side of cancel culture likely doesn’t involve government (given the First Amendment prevents that anyway), but rather a cultural shift in how we respond to offensive speech – emphasizing proportionate response, context, and forgiveness. That requires leadership from influencers and the public to reject mob outrage mentality. Until then, fear of being “canceled” remains a palpable concern that polls show is discouraging open conversation in workplaces, classrooms, and online forums – a trend many see as unhealthy for a free society.

47. Air and Water Pollution (Economic Issue) – While climate change draws big headlines, more immediate environmental concerns like clean air to breathe and safe drinking water continue to worry Americans. Events like the Flint, Michigan water crisis (where lead contamination poisoned a community) or recurring toxic smog and wildfire smoke blanketing cities have kept pollution in the public eye. A Pew Research survey found 60% of Americans are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations are polluting the environment and not being held accountable[57][58]. And 63% say the federal government is doing too little to protect water and air quality[85]. Perceived threat: People feel a direct threat when tap water isn’t safe or when pollution triggers health problems like asthma – it’s a very tangible and non-partisan issue at the local level. Parents worry if their kids can safely drink from school fountains or play outside on smoggy days. Communities near industrial sites fear cancer clusters or contaminated soil from chemical dumping (some high-profile cases, like the PFAS “forever chemicals” found in water supplies of dozens of states, heighten these fears). Even far from factories, Americans have seen increased intrusion of pollution – e.g., in 2023, smoke from Canadian wildfires turned skies orange across the East Coast, raising alarms about air quality far from the fire source. All this reinforces that pollution doesn’t respect boundaries and that everyone is at risk. Reality: The U.S. made great progress curbing pollution in the 1970s-1990s under laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. However, enforcement has sometimes slackened and new challenges have emerged (like microplastics in water or the mentioned PFAS chemicals from nonstick and firefighting foams). The infrastructure to ensure clean water is aging – Flint’s crisis was born from corroded lead pipes and mismanagement. There are dozens of smaller “Flints” – communities with lead above safe levels – mostly in older urban or poor rural areas that haven’t gotten resources to replace pipes. On air, while overall smog and emissions are down since the 1980s, wildfire smoke (exacerbated by climate factors) is a newer source of bad air days that environmental regulation doesn’t easily manage, and some cities still violate air standards due to traffic or industry. Money barrier: Preventing and mitigating pollution often pits public interest against certain business interests looking to avoid compliance costs. Big corporations (oil, chemical, manufacturing) spend heavily to lobby against stricter regulations or to water down enforcement – arguing that rules are too costly or will hurt jobs. For example, when scientists and health advocates push the EPA to tighten air quality standards (say, lower the allowable ozone or fine particulate levels to protect health), industry groups often successfully delay the change or negotiate a higher threshold. The result is standards sometimes lag what health data suggests is safe. Cleaning up toxic waste sites or old lead pipes requires substantial government spending (the Flint pipe replacement cost hundreds of millions). Such funding is sometimes passed (as in a 2021 infrastructure law allocating billions for lead pipe removal nationwide), but distribution is slow and fights over budgets can imperil consistent funding. Also, companies responsible for pollution sometimes go bankrupt or fight liability, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab (the federal Superfund toxic site cleanup program has long been underfunded after a polluter tax expired, causing cleanup progress to slow). Public pressure: On pollution issues, public pressure can be effective because these issues are visceral – residents protesting dirty air or water have forced officials to act in many cases. And unlike some issues, pollution concerns often unite people across party lines within an affected area (no one wants their children drinking poisoned water, whether Republican or Democrat). However, when costs are to be borne broadly (like regulations on an entire industry or higher utility bills to install pollution controls), the debate becomes more partisan and influenced by lobby messaging. Still, the relatively high ranking of pollution in problem polls shows Americans haven’t become complacent – they notice, for instance, when rivers are cleaner (many recall how in past decades rivers caught fire from pollution, which has been remedied) and they also notice emerging problems (like plastic waste in oceans). The challenge is aligning political and financial support to finish the fight: replace all lead pipes, enforce environmental laws equitably (so factories in poor areas aren’t neglected by regulators), and invest in cleaner technologies (like electric vehicles and smokestack scrubbers) to reduce emissions. Those initiatives often face the money barrier of industries resisting costs and anti-regulatory politicians blocking stricter laws. Yet, given how directly pollution affects communities, it’s one area where sustained citizen activism – combined with high media attention when disasters strike – can overcome inertia. In summary, while U.S. air and water are cleaner than decades ago, significant pockets of pollution remain and new threats have arisen. Americans continue to list this among top concerns because it hits close to home and requires vigilance and investment to ensure everyone, not just some, can breathe easily and drink safely without fear.

48. Opioid and Fentanyl Epidemic (Economic Issue) – The opioid crisis – now often called the fentanyl crisis due to the prevalence of that deadly synthetic opioid – rages on as one of the country’s most devastating public health emergencies. Over 100,000 Americans are dying each year from drug overdoses, roughly two-thirds due to opioids (especially fentanyl) – a toll higher than gun deaths and car accidents combined. This epidemic has left virtually no community untouched, ravaging both rural areas and cities, and has lowered overall U.S. life expectancy. Perceived threat: Families across America see this crisis as an existential threat to their loved ones and communities. It is common to know someone who has struggled with addiction or been lost to it. There is fear for teenagers being exposed (via counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl), for first responders potentially getting exposed to potent fentanyl, and for entire towns hollowed out by addiction. The rise of fentanyl – which is 50 times more potent than heroin – has made the drug supply extremely unforgiving; many overdose victims are not habitual users but people who took one pill not knowing it contained fentanyl. That has heightened the sense that “it could happen to anyone,” further spreading fear. Reality: The opioid epidemic has complex roots: aggressive pharmaceutical marketing of painkillers (like OxyContin) in the 1990s led to widespread misuse; when prescriptions tightened, many turned to illicit heroin; then traffickers introduced fentanyl around 2013 because it’s cheaper and easier to smuggle (a tiny amount packs a huge punch). Now, fentanyl mixed with other drugs (meth, cocaine) is causing polysubstance overdoses. Public policy has reacted slowly – only in recent years has there been broad expansion of harm reduction (e.g., making overdose-reversal drug naloxone widely available) and treatment (increased funding for medication-assisted treatment like buprenorphine). Still, treatment slots and facilities remain insufficient – many seeking help face waitlists. Money barrier: Initially, corporate greed by painkiller manufacturers (Purdue Pharma and others) and distributors flooded the market with pills for profit[5], at the expense of proper oversight. They’ve since faced lawsuits (Purdue’s owners, the Sacklers, agreed to pay billions in a settlement), but that money – while helpful for funding treatment – came after irreparable damage was done. Now, combating illicit fentanyl largely falls to law enforcement and public health spending. Congress has directed some funds to the crisis, but some lawmakers balk at approaches like funding needle exchange programs or safe consumption sites due to moral or political objections, even though evidence suggests these save lives. Meanwhile, Mexican drug cartels and Chinese chemical suppliers make huge illicit profits from fentanyl trafficking – a black-market money engine that is hard to break. U.S. border and customs efforts to intercept smuggling have increased (more tech at ports of entry, since that’s a main route), but traffickers adapt quickly, and a lot gets through (fentanyl is so potent that a few pounds can equal millions of lethal doses). Dealing with demand via treatment is arguably more effective than solely choking supply, but treatment requires sustained funding and often grappling with stigma (which has historically kept governments from prioritizing addiction treatment). The perceived threat is finally forcing some change: many state budgets now devote more to opioid response (partly using settlement monies from pharma lawsuits). Yet, the death rate keeps climbing – meaning current actions are not enough to outpace the problem’s growth. One barrier has been controversy over harm reduction – for example, some cities’ plans for supervised injection sites (where users can consume under watch to prevent death) face lawsuits and local political pushback, often funded or stirred by groups who see it as encouraging drug use. Similarly, distributing fentanyl test strips (so users can test drugs for fentanyl) and making naloxone free are no-brainers to health experts, but require overcoming regulatory hurdles and funding questions (naloxone’s price was high for years before more generic forms became available). Public opinion: Americans overwhelmingly see opioids as a crisis and support measures like making treatment available instead of jail for users. But NIMBY-ism can appear – communities support more treatment centers in principle, but may object when one is to be sited nearby. That slows expansion of needed infrastructure. The moral dimension (some still view addiction as a personal failing rather than an illness) also affects political will to pour money into certain interventions. In conclusion, the opioid/fentanyl epidemic remains a top concern because it directly threatens American lives en masse and undercuts the workforce and social fabric (consider the many children now raised by grandparents because parents died of overdose). Overcoming the money and stigma barriers – by investing heavily in treatment, harm reduction, and international cooperation to disrupt supply – is crucial. Without it, the threat will continue to claim tens of thousands of lives annually, a grim status quo that Americans do not want to accept. The crisis has grown so severe that it’s beginning to cut into overall life expectancy – making it not just a private tragedy but a national emergency that demands sustained resources and attention on par with other major concerns.

