A Way Forward, Together

The Commitments in Full

By AFK
First edition, October 26, 2026

What this is

This is where the twenty commitments of A Way Forward, Together are laid out in full. If you're new, start with the framework. It has what we share, our principles, a short summary of each commitment, how it gets paid for and how the pieces fit together. Come here when you want to dig into one topic. Each commitment stands on its own, so you don't need to read this front to back.

Each commitment is laid out the same way:

We tried to think every proposal through. How would people and businesses likely react? What would those reactions cause? What would we measure, and what would make us rethink it? The safeguards that came out of that are written into the proposals here. The full chains, numbered the same way, are in Following the chain: how each idea was tested. The costs and funding are in Paying for it, and the health plan is in Healthcare for Everyone.

1. Honest conversation and shared wisdom

The goal. A country where people who disagree can actually talk. Where everyone learns to think for themselves. And where the experience of older generations, tradespeople, veterans, farmers, immigrants and everyone else gets passed on instead of lost.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Every other commitment depends on this one. If we can't talk to each other, we can't solve anything together. A lot of our political "conversation" now happens through feeds and cable shows built to keep us angry, because anger keeps us watching. Meanwhile, hard-won practical knowledge is retiring with nobody to hand it to.

When local papers close, studies find local governments pay more to borrow and fewer people run for office, because nobody is watching. When we only meet the other side through a screen, it's easy to believe the worst about them. And everything else here, from housing to healthcare, needs people who disagree to sit down and settle on something.

Most of us hold the beliefs we grew up around. If we'd been born somewhere else, a lot of us would believe something else. That doesn't make our beliefs wrong. It's a reason to stay humble about them and to see the person on the other side as just a person. Strong opinions are fine. An opinion isn't a fact, though, and "that's just what I believe" isn't evidence.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "You can't make people talk nicely, and government shouldn't try to shape how people think." That's fair. It's why nothing here tells anyone what to believe. These are invitations and skills, not mandates, and every public program has to pass the other-side test.

How we'll know. Fewer Americans who see the other party as an enemy. Today about 6 in 10 Republicans and over half of Democrats view the other party very unfavorably (Pew, 2022). Our target is to cut that by a third within ten years. More people who find political conversations useful instead of stressful. In 2025, 57% called them stressful and frustrating and 41% called them interesting and informative (Marist). Our target is a majority finding them useful. We'd also track how many people report a real conversation across political lines in the past year, and how many apprenticeship and mentorship placements there are, measured against today's levels in the first scorecard.

Still open. How big should the service year get, and how fast? What role, if any, should government have with online platforms?

2. Cost of living and housing

The goal. A normal life shouldn't be a luxury. A working family should be able to afford a home, groceries, power and an afternoon out together. A young person should be able to picture owning a home someday.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Housing is the biggest monthly bill for most families, and in much of the country it's outrun wages. A record 22.7 million renter households, about half of all renters, spend more than 30% of their income on housing (Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2026). In most places the root cause is simple. We haven't built enough homes where people need to live, because local rules, slow permits and high building costs make it hard. Estimates of the shortage run from about 4 million homes (Freddie Mac, Zillow) to as many as 10 million (White House Council of Economic Advisers, 2026).

Everyone pays for it. Young people put off starting families or leave the towns they grew up in. Teachers, nurses and firefighters can't afford to live where they work, so commutes get longer and local services struggle to hire. Helping people buy or rent without building more mostly pushes prices higher, which is why we put building first. Where places have made building easier, it works. After Minneapolis and Minnesota loosened zoning, rents in Minneapolis grew far more slowly than in the rest of the state (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2024). Austin built a lot after 2020 and saw rents fall from their peak.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Building more changes the character of my town, and local control matters." It does matter. Towns keep control over design and where growth goes. What they shouldn't be able to do is block homes altogether while their own kids can't afford to live there.

How we'll know. Homes finished (not just approved), rent and home prices compared with incomes, the share of buyers who are first-time buyers, homelessness and commute times.

Still open. Should capital gains rules change for homes that aren't someone's main residence? Our answer for now is no special rule. The general changes in section 6 (a 3-year line for the lower rate, and wage-level rates on very large gains) already apply to second homes and rentals. Raising the tax on selling them would mostly make owners hang on longer, which keeps homes off the market (economists call this "lock-in"). The local tax on full-time short-term rentals and empty homes is the better tool, because it rewards putting homes back to use instead of punishing the sale.

3. Community, childcare and family time

The goal. Every town has places where people actually spend time together. Families belong in ordinary public life. And parents can work without childcare eating their whole paycheck.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Loneliness and isolation are real health problems, not just sad feelings. The U.S. Surgeon General's 2023 advisory compared the health risk of lacking social connection to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day. The World Health Organization's Commission on Social Connection (2025) linked loneliness to about 871,000 deaths a year worldwide.

We're spending less time together. In federal time-use surveys, Americans spent about 47 minutes a day socializing in person in 2003 and about 35 minutes in 2025. The biggest drop is among teenagers and young adults. Part of the reason is that a lot of the places where people used to gather for free have thinned out. Union halls, bowling leagues, church basements, lodges, main-street shops and parks with a reason to stick around. Sociologists call these "third places," somewhere that isn't home or work. When the only places to meet cost money, people with less money, and families with kids, stay home.

The after-school gap. School usually ends around 3:00, and most jobs end at 5:00 or later. Federal crime data have long shown that violent crime by juveniles peaks right after school on school days, in the afternoon hours when a lot of kids are on their own. The Afterschool Alliance found that for every child in an after-school program, many more would join one if it were there. In 2014, parents of 19.4 million children not in a program said they would sign their kids up. For working parents, those hours mean leaving work early, paying for care they can't afford, or worrying about a kid home alone.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Government shouldn't run community life or raise our kids." It shouldn't, and this doesn't. Everything here is voluntary, local and chosen by families. Government's job is to clear the obstacles and keep the lights on.

How we'll know. People who come back to events and programs, how much people say they feel they belong, childcare cost as a share of family income, and whether parents can work the hours they want.

Still open. How much of childcare should be public, and how much should go to families as direct support they can use however they choose?

4. Healthcare and mental health

The goal. Everyone can see a doctor, get mental health care, see a dentist and fill a prescription without going broke. Medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not by insurance companies.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Markets work well when you can compare prices and walk away. You can't do that in an ambulance or after a cancer diagnosis. In 2024 Americans spent about $14,800 per person on healthcare, nearly twice the $7,900 average of other wealthy countries (Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker), and we still live shorter lives than people in those countries. We also lose coverage when we change jobs and fight denials we can't make sense of. National health spending reached $5.3 trillion in 2024, 18% of the whole economy (CMS).

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "One payer means one point of failure, long waits, higher taxes and less innovation." These are real risks, and other countries show where they come from. Canada has fixed hospital budgets and 30-week median waits. Britain's hospitals are overfull. Taiwan's politicians have kept its trust fund short. Our answer is built into how the plan runs. Hospitals get paid for the care they deliver, not a fixed budget. Hospitals keep spare beds, and long-term care is inside the system. Wait-time guarantees come with the right to get care somewhere else at the plan's expense. Independent actuaries, not politicians, set the trust fund's rate, and real medical advances earn higher prices. Taxes go up, but premiums, deductibles and copays go away, and we show the net effect for typical families before asking anyone to support it.

What it would cost. By our estimate, one public plan saves about $0.62 trillion a year. About $0.50 trillion of that is paperwork and insurer overhead and $0.12 trillion is drug prices. We don't count any savings from fraud until audits show them. That pays for most of covering everyone in full, including the uninsured, dental, vision, hearing and long-term care, which adds about $0.82 trillion. So total national health spending goes up about 4%. New federal spending is about $2.5 trillion a year, and nearly all of it replaces what families and employers already pay in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. It's paid through a separate health trust fund. Employers pay 6.5% of payroll. States keep paying their Medicaid share. Households pay 8% of income up to $125,000 for a single person or $200,000 for a couple, and 16% above that. The first $25,000 per adult is exempt, and each parent's rate is 0.25 points higher for each child. The general budget adds about $110 billion a year to keep the middle rate low. A family of four earning $80,000 pays about $6,700 a year less than today. A single worker earning $60,000 pays about the same, about $350 more, until their employer passes on its premium savings. The full model, the cautious and optimistic cases, and the lessons from other countries are in Healthcare for Everyone.

Studies from different points of view land in the same range. The Congressional Budget Office's 2020 study of five single-payer designs found federal spending would go up by $1.5 to $3.0 trillion a year by 2030, while the country's total health spending would change by anywhere from $0.7 trillion less to $0.3 trillion more. The free-market Mercatus Center (2018) and the Urban Institute (2019) both put the federal cost of the Sanders plan at about $32 trillion over ten years. Mercatus's own numbers showed total national spending falling slightly if providers were paid Medicare rates. A Yale team writing in The Lancet (2020) estimated national savings of about 13%, roughly $450 billion a year, and about 68,000 lives saved each year. One of its authors advised the Sanders office. Before we ask anyone to sign on, we'll have our design scored independently, for example by the Penn Wharton Budget Model or RAND.

How we'll know. The uninsured rate, medical debt, wait times, out-of-pocket costs, life expectancy and how long it takes new treatments to get covered.

The path: everyone, in two waves. Healthcare can't wait for the economy to change, so it comes first and fastest. The dates are targets. Each wave starts only when published readiness tests are met.

Still open. Where the household contribution's upper rate starts and how smoothly it phases in, the exact wait-time guarantees, and the short list of truly elective procedures.