49. High Gas Prices and Energy Security (Economic Issue) – Volatile gasoline prices and America’s reliance on global oil markets remain a pocketbook worry and strategic concern. In 2022, gas prices hit a national average of \$5 per gallon – an all-time high – contributing heavily to inflation and frustrating drivers. A mid-2022 poll found 67% of Americans said the spike in gas prices caused them financial hardship. Such pain at the pump often ranks among the public’s top economic issues. Beyond personal costs, many see high fuel prices or potential shortages as a threat to the broader economy and even national security (if hostile nations can squeeze our energy supply). Perceived threat: When gas prices soar, it’s highly visible – posted on street corners – and it affects not just commuters but also raises the cost of goods (via trucking). People fear being unable to afford commuting to work or have to cut other spending to fill the tank. Politically, adversaries like Russia or OPEC nations manipulating oil output feel like threats that can hold America hostage economically. The 1970s oil embargo left a generational imprint – even today, long lines or rationing are nightmare scenarios Americans want to avoid. Thus, energy independence (or at least security) is a long-standing goal in U.S. discourse. The war in Ukraine underscored this: when Russia’s actions led to global oil price spikes, Americans saw how a distant conflict raised their local gas station price. Reality: The U.S. is a leading oil and gas producer now (thanks to fracking), yet oil is traded globally – so domestic drilling doesn’t fully insulate from global shocks. The Biden administration responded to 2022’s surge by releasing record amounts from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which helped temper prices somewhat[50], and by pressing Saudi Arabia and others to pump more (with mixed success). There’s a tension, though: simultaneously, the U.S. and world need to transition away from fossil fuels to combat climate change – so there’s conflict between short-term relief via more drilling and long-term goals of moving to electric vehicles and renewable energy. Money barrier: The oil and gas industry has significant political clout and has often pushed for maximizing drilling and against environmental restrictions. They argue energy security means more domestic production. They successfully lobbied for expanded drilling on federal lands and eased regulations under certain administrations. However, building the infrastructure for alternative energy (EV charging networks, renewables) also requires upfront investment and policy support – and fossil fuel interests at times quietly lobby against measures that would reduce oil demand (like stronger fuel-efficiency standards or EV tax credits), since that threatens their market. For example, major automakers resisted for years the push to raise MPG standards, which keep gas consumption high. On the other hand, when gas prices balloon, even politicians friendly to climate action often respond by calling for temporary gas tax holidays or tapping oil reserves – immediate money-saving moves for drivers, but not long-term fixes. It’s politically difficult to ask Americans to bear high prices for a principle like climate; any leader who did so would face public fury. So there’s a policy tightrope: keep energy affordable (voters demand it) while trying to shift to cleaner sources (the climate and some voters demand that too). Oil companies, meanwhile, made record profits during price spikes by not significantly increasing production (keeping supply tighter); they even did billions in stock buybacks, which critics say puts investor gains over easing consumer pain. This dynamic – companies profiting from high prices – means they have little incentive to rush to pump more to lower the price, despite political pressure; indeed, shareholders often prefer the high profit margins to volume. This frustrates the public (seeing gas prices high while oil CEOs tout huge earnings looks bad). Public support: Americans broadly support moves like releasing oil from reserves or temporarily waiving gas taxes during crises. They also show increasing support for renewable energy to reduce reliance on volatile oil markets. In polling, about 69% say developing alternative energy is a higher priority than expanding oil drilling[84]. Still, in the short run, most families prioritize immediate relief when prices spike. The threat of gas price spikes or shortages thus spurs calls for an “all of the above” approach – a bit more drilling, more renewables, diplomacy to keep oil flowing, etc. Money barrier to transition: Shifting to EVs and renewables is accelerating (thanks to 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act incentives), but it’s still money- and time-intensive. Oil and gas interests lobby to maintain subsidies and permits for fossil fuels, fearing a faster shift cuts their future profits. Meanwhile, China dominates battery supply chains – raising another energy security angle (dependency on China for EV components). That suggests a need for U.S. investment in those areas (which the new laws do allocate). Essentially, achieving stable, affordable energy that isn’t at the whim of global events is an ongoing challenge – one that Americans definitely worry about when they rank top issues. The latest gas price surge reminded everyone how central energy is to daily life. The perceived threat of high gas prices or not having enough fuel (as happened in some Southeastern states during the pipeline hack) drives demand for policies to improve energy independence. Those policies, however, often collide with either climate goals or industry profit goals. Overcoming those money barriers – finding ways to smooth volatility (maybe through larger strategic reserves or pricing regulations) and ramping up alternatives – is the path to assuaging Americans’ concerns on this front. Until then, any hint of global conflict or OPEC move that could raise gasoline costs immediately registers as a top-of-mind concern for U.S. consumers and thus remains high on the list of issues.

50. Threat of Civil Conflict and Political Violence (Cultural Issue) – After years of extreme polarization, the unthinkable – Americans turning violently against each other – no longer seems entirely implausible to many. The January 6, 2021 Capitol attack was a wake-up call that political disputes can boil over into mob violence. Subsequent surveys have produced startling findings: for instance, in one poll nearly half of Americans (47%) agreed that a civil war is at least somewhat likely in the next decade. While that may be speculative, it signals that people perceive domestic divisions as a direct threat to national stability. Perceived threat: People are worried that the country could spiral into widespread unrest or even armed conflict between factions – essentially a second civil war scenario, something that had been relegated to history books. This fear is stoked by increasing talk of secession or militias preparing for conflict (as seen in online forums or extremist manifestos). High-profile instances of political violence in recent years – beyond Jan 6, events like the foiled plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, or the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise at a baseball practice by a politically motivated gunman, or an attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband in their home – all feed the sense that extremist rhetoric can and does translate to bloodshed. People fear that if another contentious election or crisis occurs, these incidents could multiply and regular political processes could collapse under violence. Reality: The U.S. is far from any organized civil war (no large-scale militias controlling territory or anything), but experts do warn of a rising trend in domestic terrorism and politically motivated attacks. FBI and Homeland Security reports consistently say the greatest terror threat now comes from domestic violent extremists – often white supremacists or anti-government militias. Small cells or lone actors are plotting or committing attacks (like the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting by a white nationalist, or a 2022 plot by militia members to attack the electrical grid to incite chaos). These are isolated but steady occurrences. Meanwhile, at the level of civil unrest, the U.S. saw the largest protests in its history in 2020 (the racial justice marches after George Floyd’s murder) which were mostly peaceful but did have instances of rioting and clashes with police in several cities. Political violence and unrest, while not ubiquitous, have become enough of a presence to be a political issue themselves. Money barrier: Preventing widespread political violence isn’t a matter of funding like an economic issue, but money in politics and media does play a role in fueling divisions. Hyper-partisan media (often funded by wealthy donors or for-profit via outrage as discussed earlier) fan flames for profit or ideology. Extremist groups fundraise off fear and hatred, sometimes siphoning those funds into buying weapons or paramilitary gear. Social media companies, driven by engagement metrics, have often allowed extremist organizing to go unchecked until after an incident, giving them free platforms to recruit and coordinate. On the flip side, government efforts to intervene face funding and legal barriers: for example, proposals to increase monitoring of online extremism or to dedicate more resources to de-radicalization programs often run into complaints about cost or civil liberties (and indeed must be balanced carefully – any misuse could violate rights). While law enforcement agencies have increased units focused on domestic terrorism, resource allocation is always a challenge when competing with other priorities (some politicians resisted labeling Jan 6 rioters as domestic terrorists, which tied into how much federal muscle was applied in response). Public appetite: Americans historically abhor the idea of civil conflict – the Civil War is taught as the nation’s greatest tragedy. So the mere fact so many now consider it “somewhat likely” is a canary in the coal mine. That doesn’t mean they want it; rather, they fear it. Indeed, majorities in polls support measures to tone down political violence – like punishing those who commit it (most approved of prosecuting Jan 6 participants) and calling out leaders who encourage violence. The barrier is that partisan echo chambers (and some leaders) continue to use demonizing rhetoric because it rallies their base (and thus money and votes) – even if it heightens the risk of unhinged followers acting out violently. De-escalating this threat would require influential figures and media to consciously tamp down hateful or apocalyptic language (there’s a difference between civil disagreement and painting opponents as mortal enemies). But the incentive (as discussed) in media and politics has been to intensify, not reduce, that language. Moreover, the sheer number of guns in America (over 400 million) means any spark of conflict can potentially become deadly quickly. Federal authorities can try to disrupt organized extremist plots (and have foiled many), but they can’t stop every lone actor inflamed by rhetoric. In sum, the threat of serious civil conflict and political violence looms enough that Americans count it among top concerns. Tackling it isn’t a typical policy issue with a budget line – it’s about leadership, social media reform, and strengthening the norms of peaceful debate. Overcoming the “money” incentives that reward inflammatory behavior – be it for TV ratings, campaign contributions, or social media clicks – is key to dialing back this threat. Without that, the worry remains that the United States could face more frequent spasms of political violence or even sustained unrest, which would be devastating for the nation’s democracy and unity.

51. U.S. Military Readiness and Recruitment (Economic Issue) – Even as the U.S. military budget is at record levels, there are growing concerns about the readiness of the armed forces – including difficulties in recruiting enough new service members and the state of military technology relative to rising powers like China. The Army, for example, fell about 15,000 soldiers short of its recruiting goal in 2022 (a 25% deficit) – a gap officials called a serious danger to force capacity. The Navy and Air Force have also struggled to meet targets, citing a mix of fewer youth interested and qualified. Meanwhile, some Americans worry that prolonged engagements, maintenance backlogs, and focus on counterterrorism left the U.S. less prepared for high-tech conflicts against major adversaries. Perceived threat: If the U.S. military cannot attract enough capable volunteers or if its equipment becomes outdated, Americans fear the country could be caught unprepared in a future conflict – undermining national security. There’s a sense of unease hearing top generals warn that in war games simulating a fight over Taiwan, the U.S. sometimes loses. People highly value the military (it’s often one of the more trusted institutions), so signs of strain – like recruiting woes or reports of aircraft shortages – hit public confidence. There’s also concern that an increasingly divided society and unhealthy youth population (many potential recruits are disqualified due to obesity, drug use, or medical issues) mean the pool of those able and willing to serve is shrinking. In 2022, only 9% of young Americans said they would definitely consider military service – a very low propensity that alarmed Pentagon planners. If a major war broke out, would we have enough soldiers? That hypothetical worry is quietly growing. Reality: The military has taken steps to address these issues – for example, offering higher enlistment bonuses (some over \$50,000) to entice recruits, and adjusting training to better prepare for high-tech combat (like investing in cyber and space capabilities). But budget constraints within each branch cause trade-offs: for instance, the Navy struggles to maintain an aging fleet and build new ships to keep pace with China’s rapidly expanding navy. The Air Force likewise faces dilemmas retiring old aircraft to free funds for advanced fighters and drones. The money barrier here is partly political and partly structural: the defense budget is enormous (\$800B+), but much gets consumed by legacy programs or overhead, and there’s resistance in Congress to closing old bases or canceling weapons projects that mean jobs in districts (the classic “military-industrial complex” inefficiency). So, money isn’t always directed optimally toward readiness – sometimes it’s directed by parochial interest. Additionally, the personnel cost (pay, benefits) has risen as a share of the budget, which is good for military families but means fewer dollars for new equipment. Recruitment shortfalls put pressure to either raise pay/benefits (costly) or cut end strength (which many fear leaves us underpowered). The Pentagon has even considered easing some standards (like accepting more recruits who needed weight loss or allowing minor past drug use) to widen the pool – a controversial step reflecting desperation to fill ranks. Public perspective: Americans generally support robust defense but also often question waste – polls frequently show concern that defense dollars aren’t always spent wisely. Nonetheless, when asked about specific potential threats (Russia, China, terrorism), majorities want a strong military posture. The recruiting slump has led some analysts to call for reinstating a draft or compulsory national service – a notion highly unpopular with the public. So, the all-volunteer force model must be sustained by making service appealing. That ties into societal values – fewer young people see the military as a good career or honorable duty compared to previous generations, perhaps influenced by endless wars and increased political polarization (some may perceive the military as partisan or not inclusive, especially after incidents like the Jan 6 involvement of some veterans or debates over “wokeness” in the ranks). Overcoming that image issue is also a challenge (the Pentagon has had to address both the perception of too much wokeness by one side and too much extremism in ranks by the other – both could turn off potential recruits). Money barrier in politics: Ensuring readiness might mean spending defense dollars differently – e.g., on more maintenance and training rather than new gold-plated weapons. But contractors and their congressional allies push for big-ticket items (like advanced jets or ships) because they mean jobs and profits, even if those systems sometimes come at the expense of basics (like enough spare parts or well-trained operators). This dynamic can erode real readiness – you can have fancy planes but not enough pilots or flight hours to use them effectively. Another money aspect is veteran care (discussed earlier): if young people see veterans struggling post-service, they may shy away from enlisting. Fully funding promises to troops, from housing to healthcare, is part of maintaining force morale and attracting recruits – again tying to budget priorities. In summary, Americans include military readiness on their list of concerns because it underpins national safety – they sense that if recruitment keeps lagging and the military isn’t prepared for modern conflict, it could invite aggression or leave us vulnerable. Ensuring a strong defense is one of the few constitutional duties people broadly agree on, but doing so in the current environment means cutting through some entrenched interests and societal trends – a tough mission in itself.

52. Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control (Cultural Issue) – The specter of nuclear war, which seemed to recede after the Cold War, has crept back into public consciousness amid deteriorating great-power relations. Russia’s thinly veiled nuclear threats during its war in Ukraine, China’s expanding nuclear arsenal, and the collapse of arms control treaties (like the end of the INF Treaty and Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty) have many Americans uneasy. A 2022 survey found 59.6% of Americans feared Russia might use a nuclear weapon in the Ukraine conflict, vaulting nuclear war back into lists of top anxieties. Perceived threat: For decades, nuclear annihilation seemed a historical footnote to younger Americans – now it feels like a real, if remote, possibility again. People see headlines about Russia moving tactical nukes or about North Korea testing ever more powerful missiles that could hit U.S. territory, and they worry that world leaders might actually push the button. This is an existential threat – unlike many issues that are about quality of life, nuclear war is about life itself continuing. The “Doomsday Clock” of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, now set at 90 seconds to midnight (the closest ever), captures that public dread. Even absent an intentional nuclear war, there’s concern about accidents or unauthorized launches – especially as geopolitical tensions rise and communication channels fray (for instance, U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China military hotlines being less active). Reality: The number of nuclear weapons globally has decreased since the 1980s peak, but there are still roughly 13,000 warheads in existence – plenty to destroy civilization. The U.S. and Russia possess the vast majority. Arms control agreements that once provided transparency and limits have dwindled – the U.S. and Russia now have no active inspections regime after New START was suspended. China was never part of those treaties and is estimated to be on track to triple its warhead count by 2035. Meanwhile regional conflicts pose nuclear flashpoints: India vs. Pakistan, or a potential nuclear Iran triggering a Middle East standoff. The money barrier: Maintaining and modernizing nuclear arsenals is extremely costly – the U.S. plans to spend $1.2 trillion over 30 years upgrading subs, missiles, and bombers. Defense contractors lobby for these contracts, which somewhat perversely sustains a momentum to keep or even expand nuclear stockpiles instead of reducing them. On the flip side, efforts to strengthen arms control or non-proliferation often lack strong domestic constituencies – there’s no corporate lobby to reduce nukes, and while the public generally supports treaties, it’s not a top voting issue unless fear spikes. So, policymakers (especially hawks backed by defense industry and ideological groups) face little pushback when allowing treaties to expire or pursuing new nuclear capabilities (like low-yield warheads). With Russia and China perceived as threats, any politician arguing to limit U.S. nuclear forces can be painted as weak – so inertia and the influence of defense funding keep the nuclear modernization on track, even as arms control languishes. Another monetary aspect: nuclear powers often justify their arsenals as a cheap way to deter conflict (the Cold War idea of “peace through strength”), which may have some truth, but it also delays addressing the long-term danger of even having these weapons around. Public opinion shows majorities of Americans support negotiating limits on nuclear arms – e.g., 72% in one poll favored extending New START – but geopolitical events and lack of trust between nations stalls progress. Without active pressure or incentives, the trend is toward a new arms race, which brings back all the old risks (close calls like the Cuban Missile Crisis or accidents like 1983’s Able Archer false alarm). Perceived threat vs. political action: In the 1980s, fear of nuclear war led to huge public demonstrations and eventually some breakthroughs in arms control (Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing to eliminate certain nukes). Today’s public fear hasn’t yet resulted in mass movements of that scale – partly because climate change and other issues dominate, and partly fatalism or distraction. But if tensions worsen (imagine Russia actually using a tactical nuke in Ukraine – that would shock the world and almost certainly push nuclear war to the top of every worry list), then political pressure could mount to revive diplomacy to prevent doomsday. The money barrier to progress on disarmament is partly that war industries profit from nuclear rearmament, and partly that in adversarial relationships, each side’s military-industrial complex feeds off the other (e.g., Russia’s threats justify U.S. new nukes, which justify China’s build-up, and so on – a classic arms race spiral fueled by money and fear). Breaking that cycle requires both public outcry and leadership willing to prioritize humanity’s survival over short-term advantage or profit. In summary, nuclear weapons remain an existential concern that many Americans list among top threats (even if latent most of the time). It’s an issue where one miscalculation can truly be catastrophic. Overcoming the inertia and profit that maintain these arsenals is daunting, but the alternative – a potential nuclear catastrophe – is unthinkable, which is exactly why Americans keep this issue in their roster of fears even generations after Hiroshima.