5. Work, income and automation

The goal. As AI and automation do more of the work, everyone shares in the gains through a secure income floor, better pay and more free time. Nobody falls through the floor when technology changes their job. People have room to find meaningful work, learn a trade, care for family, make art or start something.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. AI could change work faster than anything since the industrial revolution. Nobody knows exactly how fast, which jobs or how many, and honest forecasts disagree.

Not knowing is a reason to build protections now, before the hardship is undeniable, and to time each step to what actually happens. That's why the basic income has yearly checkpoints and the automation tax rises automatically with unemployment (see 6).

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "A basic income is unaffordable, and it will make people stop working." Both halves deserve a straight answer.

What it costs. At launch, with adults at $500, it's about $1.75 trillion a year. At the full amounts, $1,000 a month for about 255 million eligible adults is about $3.06 trillion a year, and $250 a month for about 72 million children adds about $0.22 trillion. That's about $3.3 trillion in all, roughly 10.6% of the economy (Census 2025 counts, citizens and permanent residents). For scale, the whole federal budget was about $7.4 trillion in 2026. That gross number overstates the real burden, because most households pay some of it back in taxes and still come out ahead. That doesn't make the taxes smaller. They still have to be raised in full, and Paying for it shows each one.

How we'd pay for it: many sources, one step at a time. No single tax covers it. It's built in layers, and each one is explained in section 6.

If AI's gains come slowly, adults may get $500 a month through most of the 2030s. $1,000 is the goal. Children get the full amount from the start. For adults, programs come first, with a guardrail. Adults are scheduled to go up $125 a year from $500 in 2029, which would reach $1,000 in 2033 if money were no limit. But money will be a limit. The plan can borrow to keep to that schedule until its added debt reaches 3% of GDP. Above that line, the next step waits. If the debt keeps rising, the VAT goes up 3 points a year until the account balances, then comes back down once the debt is paid back. An independent office checks the line every year, and payments never go backward. In the slower cases the steps slow down within a few years and the VAT reaches 22% around 2034. If AI's gains are modest, the services wait too, at 60%. If AI wipes out jobs without raising growth, the guardrail sends the bill to a bigger automation tax.

Here are the honest trade-offs. The plan borrows in the open in its early years and pays the interest. How fast it gets to $1,000 depends on AI. And the money from the top-end taxes goes to the basic income, so the other commitments share the same guardrail. Services go first, phasing in from 2029 to 2033, and the cash steps wait their turn when money is tight. With everything counted, adults reach $1,000 around 2037 if AI's gains are transformative and around 2042 if they're substantial. They stay at $500 if the gains are modest. The full math is in Paying for it.

Will people stop working? The evidence says mostly no. In the largest U.S. study, OpenResearch (2024), people who got $1,000 a month for three years worked about 1.3 fewer hours a week than a comparison group and got pickier about jobs. Most of the extra money went to food, rent and transportation. Trials with an end date can't tell us what a permanent national program would do, which is why each step has checkpoints.

How we'll know. Poverty, financial stability, hours worked, job quality, new businesses started, caregiving and health.

Still open. How fast pay rises after the move to 32 hours, and how to adapt it for round-the-clock jobs like firefighting, nursing and farming.

6. Taxes, budget and debt

The goal. A tax system where the people who've gained the most pay their fair share, working families aren't squeezed, and every promise here is paid for honestly.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. A lot of the very wealthiest Americans pay lower tax rates than nurses and electricians. Most of their wealth grows as investments that get taxed lightly, late or never. When the growth in their wealth is counted, the 400 wealthiest families paid an average federal income tax rate of about 8% from 2010 to 2018 (White House Council of Economic Advisers, 2021). Meanwhile every plan, including this one, is tempted to promise more than it can pay for.

This matters beyond fairness. When the people with the most pay the least, everyone else carries more of the load, trust in the system wears down and the pressure to borrow grows. Borrowing has a price too. Interest crowds out everything else. And if inflation is used to shrink the debt, that's a quiet tax on every paycheck and savings account.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Raising taxes on the top hurts investment, and the rich will just move their money or leave." Some of that is real, which is why enforcement and closing loopholes come first. On growth, the evidence is more reassuring than the objection suggests. A 2012 Congressional Research Service study of U.S. data going back to 1945 found no statistically significant link between top tax rates and economic growth, saving, investment or productivity. It did find that tax cuts were linked to more income going to the very top. A 2020 London School of Economics study of 18 wealthy countries over 50 years found the same thing. Major tax cuts for the rich raised the top earners' share of income without measurably raising growth or jobs. The real limit is avoidance. Very high earners are good at changing how and when they report income, so rates set too high mostly create more tax planning. That's why we pair moderate top rates with closing the gaps between how wages, gains and inheritances get taxed.

How we'll know. The tax rates each income group actually pays, how revenue compares with the estimates, the tax gap, business investment and debt as a share of the economy.

Still open. Exact rates, and how much of the basic income and healthcare costs this side can cover.

7. Education and skills

The goal. Every kid is fed and safe, can read, write, do math and reason, and sees a real path to a good living, whether that's through college, a trade or an apprenticeship. Every adult leaves school knowing how money, loans and contracts work.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. We're failing too many kids. In 2024, about 40% of fourth graders scored below the basic level in reading, the most since 2002, and a third of eighth graders did, the most ever recorded (National Assessment of Educational Progress). Teachers are stretched thin. About 8% leave the profession every year, which drives most of the demand for new teachers (Learning Policy Institute). Testing pressure narrows what gets taught. Kids often don't see why math or reading matter. And too many young people start college with no idea what a field is really like. They borrow heavily and spend years and thousands of dollars figuring it out. Meanwhile the skilled trades that hold this country up need about 1.7 million new workers a year through 2035, and training programs only turn out about 55 for every 100 needed (Alliance for America's Skilled Trades).

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Education is a state and local job, and more federal money hasn't fixed it before." That's mostly true. Federal money here comes with few strings beyond results and openness, and states and districts choose how to deliver.

How we'll know. Reading and math levels, how many teachers stay, students in apprenticeships, completion rates, debt compared with earnings, and adults who pass a basic money skills check.

School choice and charters: case by case. Our first priority is making public schools so good that families want them. Charters and school choice can help where they work. They can also sort kids by income and race and drain neighborhood schools. So any choice program has to show that it improves learning without increasing segregation or leaving the neighborhood school worse off. What the evidence says: results depend a lot on the model. Stanford's CREDO study (2023), covering 29 states, found the typical charter student gained a little more each year than similar students in nearby public schools, about 16 extra days of learning in reading and 6 in math. The gains were biggest for Black, Hispanic and low-income students and for charters run by established nonprofit networks. Stand-alone charters added little in math. Voucher results are more mixed. Louisiana's statewide program led to big drops in math scores in its early years. Washington, DC's program didn't raise test scores but did raise graduation rates, and Florida's tax-credit scholarship raised college enrollment. The lesson is to grow the models with a track record, hold every school that takes public money to the same public reporting, and close the ones that don't deliver.

8. Energy, climate and the grid

The goal. As much clean, cheap, reliable power as we can build, a stable climate for our kids, and electric bills families can actually afford, without punishing rural people or small users along the way.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. The climate is changing, and human activity is the main cause. Fire, flood and heat already cost us lives and money every year. In 2025, U.S. billion-dollar disasters added up to at least $115 billion and 276 deaths. The Los Angeles fires alone caused more than $61 billion (Climate Central, which took over the count after NOAA stopped it in 2025).

At the same time, power is too expensive and too unreliable. At California's prices, charging an electric car can cost more than buying gas, even though the electric motor is several times more efficient. That's a failure of how utilities are run and regulated, not of the technology. New solar and wind are now some of the cheapest power ever built. In 2024, 91% of new renewable projects worldwide were cheaper than the cheapest new fossil fuel option. Solar was about 41% cheaper and onshore wind about 53% cheaper (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2025). The power is cheap. Getting it built, connected and paid for fairly is the bottleneck.

The stakes are real for every region. The UN's Emissions Gap Report (November 2025) projects about 2.8°C of warming this century under the policies countries actually have, or 2.3 to 2.5°C if every country keeps its latest promises. It finds the U.S. leaving Paris adds about 0.1°C by itself. For Americans that means longer fire seasons, more deadly heat, rising seas, stronger storms and floods, crop losses and water shortages in the West, and insurance costs going up everywhere. Those are the risks the National Climate Assessment lays out region by region. We're about an eighth of the world's emissions, so our biggest impact is making clean technology so cheap and proven that the rest of the world picks it up too (see 20).

What we propose. A plan in six parts that work together. No one tool is enough by itself. A price on pollution doesn't build power lines, and building power lines doesn't stop methane leaks. Each part is sized against the checkpoints in part six, and affordability gets measured right alongside emissions.

Part one: build clean power and the grid to carry it

Part two: fix how utilities are paid

Part three: cut the cheapest pollution first

Part four: put a price on pollution and give the money back

A carbon fee charges fossil fuel companies for the pollution in what they sell, at the mine, well or port. That way the price of dirtier energy reflects what it really costs. Businesses invest in cutting emissions because they know the price will keep going up, and nobody in Washington has to pick which technology wins.

How we weighed the uses. We looked at three ways to use the money. Giving every dollar back as a check is the simplest and the most popular in both parties, but it leaves nothing for the regions and workers who pay the most. Folding the money into the basic income would mean one payment system, but a fee that shrinks as emissions fall is the wrong source for a permanent promise. Splitting it, mostly checks plus a transition fund, keeps most of the money with families while protecting the people an equal check doesn't reach. The risk with the fund is that it becomes a political target, so the law limits its money to the purposes above and it reports publicly.