53. America’s Global Leadership and Alliances (Cultural Issue) – For much of the post-WWII era, the U.S. was seen as the world’s leader – setting international rules, upholding democratic values, and protecting allies. In recent years, however, Americans have become concerned that U.S. global influence is waning and that allies’ trust in America has been shaken by internal divisions and erratic foreign policy. About 49% of Americans in one survey said the U.S. is doing a poor job of maintaining its alliances and global leadership role. Events like the chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, which many saw as a blow to U.S. credibility, and the rise of China’s diplomatic clout contribute to this worry. Perceived threat: The decline of U.S. leadership is viewed as a threat because it could mean a more unstable world where adversaries like China or Russia fill the vacuum with authoritarian influence. Americans pride themselves on being a force for freedom – hearing that global polls showed low confidence in the U.S. during certain periods (e.g. only 16% of Germans had a favorable view of U.S. leadership in 2020) is disconcerting. There’s also fear that if U.S. power recedes, allies like Taiwan, the Baltic states, or others might be gobbled up by aggressors unchecked. Moreover, a loss of leadership can hurt Americans economically if trade rules are set by others or if the dollar loses prominence, etc. Essentially, many see U.S. global preeminence as a guarantor of both national security and economic prosperity – its erosion thus feels threatening. Reality: The U.S. still has unparalleled military and economic strengths, but it’s true that relative power is less overwhelming than right after 1991. China’s economy is rivaling America’s and it’s investing heavily in wooing other nations via initiatives like Belt and Road (which many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America have joined, sometimes giving Beijing political sway). U.S. alliances have been strained at times – e.g., European allies were shocked by the U.S. internal turmoil like Jan 6 and worried about the reliability of U.S. commitments after the Trump administration’s “America First” approach saw it withdraw from international accords (Paris climate, Iran deal) and even belittle NATO. While the Biden administration worked to restore ties (and indeed coordination on Ukraine has been strong), allies now hedge bets slightly – Europe pursues “strategic autonomy” to not be wholly dependent on U.S. politics, some Asian allies quietly engage with China to not get caught in a superpower clash. Domestically, partisan divides mean international treaties face uphill battles in the Senate (the INF Treaty’s demise or inability to ratify UNCLOS sea treaty show how internal politics hinder global leadership roles). Money barrier: Leading globally isn’t just about military might – it’s also about providing aid, investing in global development, and sustaining institutions like the UN or WHO. Here, the U.S. often falls short: foreign aid is only about 1% of the budget, and while Americans often think that’s too high (mistakenly believing 10% goes to aid), many experts argue it’s not enough to maintain influence in developing regions where China is now outspending the U.S. Congress frequently balks at increasing State Department or aid funding; for instance, initiatives to counter China’s influence in Africa with more U.S. economic engagement often stall or yield modest sums, as domestic political reward for spending abroad is low. Meanwhile, domestic money in politics can hamper treaty-making: e.g., fossil fuel interests lobbied against the Paris Agreement (though the U.S. eventually rejoined), or protectionist sentiments fueled by certain industries can block trade agreements that might strengthen alliances. The public generally supports alliances – polls consistently show favorable views of NATO and key allies – but they also want allies to “pay their fair share” (a refrain often heard, e.g., in NATO defense spending debates). President Trump’s demands on that front were popular among many Americans, which, while addressing a real imbalance, also caused friction with allies. Thus, internal political pressures (often financially motivated, like wanting to spend at home not abroad) sometimes undermine the softer aspects of U.S. leadership (like generous international support or patience in negotiations). Perceived threat vs. current action: Russia’s war in Ukraine somewhat reenergized U.S. alliance leadership – Washington has unified NATO to support Ukraine and expanded NATO with new members. That has reassured some Americans that the U.S. can still lead the free world effectively. But the fact that major crises were needed to galvanize that response – and that future leadership could shift with elections (as some U.S. politicians question aid to allies or international cooperation) – means uncertainty lingers. The threat of losing global standing ultimately is a threat of a world less aligned with American values. Overcoming the barriers to consistent global engagement might require insulating foreign policy from extreme swings in domestic politics (some suggest legislation to lock in certain commitments or funding to allies that can’t be easily reversed). Also, combating foreign influence in developing nations could mean upping spending on diplomacy and aid – a tough sell when many at home feel resources are scarce for domestic needs. Yet, Americans likely now see (post-Ukraine invasion) that retrenchment can invite chaos that ends up costing more down the line. Balancing domestic money priorities with maintaining global leadership is a perennial challenge – but given that Americans list this among concerns, leaders will need to justify the expenditures and efforts abroad as directly tied to U.S. security and prosperity. Failing to do so – the perceived threat goes – could result in a world where adversaries shape events and the U.S. is left reacting rather than directing, to its own detriment.

54. Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion (Economic Issue) – The daily grind of traffic jams and inadequate public transit is a quality-of-life issue that millions of Americans face, and it resonates as an economic concern too (lost time, wasted fuel, hindered productivity). Commuters in major metro areas like Los Angeles, New York, Washington, and Atlanta routinely spend 50+ hours a year stuck in traffic on average[74], essentially a week’s vacation worth of time wasted. Meanwhile, many U.S. cities lack robust public transportation alternatives that might alleviate those bottlenecks – a source of frustration as people compare it to advanced train or bus systems abroad. Perceived threat: While traffic may seem mundane compared to some issues, Americans see it as a threat to economic efficiency and their personal time and sanity. Long, stressful commutes can diminish family time and even health (studies link long commutes to higher blood pressure and lower life satisfaction). Businesses worry that freight stuck in road congestion or employees delayed by traffic hurts competitiveness. The lack of reliable transit also disproportionately affects lower-income workers who can’t afford cars – they may find certain jobs unreachable, effectively shrinking the labor pool for some employers and opportunities for workers. The public often lists improving roads and transit as top priorities in local polls. Reality: The U.S. underinvested in transit for decades, and those systems that do exist (like New York’s subways or DC’s Metro) often suffer breakdowns due to deferred maintenance. The 2021 infrastructure law injected a significant \$39 billion into public transit modernization – a welcome boost, but the American Public Transportation Association estimates a \$100+ billion backlog in just repairing and upgrading existing transit, not to mention building new lines or systems. Meanwhile, road usage has rebounded after the pandemic dip, and projects to add highway capacity often struggle to keep pace with growth (and some experts note adding lanes can induce more traffic – “you can’t build your way out of congestion” entirely). Money barrier: Building modern transit or bullet trains or expanding highways is expensive and politically fraught. Funding often comes from gas taxes that haven’t risen in decades (so their real value eroded). Attempts to raise taxes or create new funding streams meet political resistance, especially from anti-tax groups or, paradoxically, sometimes drivers who want better roads but not taxes (leading to catch-22 for lawmakers). The distribution of funds can also be skewed by lobbying – for example, highway contractor lobbies historically pushed more money to road construction rather than transit in federal and state budgets. Automobile and oil interests indirectly benefited from car-centric infrastructure and sometimes opposed measures to expand mass transit (though less overtly nowadays). Public transit agencies, being largely government-run, don’t have big lobbying arms like industries do, relying on citizen pressure and forward-thinking politicians. Another barrier is local opposition to certain projects like new train lines or bus lanes (NIMBY concerns about construction or changes in neighborhood). In the U.S., the cost of building transit is quite high due to a combination of regulations, labor and material costs, and perhaps inefficiencies – meaning each mile of subway or rail can cost multi-billions, which sticker shock often delays or kills projects. By contrast, other countries manage it for less, but attempts to streamline U.S. processes get tangled in bureaucratic and political inertia (each environmental review or utility relocation can involve many stakeholders, each potentially slowing things unless incentivized not to). Public sentiment and action: Voters in many cities and states have passed local funding referendums to improve transit – indicating people are willing to tax themselves at times to fix congestion. Yet those measures sometimes only cover part of what’s needed. The 2021 law’s transit and rail funding (including plans for new Amtrak routes) is a one-time boost that needs follow-up investment to truly transform mobility. If not followed through, Americans fear they’ll continue to slog through gridlock while other countries race ahead with bullet trains and smart transit. The “threat” is that inefficiency from congestion will become a drag on growth and a daily misery that erodes quality of life, making cities less livable (some surveys show young people factor in transit options when choosing where to live – poor transit can drive talent away). Overcoming the money barrier involves convincing citizens (and their representatives) that investing in transit and roads yields long-term economic returns (in time saved, reduced car maintenance costs, etc.). Some progress: many states raised gas taxes in recent years recognizing the need, and the federal government is encouraging tolling and public-private partnerships to infuse more capital. But those can be politically tough (drivers often balk at tolls or fee hikes unless they see immediate benefit). In summary, traffic and poor transit rank as a constant irritant and economic issue for Americans. Solving it demands sustained funding and political will to do big projects – a challenge given short election cycles and other competing budget demands, but one that Americans clearly want addressed as part of improving daily life and economic efficiency.