Part five: a fair transition

Part six: targets and accountability

We need a long-term goal and near-term checkpoints. Net zero by 2050 is where we're headed. Five-year checkpoints make sure we're actually getting there, and they force action now instead of leaving it to whoever's in office in 2045. Waiting makes every cut harder and more expensive.

Where we're starting. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked around 2005 and have fallen roughly 17 to 20% since, mostly because power plants switched from coal to gas and renewables. The EPA's latest inventory put 2022 emissions 17% below 2005, after counting what forests and land soak up. About 42% of our electricity now comes from clean sources, roughly 24% renewables and 18% nuclear (Energy Information Administration, 2025).

The checkpoints (cuts compared with 2005; our proposal, to be checked against independent modeling). The 2030 checkpoint is a stretch goal that says what the science asks. The binding checkpoints, with consequences for missing them, start in 2035.

Why these numbers. Under current policy, independent analysts project U.S. emissions only 26 to 35% below 2005 by 2035. A year earlier that forecast was 38 to 56%. It dropped after cuts to clean-energy tax credits, rule rollbacks and fast-rising demand from AI data centers (Rhodium Group, Taking Stock 2025). Researchers estimate America's fair share of keeping warming to 1.5°C means cutting at least 57 to 63% by 2030 (Climate Action Tracker). That's a measure of fairness, not of what can be built. Our checkpoints aim for what the science asks, about 60% by 2030 and 70% by 2035. Studies of the earlier 50 to 52% goal (Princeton's REPEAT project, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and a six-model comparison in Science) agreed the grid is the key piece and needed about 80% clean power by 2030, so our 2030 milestones are a minimum. Emissions are about 18% below 2005 today. Getting to 60% by 2030 would mean cutting about half of today's emissions in four years, far faster than any year on record outside the pandemic. And transformers take about two and a half years to arrive and grid connections about five. We keep 60% as the stretch goal because it's what the science asks, but we don't pretend the build-out allows it. So 2030 gets judged by what we've built, and the consequences start with the 2035 checkpoint. The real limit isn't ambition. It's how fast we can build lines, connect projects, train workers and replace equipment. That's why permitting (10), the grid (part one) and training (7) come first.

How the checkpoints work.

What happens if we miss. A target with no consequence is a wish, so the response grows with the size of the miss. These start with the 2035 checkpoint. In 2030, the first step applies if the build-out falls short.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement took effect on January 27, 2026. In January 2026 the administration also announced it would leave the UN climate treaty itself. This plan stands on its own either way.

What we can do without Washington. Every year, people decide where trillions of dollars go. What they buy, where they bank, where their retirement money is invested and where they work. Pointing that money at companies that are cutting emissions changes the incentive without a vote in Washington.

None of this replaces public action on the carbon fee, permitting and power lines that cross state lines. Regular people move first, and the law locks in the gains.

The strongest objection. "Going green raises costs and hurts working people and rural areas." Done badly, it can. That's why affordability and reliability are part of the goal and get measured at every checkpoint. It's why most of the carbon fee comes back as checks, why occasional users are exempt, and why we pay for the transition instead of forcing it on people who can't afford it.

How we'll know. Average bills compared with neighboring states, minutes without power, fires started by utilities, the share of clean power, emissions by sector, measured methane, how long connections take, power added on existing lines, how long transformers take, home solar permit times, hours critical buildings lose power, how often chargers work, energy costs by income and region, the size of the checks and manufacturing jobs.

Still open. How big a share of its power each region should be able to trade with its neighbors, how farm and land emissions should be counted and rewarded (see 9), and whether the fee schedule should speed up after the 2030 checkpoint.

9. Land, water, farms and rural life

The goal. Healthy soil, clean water, thriving wildlife and forests that don't burn out of control, with farms and rural towns that can make a good living. A farmer who takes up better practices should be treated as a partner, never an enemy.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Farmers and ranchers are some of the best caretakers of the land we have, but thin margins leave little room to try something new.

Western water doesn't add up. The Colorado River serves about 40 million people and grows much of the country's winter vegetables. In the 1920s it was divided up on paper as if it carried about 16.5 million acre-feet a year. Since 2000 it's averaged closer to 12 million. Lakes Mead and Powell, the two biggest reservoirs, were less than two-thirds full in early 2026, and 2026 was on track to be one of the driest years on record. The rules for sharing the river run out this year, and the seven states couldn't agree, so the federal government is setting the new rules itself. Groundwater in California's Central Valley and other farm regions is being pumped out faster than it refills.

Fire is bigger and harder to fight. Over the last decade wildfires have burned an average of about 7 million acres a year, and federal firefighting alone has cost about $3.4 billion a year (USAFacts, from National Interagency Fire Center data). The agencies that fight them struggle to keep experienced people.

Rural towns are hollowing out. They keep losing hospitals, schools and young people. 195 rural hospitals have closed or stopped inpatient care since 2005 (UNC Sheps Center).

What happens on rural land reaches everyone. Farms grow our food. Forests and rivers supply a lot of our water. Smoke from a fire hundreds of miles away fills city lungs. When a farm fails or a town loses its hospital, the land often gets developed or sits idle, and the know-how that kept it healthy leaves with the people. Treating farmers, ranchers and tribes as partners isn't just fair. It's the only way the work gets done across millions of acres that no agency could manage by itself.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Washington doesn't know my land better than I do." Agreed. This is voluntary, local and built on what farmers already know. The help is there for those who want it.

How we'll know. Soil health, water quality and supply, acres burned in severe fire, homes lost, farm income and rural population trends.

The biggest fixes in how we manage wildfire. These come from the bipartisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission's 2023 report (On Fire, nearly 150 recommendations) and from the people who do the work.

These fixes are built into the proposals above and in section 12.

10. Infrastructure and building faster

The goal. A country that can build again. Roads, bridges, lead-free water systems, power lines, broadband and transit, finished on time and on budget, kept up once they're built, and creating good jobs along the way.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. The Golden Gate Bridge took about four years to build in the 1930s. Today a project like it could take decades of studies, lawsuits and redesigns, and cost many times more. American transit projects cost far more than similar projects in other wealthy countries. The global average for a new rail line is about $350 million a mile, while the second phase of New York's Second Avenue Subway is projected near $4 billion a mile (NYU Transit Costs Project). California's high-speed rail is the best-known example of costs and timelines running away. The causes can be fixed. Endless review cycles, agencies without the experts to manage their own projects, scope that keeps changing and funding that starts and stops.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Speeding up reviews means cutting corners on safety and the environment." Done carelessly, yes. The goal is to cut the repetition and dead time, not the protection. A lot of reviews are slow because they're understaffed, not because they're thorough.

How we'll know. How long projects take, cost per mile compared with other countries, the maintenance backlog, lead pipes left, children's blood lead levels, broadband coverage and how often chargers work.

Still open: how to reform environmental review (NEPA). The National Environmental Policy Act requires agencies to study a project's effects before approving it. A lot has changed recently. The 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act set deadlines (two years for a full study, one year for a smaller one) and page limits. In 2025 the White House scrapped the government-wide NEPA rules and let each agency write its own. In May 2025 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County) that agencies don't have to study every distant, indirect effect and that courts should give them more room. What we'd still do: enforce the deadlines with enough staff to meet them. One lead agency and one combined document per project. More up-front "programmatic" reviews for common kinds of projects like power lines and broadband. A shorter window to sue, for example 150 days. And courts that send flawed reviews back to be fixed without stopping the whole project. Keep the core duty to understand and reduce real harm to water, health and wildlife.

11. Technology, AI and media

The goal. Technology and automation raise the standard of living for the whole country, through income, lower costs, better services and more free time, instead of making only a few people rich. We stay the world leader in new ideas, with safeguards that keep AI and the internet from being used to deceive us, spy on us or make our choices for us.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Technology is the most powerful tool we have for spreading prosperity. It can also pile up wealth and power in a handful of companies, flood us with fakes and scams, and make big decisions about people's lives with nobody accountable. Lawmakers often don't have the technical knowledge to write good rules, and badly written rules either do nothing or shut out small competitors.

The decisions made about AI in the next few years will shape who benefits for decades. If the gains mostly go to the owners of a few platforms, the rest of the country gets the disruption without the prosperity. That's why this section ties into the income floor (5), the automation tax and the America Fund (6). If the rules are written badly, they either do nothing or lock in the biggest companies by burying small ones in paperwork. And if people can't trust what they see, hear or get told by an automated system, every other public conversation gets harder.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Any regulation will slow American innovation and hand the lead to China." That's why the rules only go after high-stakes uses and scale with company size. Trustworthy AI is also a competitive advantage. People and businesses use what they can trust.

How we'll know. Productivity and wage growth, scams and fraud losses, appeal outcomes, new startups and privacy complaints.

Still open. How much of AI's gains should flow back to the public, for example through a public share or dividend that helps pay for the income floor.

12. Government that works

The goal. Every department answers for its results, spends carefully and can hire people as sharp as the best private companies. When something fails, we find out fast, fix the cause and say so publicly.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. There's real waste in government, and nobody should defend it. Some of it is built into the rules. Agencies that don't spend their whole budget by year's end worry about losing it the next year, which rewards spending sprees at the end of the year. A study of federal purchasing found that spending in the last week of the year runs about five times the normal weekly rate, and technology projects bought at year-end are rated lower quality (Liebman and Mahoney, American Economic Review, 2017). Some waste is a talent problem. A federal wildland firefighter can make far less than a state firefighter doing similar work, so the Forest Service struggles to keep experienced people, and agencies often don't have the experts to manage contracts or technology. And some of it is a partnership problem. Agencies write mandates that make no sense on the ground, and they don't make good use of private-sector know-how.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Every politician promises to cut waste and none of them do." That's true, which is why we don't claim cutting waste will pay for everything. We fix the incentives that create waste and publish the results.