55. Tax Burden on the Middle Class (Economic Issue) – While much focus goes to whether the rich pay enough (addressed in tax fairness above), many Americans also feel they pay too much in taxes for what they get. In a Pew survey, 38% of adults said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them “a lot,” an uptick from a few years prior[72]. Particularly for middle-income families, the combination of federal, state, and local taxes on income, property, and purchases can feel heavy, and any new tax proposal (even on the wealthy or businesses) often spurs worry that the middle class will indirectly end up shouldering costs or that it might hurt the economy. Perceived threat: The threat here is to household finances – people fear that rising taxes will eat into already stretched budgets amid high living costs. They also see inefficiencies in government and resent paying hard-earned money if it’s perceived to be wasted or misallocated. For example, if roads are full of potholes or schools underperform despite high tax bills, taxpayers become frustrated and view taxes as more threat than benefit. This concern flares especially when new spending programs are proposed – many Americans instinctively ask, “How will we pay for that? Will my taxes go up?” Politicians stoke this by often promising “I won’t raise your taxes” as a campaign pledge, reinforcing the notion that tax increases are inherently harmful. Reality: Compared to other advanced countries, the overall U.S. tax burden (about 24% of GDP) is relatively low, and middle-class Americans in many cases pay less in total taxes than counterparts abroad – but Americans also get fewer direct services (like no universal healthcare or tuition-free college at the national level). So it’s a trade-off. Nonetheless, tax perception is often divorced from these comparisons; Americans tend to assess taxes against their own cost of living. In high-tax states like New York or California, middle-class families can indeed see significant portions of income go to combined taxes (especially if they own property with high property taxes, or face hefty sales taxes). The 2017 federal tax law’s cap on state/local tax deductions led some in those states to feel double-taxed. Meanwhile, at the federal level, the tax brackets mean many middle earners pay a marginal rate of 22-24%, which they may or may not view as fair given the cost of basic needs. Money barrier: The discourse on tax burden is heavily influenced by interest groups. Anti-tax organizations (like Americans for Tax Reform) and many business lobbies consistently push the narrative that taxes are too high and any increase will harm the economy – and they fund politicians who sign pledges never to raise taxes. This has created a political environment where raising even needed revenue (for example, to shore up Social Security or invest in infrastructure) is extremely difficult – the path of least resistance often becomes deficit spending instead of tax hikes, pushing costs to the future rather than current taxpayers, which is another kind of threat (the national debt). On the other side, there isn’t a comparable powerful lobby solely representing average taxpayers’ interest in better public services – rather, that interest is diffuse. Thus, tax cuts (which mainly benefitted the rich, like in 2017) can be sold to the middle class as beneficial because everyone got something, albeit unequally. The perception that the middle class is overtaxed sometimes overlooks that payroll taxes (for Social Security/Medicare) take a big bite but fund valued benefits; nonetheless, because those taxes are regressive (a flat percentage) and cap out for higher incomes, middle-income workers feel them more. Serious talk of tax reform that might shift burden (for instance, raising the payroll tax cap so the wealthy pay more into Social Security, easing pressure on others) gets tangled in politics – those who would pay more resist, and many in the middle don’t realize they might benefit from such rebalancing. Perceived threat vs. policy: Politicians respond to middle-class tax fears by usually promising no new taxes for those under a certain income (Biden pledged no new taxes on under \$400k/year households, for example). This often boxes in budget options. There is broad support for things like raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations (as noted in tax fairness issue) because people feel that could relieve their own burden. Indeed, some recent policy went that direction (a minimum corporate tax, slight increase on top earners for Medicare) – the public by and large approves those. However, if those don’t suffice to fund desired programs, the public is much less supportive of broad tax increases on themselves. The result is a chronic strain: many Americans want robust services and low deficits but also low personal taxes – a nearly impossible circle to square without shifting burden or finding new revenue sources like wealth taxes (which face their own money barrier from wealthy interests). In summary, the feeling of being overtaxed will remain a top concern for the middle class as long as wages feel tight against living costs and as long as government is seen as inefficient. Addressing it might involve making tax use more transparent and effective (so people feel value for taxes) and ensuring the tax code doesn’t favor the rich at their expense (so they feel fairness). That requires overcoming the influence of anti-tax and special interest rhetoric that often exaggerates middle-class tax burdens to block any progressive taxation changes. The delicate balance of funding public needs while not unduly squeezing the middle class will continue to be a central economic challenge voiced by Americans in the years ahead.

56. Work-Life Balance and Burnout (Cultural/Economic Issue) – In the always-on hustle of modern America, people increasingly worry that work is overtaking their lives and harming their well-being. The pandemic triggered a reassessment: millions experienced remote work flexibility or, conversely, stressful frontline jobs, prompting what’s been dubbed the “Great Resignation” as record numbers quit jobs in 2021-2022 – about 4 million monthly at its peak, many citing burnout or desire for better quality of life. Surveys find a majority of workers reporting high stress and difficulties balancing work with family or personal time. Perceived threat: Chronic overwork and stress are seen as threats to health (e.g., burnout can lead to anxiety, depression, even physical issues) and to family cohesion (parents feel they miss seeing their kids grow up, relationships strain when work encroaches on personal time). Culturally, there’s a growing backlash against the glorification of grinding long hours – younger generations in particular voice that no job is worth severe burnout. The phrase “work to live, not live to work” resonates as people witness peers collapse from exhaustion or read about Japan’s “karoshi” (death by overwork) and worry the U.S. isn’t far off. During COVID, many experienced either job loss or extreme overwork (essential workers), both of which highlighted how precarious the work-life balance is. Now terms like “quiet quitting” (doing the bare minimum to reclaim balance) are buzzwords, reflecting a pushback. Reality: The U.S. is one of the few advanced nations with no guaranteed paid vacation or parental leave by law. About 24% of American workers get no paid vacation time at all. For those that do, many don’t use all their days due to work pressure. The always-connected smartphone era means many never fully unplug – a majority of employees admit to checking emails on weekends or evenings. Additionally, stagnant wages for many means people feel forced to work longer or take second jobs to make ends meet, further eroding downtime. The result: by some measures, Americans work more hours per year than workers in most peer countries, yet with median wages not rising much, so the sense of “running on a treadmill” is prevalent. Burnout has tangible costs – companies see higher turnover (leading to the current labor shortages in some fields) and lower productivity from exhausted staff. Money barrier: Achieving better work-life balance often requires policy or employer changes that may involve costs – e.g., hiring more staff to reduce workloads (which companies resist for profit reasons), or offering more paid time off (again a cost to employers). Culturally, the U.S. has prized productivity and had few legal mandates on working hours – in part due to decades of lobbying by business against labor regulations common in Europe (like mandated paid leave or right to disconnect laws). Unions historically bargained for shorter workweeks and more benefits, but with union decline (as discussed in labor issue), fewer workers have collective power to negotiate better balance. Some progressive policymakers propose measures like a four-day workweek pilot or expanding overtime eligibility to discourage overwork – but business lobbies often push back, arguing it could hurt competitiveness or impose burdens, even though trials in other countries show maintained productivity with shorter hours. The “gig economy” and contract work also complicate things: gig workers often have even worse balance (piecing together work at odd hours, no paid off-time), and attempts to formalize their rights (like California’s AB5 law to make some gig workers employees) face fierce financial opposition from gig companies (Uber, Lyft poured over \$200 million to overturn that via Prop 22 in 2020). So money interests often favor keeping workers maximally “flexible,” which can translate to them being always available. Public demand: Polls show strong support for things like paid family leave (around 80% support in Pew polls) and substantial support for capping the workweek or ensuring minimum vacation time. As the pandemic shifted priorities, more workers and voters seem attuned to these issues. Some states and companies are responding – e.g., more companies now offer mental health days or flexible scheduling as perks to attract talent in a tight labor market. The federal government under Biden expanded overtime pay eligibility to more middle-income workers, meaning those folks can get extra pay (or the employer must limit hours) beyond 40 per week – a step to curb overwork without extra compensation. But those moves still don’t reach many salaried workers who just end up working 50-60 hours with no extra pay. The balance of power (money) is such that many white-collar workers feel they have to accept long hours to climb the ladder or even keep their job (the “Jack Welch” era expectation of total devotion lingers). Changing that norm likely requires top-down shifts – if leadership in companies embrace balance as key to retention, or if regulations enforce it. With burnout contributing to the Great Resignation, some enlightened businesses are realizing they must adapt or lose talent (hence experiments with 4-day weeks at some firms). In summary, work-life balance has risen as a prominent concern because people feel the current model is unsustainable. Overcoming the barriers – profit motives favoring squeezing more work out of fewer people, and a work culture that equates long hours with virtue – will take both policy (labor standards updates) and continued pressure from workers voting with their feet for jobs that respect their personal time. As one might say, Americans are clamoring for a reset of the “work hard, play hard” equation to include a bit more play (or rest), and that will remain a key issue for the foreseeable future, especially as younger generations prioritize wellness alongside wealth.

57. Decline of Civility and Social Cohesion (Cultural Issue) – Many Americans feel that basic civility, respect, and sense of community have eroded in our society. The coarseness of public discourse – from nasty political rhetoric to rude behavior in everyday interactions – is often cited as a concern. In a 2019 poll, (It’s widely reported that large majorities think Americans are more divided and less respectful than in the past; e.g., a 2022 Georgetown poll found over 80% believe political divisions are getting worse and 75% said lack of civility is a major problem). People notice it in things like aggressive driving, customer service confrontations (some viral videos show outbursts in stores), and especially online, where anonymity seems to breed nastiness. Perceived threat: The loss of civility is seen not just as unpleasant but as a threat to democracy and community. If people can’t disagree without hatred or can’t interact without flaring tempers, it bodes ill for solving any problems collectively. The notion of E Pluribus Unum – “out of many, one” – feels at risk if every discussion immediately turns hostile. Older Americans often recall times when neighbors or politicians could disagree yet remain cordial; they view today’s zero-sum, insult-driven climate as a breakdown of social fabric. Younger folks who grew up in the internet age may be more used to harsh tones but also express anxiety about it, as it can lead to bullying and mental health strains (tying to the youth mental health issue). Communities feel less tight-knit – fewer people know their neighbors or participate in civic groups, in part due to mistrust or just being glued to divisive media instead of bridging differences in real life. Reality: There’s truth to perceptions: by many measures (surveys, behavioral studies), Americans have become less trusting of those who differ from them and more likely to resort to derogatory language or ad hominem attacks in political talk. Social media, again, plays a role – algorithms often reward the most extreme, outrageous posts, and people get caught in feedback loops of name-calling that would be less likely face-to-face. Political leaders sometimes model incivility (e.g., public officials using taunts or profanity) which lowers the bar for everyone. The pandemic further frayed nerves – fights over masks or school policies got very ugly at times, with school board meetings descending into shouting matches. Money barrier: One might not think of civility as having a money angle, but consider that outrage and division are profitable for many media and political actors (as discussed under polarization and media bias issues). The incentive to keep people angry (because they’ll donate more to campaigns or stay tuned to partisan media) indirectly encourages incivility – after all, polite, nuanced debate doesn’t hook viewers or raise funds as effectively as outraged, black-and-white conflict. Thus, the industries of talk radio, cable news, certain online platforms essentially monetize incivility. They often frame courtesy or compromise as weakness, thus cultural norms shift to treat opponents as enemies. Reversing that trend might involve pressure on media companies to enforce decorum or on political parties to hold members to standards – but currently, the financial and electoral rewards go to those who “own the libs” or “dunk on the MAGA folks” or what have you. Another factor: declining membership in civic organizations (from churches to Rotary clubs) means fewer structured environments where people practice civil interaction across lines; those have faded partly due to busier work lives and also because some of those organizations lost relevance or were slow to adapt – which ties back to issues like work-life balance (no time for community) and possibly financial pressures (people working multiple jobs have no bandwidth for community meetings). Public desire: Despite the forces against it, there’s a strong public yearning for more civility – polls show large majorities wish politicians and citizens would treat each other with respect and find common ground. Initiatives like bipartisan retreats in Congress or local “civility pledges” get positive feedback, but often are short-lived or overshadowed by continuing negative campaigning. Some educators call for teaching civics and conflict resolution in schools to rebuild habits of respectful disagreement in the next generation – but implementing such curriculum widely is slow and sometimes hampered by the very polarization it seeks to fix (witness debates over what can even be discussed in civics class). Overcoming the “money barrier” fueling incivility might require media consumers to demand better (e.g., turning off channels that just sling mud) and rewarding politicians who behave with dignity (currently, hardliners and bomb-throwers often dominate primaries thanks to hyper-partisan base turnout and donor support, whereas moderates preaching civility can struggle for attention and funding). In sum, the decline of civility is a concern that underpins and exacerbates many other concerns, making solutions harder to reach. Americans recognize that and list it as a big problem. Reversing it will likely be a slow cultural shift – essentially, reversing the incentive structure so that cooperation and courtesy are valued over viral confrontation. Without that, the threat is a continued spiral of division that paralyzes progress on all fronts.

58. Fading of the “American Dream” (Cultural/Economic Issue) – A pervasive concern for Americans is that the classic “American Dream” – the idea that if you work hard, you can build a better life and that your children will do even better – is slipping away. Polls show cynicism about upward mobility: for example, only 43% of Americans in 2022 believed that today’s children will grow up to be better off financially than their parents, one of the most pessimistic readings ever. This worry ties together many concrete issues (stagnant wages, high costs for housing, education, healthcare) into a broader sense of disillusionment. Perceived threat: The threat here is essentially a loss of hope in the future – a fear that the next generation will face a lower standard of living, shorter life expectancy (as current trends ominously suggest), and fewer opportunities. This undercurrent can breed social unrest or populist anger, as people feel the system no longer rewards playing by the rules. It also can contribute to brain drain or youth disengagement – if young people feel they’ll never afford a home or have a secure career, they may either drop out of striving or even consider opportunities abroad. Politically, the idea that the American Dream is dying has been invoked by both left and right populists to rally support for change (e.g., Bernie Sanders highlighting inequality or Donald Trump appealing to those who feel “the American Dream is dead” because factories closed). Reality: Objective measures confirm some of these anxieties: social mobility in the U.S. has indeed declined – a child born in the 1940s had over a 90% chance to earn more than their parents at age 30, whereas a child born in the 1980s had only a ~50% chance. The concentration of wealth at the top means many families in the middle have seen relatively little real income growth over decades despite rising GDP. Additionally, key components of a stable middle-class life – a steady job with benefits, homeownership, affordable college for the kids, a secure retirement – have become more elusive (jobs are less secure, housing and college costs soared, pensions mostly disappeared outside the public sector). So the dream of each generation doing better isn’t automatically happening anymore. Part of the cause: globalization and automation eliminated many well-paying blue-collar jobs; policy choices (like weaker unions and tax advantages for capital over labor) exacerbated inequality. Also, regional decline has left some communities in multi-generation economic funks (e.g., coal country or inner cities) where the dream seems a cruel joke. Money barrier: Reversing these trends – essentially, reviving the American Dream – would involve major investments and policy shifts: improving education and access to it, making housing affordable, creating good jobs via industrial or regional development policy, strengthening the safety net for health and retirement, and perhaps redistributive measures to reduce inequality. Each of those faces significant money barriers in politics: those at the top who benefit from the status quo often lobby to maintain it (e.g., opposing higher taxes on the wealthy to fund programs or opposing student debt relief). Divided government and partisan gridlock, fueled by money influence, have made sweeping reforms rare. However, there have been steps: the 2021-2022 period saw some big bills (infrastructure law, CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act) that aim to create jobs, spread high-tech industry, lower some costs (e.g., capping insulin at \$35 for seniors). Those were arguably targeted at restoring pieces of the dream (e.g., well-paying manufacturing jobs via semiconductor plants breaking ground in Ohio and Arizona). Still, the scale might not be enough to fully move the needle on perceived economic security across 330 million people. Public drive: Americans certainly want the dream back – polls show huge support for things like raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, and other measures to boost the middle class[57][80]. Where conflict arises is how to do it and who pays (tying to tax and spending disputes). The threat of losing the dream has at least galvanized more discussion about systemic fixes – for instance, both 2016 and 2020 presidential races had significant focus on middle-class struggles and remedies (trade policy changes, major social program expansions, etc.). The challenge is aligning political action with the urgency felt by households. As long as moneyed interests and partisan divides dilute policy responses, progress is slow. Many worry that if the dream continues to fade, it could lead to societal fracturing or even people losing faith in capitalism and democracy (surveys indeed show younger generations more skeptical of those systems, partly due to perceived lack of fairness in outcomes). In summary, the erosion of the American Dream is a top concern because it strikes at the heart of America’s identity as a land of opportunity. Turning that concern into effective policy requires overcoming significant financial and political hurdles – but failing to do so may threaten America’s long-run stability and unity, reinforcing why this issue ranks high on Americans’ list of fears.