How we'll know. Year-end spending spikes, how long hiring takes, vacancies and turnover in critical jobs, audit findings fixed, and how long people wait for services.

Still open. How much budget flexibility Congress should give agencies.

13. Democracy, elections and courts

The goal. Elections where every eligible citizen can vote easily and every vote is counted securely. Politicians who answer to voters instead of donors. A system that gives independents and new ideas a real chance instead of locking everything into two parties. And courts people trust.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Most Americans feel the system doesn't listen to them. Big money floods elections, often from sources nobody has to disclose. In a lot of districts the real contest is a low-turnout party primary, which rewards the most extreme candidates and punishes anyone who works with the other side. Trust in the Supreme Court has fallen. In July 2026 only 33% of Americans approved of the job it was doing, a record low (Gallup). Recent decisions that overturned long-standing precedent have left a lot of Americans feeling the law changes with whoever has the majority.

When people believe the system is rigged, they stop taking part, and the field gets left to the most organized and the angriest. That feeds the same gridlock we're trying to break. Every reform here has to pass the other-side test. A rule that only works when our side runs it isn't reform. It's just the next fight.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Disclosure and voting rules are just ways for one party to rig the game." That's why every rule here has to pass the other-side test. Would we accept it if our opponents wrote it and ran it?

How we'll know. Trust in elections and courts, turnout, competitive districts, the share of money from small donors and audit results.

How we'd go about it. Caucuses run as hybrids, with in-person meetings plus remote and absentee participation. The order: state ballot measures for open primaries and ranked-choice voting first, then independent redistricting, then disclosure, small-donor matching and election administration through Congress, and the constitutional amendments last.

14. Justice and public safety

The goal. Safe communities. Police who are trained, supported and accountable. A justice system that treats everyone the same. And people who leave prison ready not to go back.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Everyone deserves to feel safe at home and on the street. The good news is real. Violent crime fell about 9% in 2025 and murder about 18%, the biggest one-year drop on record, leaving the murder rate tied for the lowest since the 1950s (FBI preliminary data, 2026). The job now is to keep it falling. Police are asked to handle everything from violent crime to mental health crises and homelessness. A lot of officers weren't trained for those jobs, and no officer can fix them alone. Too many people cycle in and out of jail without treatment, skills or a way forward. Of people released from state prisons, about 7 in 10 are arrested again within five years (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Victims often get little support. And some prisons are run for profit, which sets up incentives that work against rehabilitation.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "This is soft on crime." It isn't. Freeing officers from calls they can't fix puts more of them on violent crime, and reentry that works means fewer victims down the road. Safety and fairness work together.

How we'll know. Violent and property crime, how many crimes get solved, repeat offending, police response times, use-of-force incidents and victims served.

15. Guns

The goal. Far fewer Americans killed by guns, while fully respecting the right of law-abiding people to own guns for hunting, sport and protecting their homes.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Gun owners and non-owners mostly want the same thing: fewer funerals. The debate gets stuck on gun rules, while the biggest causes of gun deaths get far less attention. In 2024, about 62% of U.S. gun deaths were suicides (27,593 people, a record) and about 35% were homicides (15,364 people), according to CDC data (Pew Research Center, 2026). Most of the homicides are violence concentrated in a small number of neighborhoods and people, plus domestic violence. Those are problems with causes we can work on.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Criminals don't follow laws, and every new rule mostly burdens responsible owners." That's why this starts with causes, focuses on the small number of people who are dangerous, and requires every rule to show that it actually reduces deaths.

How we'll know. Gun suicides, homicides and accidental deaths, guns stolen and how many people store guns safely.

Still open. Rules on specific types of weapons, permit requirements and waiting periods.

16. Immigration

The goal. We're a nation of immigrants, built by brave people from everywhere looking for a better life, and we keep welcoming them through a legal system that works. A border that's secure and humane. And a hard line against the traffickers who exploit people.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Almost everyone here came from somewhere else, or comes from someone who did. The first peoples were here thousands of years before the rest of us arrived. Today the legal system is so backed up that people wait years for a decision. The immigration court backlog peaked at about 3.7 million cases in 2024 and was still about 3.4 million in late 2025, with average waits near two years (TRAC, Syracuse University). That rewards breaking the rules and leaves real refugees in limbo. Meanwhile drug cartels and human traffickers profit from the chaos, and employers who exploit undocumented workers undercut honest businesses.

Where the border stands now. Illegal crossings have dropped sharply. Border Patrol made about 237,500 arrests at the southwest border in fiscal year 2025, the fewest since 1970, and fewer than 9,000 a month from early 2025 through at least April 2026 (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). Compare that with more than 2 million a year at the 2022–23 peak. The challenge has moved from the border itself to the backlog, the millions already here, and how enforcement is carried out inside the country.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Anything short of strict enforcement encourages more illegal immigration." A legal system that works plus real enforcement is stronger than either one alone. A broken system with decade-long waits is what pushes people to skip the line.