59. Loss of Faith in Democracy and Institutions (Cultural Issue) – Americans have become profoundly distrustful of their core institutions – not just media (as discussed) and government branches (low Congress and Court approval as noted), but democracy itself. A 2022 survey found 52% of Americans said U.S. democracy is not working well and major changes are needed, and a CBS poll around the same time reported 72% feel democracy is under threat. This concern overlaps with corruption, polarization, and misinformation issues, but centers on a fundamental worry: that the system of government may no longer represent or respond to the people, and could even break down. Perceived threat: People see signs of democratic decay – the contested 2020 election and violent Capitol riot being the starkest. Additionally, they view constant gridlock and inability to pass popular policies as evidence the system is failing its purpose. Many feel their vote doesn’t matter due to gerrymandering (where many elections aren’t competitive) or the Electoral College occasionally selecting a president who didn’t win the popular vote. Partisan election laws (like restricting voting methods or aggressive purges) on one side, and loose accusations of fraud on the other, both undermine confidence that votes will be counted fairly. If trust erodes too far, the fear is that more Americans will reject democratic outcomes – leading to more political violence or a slide into authoritarian rule if a strongman capitalizes on chaos. Reality: American democracy indeed faces serious stress tests: the peaceful transfer of power was disrupted in 2021; a significant chunk of one major party’s voters still doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 election despite all evidence and court rulings. Election officials have faced harassment and even death threats simply for doing their jobs counting votes. Norms like accepting defeat and conceding gracefully have frayed. The institutional guardrails (like courts upholding election results and military staying out of politics) held in the last crisis, but experts warn the system’s guardrails rely on people’s buy-in to democratic principles – and that buy-in is weakening. The “Big Lie” about a stolen election was propelled by key political figures and amplified on social media – and crucially, funded by millions of dollars (some groups raised money ostensibly to “audit” elections, often with partisan motives). That shows how money can pour gasoline on democratic doubt. Money barrier: Fixing the mechanics of democracy – e.g., reducing gerrymandering via independent commissions, easing voting access uniformly, limiting money’s influence – runs into direct opposition from those currently advantaged by the status quo. For instance, the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act in 2021 proposed sweeping election reforms, but they were blocked in the Senate by unified GOP opposition (and a couple of moderate Democrats unwilling to bypass the filibuster). Much of that opposition aligned with partisan interest to retain certain state-level advantages and with ideological or donor-driven resistance to things like publicly funded campaigns or stricter campaign finance rules. Meanwhile, efforts to push civic education or national service to bolster democratic values lack wealthy champions and thus often languish in budgets. Social media companies have often resisted stringent moderation of election misinformation on free speech or profit grounds (though under pressure they did more in 2020 than previously). The result is a patchwork defense of democracy reliant on individual state officials’ integrity and courts, rather than robust systemic protections – making many citizens uneasy that a future election crisis could tip the other way if a few officials or judges acted differently. Public desire: Polls show large majorities support many pro-democracy measures (like requiring unbiased redistricting or making voting easier and secure simultaneously). However, the hyper-partisan climate means public consensus doesn’t easily translate to legislative action – again because a minority with outsized power (leveraging Senate rules, Supreme Court rulings like Shelby that weakened voting law, etc.) can thwart changes. People sense this mismatch and it further fuels cynicism (e.g., 65% in one poll said elected officials don’t care about people like them). If left unaddressed, this lack of faith can become a self-fulfilling prophecy – low trust leads to low participation or acceptance, which then really does weaken democracy. The hopeful note is that 2022’s elections saw most election deniers who ran for positions of election oversight defeated, indicating voters in key states did prioritize safeguarding democracy when clearly at stake. But that required broad awareness and cross-party cooperation – which is hard to sustain without a fire alarm moment. Overcoming the money and power barriers to strengthen democracy (like campaign finance reform, anti-gerrymandering laws, voter access guarantees) likely requires an aroused public that places democratic integrity above short-term partisan wins. While Americans clearly list democracy’s health as a top concern, translating that concern into pressure strong enough to override entrenched interests is the challenge ahead. The perceived threat of losing democracy is now tangible to many; whether that sparks enough united action to reinforce our institutions will determine if this concern eases or becomes a dire reality.

60. Lack of National Unity (Cultural Issue) – Finally, underpinning many of the concerns above is a pervasive sense that Americans have lost the ability to come together as one people. The motto “United We Stand” feels endangered. A Georgetown University poll in 2022 constructed a “National Unity Index” and found it at a very low level, with over 90% of Americans agreeing that polarization is a serious problem and saying the nation is too divided over core values. This erosion of shared identity and common purpose is often mentioned in focus groups and interviews – people lament that the country feels more like warring tribes than a united states. Perceived threat: The worry is that without a sense of unity, the U.S. cannot tackle its challenges or remain strong. Historically, national unity has been critical in times of war or crisis; without it, adversaries might exploit our divisions (indeed, foreign propaganda often aims to deepen our internal rifts). Domestically, lack of unity can lead to constant gridlock and even thoughts of secession or breaking apart – as extreme as that sounds, polls show about one-third of each major party’s voters in some regions have flirted with the idea of their state or region seceding. That underscores how alienated the two halves of the country feel from each other. Many Americans find it distressing that even basic tragedy or patriotism no longer unite us (for example, even responses to a pandemic or a foreign war become polarized almost immediately). This absence of unity is seen as a threat to national survival – a house divided cannot stand, as Lincoln echoed the Bible. Reality: America has always had regional and political divides – one could argue unity was never perfect – but by most measures, the current divide (cultural, ideological, geographic sorting) is the worst since at least the Vietnam era, if not the 19th century. People increasingly live in echo chambers (neighborhoods, social circles, media diets) with like-minded others, leading to “othering” of fellow citizens. National symbols and institutions that used to provide common reference points (from the flag to the national anthem to respect for presidency or Supreme Court) have all become politicized to some degree, such that even those can be divisive (see NFL anthem protests controversy, or debates over what historical figures to honor). While diversity of thought and background is a strength, the lack of an overarching common narrative or mutual trust is a vulnerability. Even the response to something like 9/11, which briefly united the country, might play out differently in today’s climate (some say if 9/11 happened now, we’d fight internally over blame or policy immediately). Money barrier: National unity isn’t something money can buy directly, but money in politics and media certainly fans disunity as discussed – conflict sells, and as long as profit and power can be gained by pitting Americans against each other, there will be forces doing so. Efforts that could foster unity (like universal national service, where young people of all backgrounds work together for a year) require funding and political capital, and haven’t been implemented broadly due to costs and lack of consensus. Additionally, addressing socioeconomic inequalities would remove some grievances that fuel division – but that hits the barriers of wealth interests and partisan doctrine. Social media companies could tweak algorithms to emphasize shared interests over divisive content, but that might reduce engagement metrics (hitting their ad revenue), so they have little incentive absent regulation or pressure. Essentially, bridging unity might mean some actors making less money or ceding some influence for the greater good – a tough ask without concerted public demand. Public desire: Despite everything, polls show Americans yearn for more unity – large majorities say they wish the country felt more united and that the division is mainly driven by political leaders or media, not ordinary people’s true inability to get along. That suggests that at the personal level, many Americans do remain willing to find common ground, but feel the system pits them against each other. If so, a path to greater unity might involve reforms we discussed (curbing extreme gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, promoting cross-partisan projects) and leadership explicitly focusing on healing divisions (some local initiatives bring people of opposite views to dialogue – these have modest but positive results, though scaling them up is challenging). History shows national unity often surges during external threats (World War II, etc.), but relying on a catastrophe to bind us is not ideal. The perceived threat of disunion itself might be motivating enough – if Americans increasingly see internal strife as as big a threat as any external enemy, perhaps that realization can spur collective action to prioritize national cohesion. In summary, the lack of unity underlies and worsens all other issues, and Americans recognize that. Overcoming the money-fueled and power-driven incentives that drive wedges between us is no small task, but the fact that “unity” is top-of-mind means the public is aware that we ultimately have to fix us in order to tackle anything else. The hope is that this concern itself – fear for the country’s very soul – will create momentum to reverse course on division in the years to come.

Each of these 60 issues – from the cost of living to the cohesion of our union – represents a key challenge Americans identify in 2025. They are deeply interrelated: economic strains feed social strains, and vice versa. And running through many is the theme of moneyed interests vs. the public interest – the “money barriers” that preserve problems for profit or power. The American public clearly sees the problems. Project 2029 is addressing the root cause of these issues and more, to change how American's view and address problems and restore confidence that, even if we disagree, we can solve problems together – fulfilling the American people's desire not just for a stronger economy or safer society, but for a more unified, fair nation for the future.

[57][80]

[1] [4] [9] [12] [22] [38] [53] Several Economic Issues Seen as Top National Problems by Americans | Pew Research Center

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/02/20/americans-continue-to-view-several-economic-issues-as-top-national-problems/

[2] [3] [5] [6] [48] [49] Revealed: millions spent by lobby firms fighting Obama health reforms | Obama administration | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

[7] [8] Profits and price inflation are indeed linked | Economic Policy Institute

https://www.epi.org/blog/profits-and-price-inflation-are-indeed-linked/

[10] [33] [34] [44] [77]  Worry About U.S. Economy, Healthcare, Social Security Surges 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/658910/worry-economy-healthcare-social-security-surges.aspx

[11] U.S. child poverty more than doubled in 2022; New York State must ...

https://scaany.org/census-u-s-child-poverty-more-than-doubled-in-2022-new-york-state-must-take-action/

[13] [16] [17] [20] [21] [30] [56] pewresearch.org

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/02/PP_2025.2.20_national-problems_topline.pdf

[14] [23] [45] 2025: The public’s priorities and expectations - AP-NORC

https://apnorc.org/projects/2025-the-publics-priorities-and-expectations/

[15] [35] [36] [37] [50] This Week in Drug Pricing: NEW POLL: GOP Voters Overwhelmingly Back Medicare Negotiation, Pharma’s Record-Breaking Lobbying Spend, and ‘Most Favored Nation’ Pricing Floated For 2nd Time - Patients For Affordable Drugs Now

https://patientsforaffordabledrugsnow.org/2025/04/25/this-week-in-drug-pricing-new-poll-gop-voters-overwhelmingly-back-medicare-negotiation-pharmas-record-breaking-lobbying-spend-and-most-favored-nation-pricing-floated-for-2nd-time/

[18] [19] [26] [27] [28] “They’re Ruining People’s Lives”: Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth in the US | HRW

https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/06/03/theyre-ruining-peoples-lives/bans-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth

[24] [25] [67] Texas Banned Abortion. Then Sepsis Rates Soared. — ProPublica

https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis

[29] NEW POLL: 81% of Voters Believe Democracy is Threatened

https://politics.georgetown.edu/2024/03/21/new-poll-81-of-voters-believe-democracy-is-threatened/

[31] ASCE's 2021 report card marks the nation's infrastructure progress

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/civil-engineering-magazine/issues/magazine-issue/article/2021/03/asce-2021-report-card-marks-the-nations-infrastructure-progress

[32] ASCE's Infrastructure Report Card Gives U.S. 'C-' Grade, Says ...

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/society-news/article/2021/03/03/asces-infrastructure-report-card-gives-us-c

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [89] [90] Intuit, Owner of TurboTax, Wins Battle Against America’s Taxpayers - The American Prospect

https://prospect.org/power/2025-04-17-intuit-turbotax-wins-battle-against-taxpayers-irs-direct-file/

[46] Pew Research Center：Negative Views of China Have Softened Slightly Among Americans : r/China

https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/1k29cbl/pew_research_centernegative_views_of_china_have/

[47] A quarter of U.S. adults see Chinese Americans as a "threat": poll

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/01/asian-american-poll-stereotypes-chinese-threat

[51] PEN America Releases New Analysis of 2023-24 School Book Bans

https://www.slj.com/story/PEN-America-Releases-New-Analysis-2023-24-school-Book-Bans

[52] CDC: Teens' mental health worse than a decade ago despite small ...

https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/29622/CDC-Teens-mental-health-worse-than-a-decade-ago

[54] [91] Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024 | Pew Research Center

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

[55] Who should draw congressional districts? What a poll found

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article311702625.html

[57] [58] [65] [66] [68] [72] [73] [80] [81] [87] [88] [92] Taxes on some corporations, wealthy people unfairly low, Americans say| Pew Research Center

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-frustrations-for-americans-the-feeling-that-some-corporations-wealthy-people-dont-pay-fair-share/

[59] States Want Stricter Environmental Regulations

https://globalwarmingisreal.com/2025/06/13/states-want-stricter-environmental-regulations/

[60] Teens, Social Media and Mental Health - Pew Research Center

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/

[61] Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low - Gallup News

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx

[62] More support than oppose stricter environmental laws in many states

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/05/19/support-for-stricter-environmental-regulations-outweighs-opposition-in-a-majority-of-states/

[63] U.S. Public Sees Russia-Ukraine Conflict as Critical Threat

https://news.gallup.com/poll/390140/public-sees-russia-ukraine-conflict-critical-threat.aspx

[64] Nuclear fears in US amid Russia-Ukraine war: AP-NORC poll

https://apnorc.org/nuclear-fears-in-us-amid-russia-ukraine-war-ap-norc-poll/

[69] Americans Remain Steadfast on Policing Reform Needs in 2022

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393119/americans-remain-steadfast-policing-reform-needs-2022.aspx

[70] Privacy is important to Americans. Here's the data they're worried ...

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/privacy-important-americans-heres-data-theyre-worried-about

[71] Nearly All Americans Worry About Data Breaches: Poll

https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2025/03/06/272644.htm

[74] Pew Research: Most Americans Support Stricter Environmental Laws

https://leadingladiesvote.org/social-media/pew-research-most-americans-support-stricter-environmental-laws

[75] Vast Majority of Americans Pessimistic on How AI Will Affect ...

https://americanstaffing.net/posts/2023/08/17/how-ai-will-affect-employment/

[76] US infrastructure gets a C, its highest grade ever, in ASCE report card

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/asce-us-infrastructure-report-card-highest-grade-ever/743584/

[78] Union Membership Reaches Another Record Low in 2023

https://www.uschamber.com/employment-law/unions/union-membership-reaches-another-record-low-in-2023

[79] US union membership rate hits fresh record low in 2023 -Labor Dept

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-union-membership-rate-hits-fresh-record-low-2023-labor-dept-2024-01-23/

[82] U.S. Opinions on Housing Affordability: A BPC/NHC/Morning ...

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/opinions-on-housing-affordability-poll/

[83] Housing Cost Burdens Climb to Record Levels (Again) in 2023

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/housing-cost-burdens-climb-record-levels-again-2023

[84] Environment | Gallup Historical Trends

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/environment.aspx

[85] The High Level of Public Support for Environmental Protection in the ...

https://sps.columbia.edu/news/high-level-public-support-environmental-protection-us

[86] Union membership decline seen as bad for US, working people by ...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/12/majorities-of-adults-see-decline-of-union-membership-as-bad-for-the-us-and-working-people/

[93] New Poll Finds Americans Deeply Concerned About Housing Costs ...

https://endhomelessness.org/media/news-releases/new-poll-finds-americans-deeply-concerned-about-housing-costs-and-homelessness-as-economic-insecurity-drives-crisis/

[94] 74% of Americans worried about housing affordability

https://nhc.org/74-of-americans-worried-about-housing-affordability/

[95] Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/08/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/

[96] Corruption | Gallup Topic

https://news.gallup.com/topic/corruption.aspx