How we'll know. The backlog and wait times, legal versus illegal entries, trafficking prosecutions, worker exploitation cases and immigrant employment.

17. Personal choice

The goal. Adults make their own decisions about their bodies, their health and their lives, from vaccines to abortion, with accurate information to decide well and responsibility for how their choices affect other people.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. A lot of Americans on the right felt their freedom was trampled during the pandemic. A lot on the left feel the same about abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. It's the same feeling underneath. People don't want government making their most personal decisions for them. Freedom also works best when people have honest, clear information and own the consequences of their choices.

These are the decisions people feel most deeply about, and when government gets them wrong, the damage lasts. Mandates that felt arbitrary cost public health the trust it now needs for everything from measles to the next outbreak. Abortion laws written without medical judgment have put women's lives at risk in real emergencies. The same rule, that adults decide unless their choice clearly harms someone else, protects people on both sides of these fights. It only works if it's applied the same way to both.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. On abortion, a lot of Americans sincerely believe it ends a human life, which makes it more than a private choice to them. We respect that conviction, and nothing here forces anyone to take part. But in a free country, we believe this decision belongs with the woman, her doctor and her own conscience, not the government. On vaccines, critics say personal choice puts vulnerable people at risk. That's why we draw clear limits ahead of time where a choice directly endangers other people.

How we'll know. Trust in health guidance, vaccination rates, how mothers fare in pregnancy and childbirth, and access to care.

End-of-life choice. Terminally ill adults who are mentally competent should be able to choose medical aid in dying, with safeguards like those in states that already allow it. That means confirmation by two doctors, a waiting period, and the patient taking the medication themselves. Oregon's law has been in place since 1997, and about a dozen states plus Washington, D.C., now allow it, with New York's law taking effect in 2026. What Oregon's reports show: in 2025, 637 prescriptions were written and about 400 people died after taking the medication, under 1% of all deaths in the state. Most had cancer, followed by neurological and heart disease. A third or more of the people who get the prescription never use it. The most common reasons people give are losing control over their lives and losing the ability to enjoy life, not pain or cost. How safeguards differ: every state requires a terminal diagnosis of six months or less and the mental capacity to decide. States differ on waiting periods (California cut its 15-day wait to 48 hours in 2022, and Oregon allows a waiver when death is close), on whether nurse practitioners can prescribe, and on residency (Oregon dropped its residency rule in 2023). We'd keep two clinician sign-offs, a mental capacity check with a referral whenever there's any doubt, the patient taking it themselves and yearly public reporting, and set a short waiting period that can be waived for patients near death. The law only covers terminal illness, unlike Canada's expansion. The reasons people give get published. And palliative and hospice care are paid for alongside it, so nobody chooses death because good care wasn't there.

18. Family, faith and equal dignity

The goal. Strong families of every shape, freedom to practice any faith or none, and equal dignity and equal treatment under the law for every American.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Families and faith communities are where most people learn their values, find support in hard times and give back. A lot of Americans of faith feel looked down on by the culture. A lot of LGBTQ Americans, religious minorities and others still face discrimination. These fights get used to divide us, but the common ground is wide. Most people want to raise their kids by their own values, worship freely and be treated fairly.

When these questions turn into a culture war, everybody loses something. Believers feel their faith is mocked. Gay and transgender Americans feel their lives are up for a vote. Parents feel shut out of their own kids' schools. Most families want the same things: to raise their kids by their own values, to worship freely or not at all, and to be treated fairly. The harm test lets us protect all of that at once. And the cost of raising a family is something every family shares, whatever they believe.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Government should stay out of family and faith entirely." Mostly, we agree. Government's job is to protect everyone's freedom and equal treatment and make it more affordable to raise a family, not to tell anyone how to live.

How we'll know. Child poverty, the cost of raising kids as a share of income, discrimination complaints and religious liberty disputes resolved.

How we'd set it up. The religious tax change applies above $5 million in yearly revenue or $25 million in assets, adjusted for inflation and phased in over five years.

19. Aging, disability, retirement and veterans

The goal. Everyone can retire with dignity. People with disabilities can live full and independent lives. Family caregivers get real support. And veterans get the care and benefits they earned without having to fight for them.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. Social Security is the main income for millions of retirees. The 2026 Trustees Report projects the combined trust funds will run out in 2034. After that, incoming taxes would only cover about 83% of promised benefits unless Congress acts. The retirement fund by itself runs out even sooner, in late 2032. The country is getting older fast, and most long-term care falls on unpaid family members, often women, who give up work and savings to do it. People with disabilities often face benefit rules that punish them for working or getting married. Veterans still have to work through a maze of paperwork and waits.

A promise broken late in life can't be fixed, because nobody can go back and save differently at 70. The longer Congress waits on Social Security, the bigger and harsher the fix ends up being. Doing nothing means an automatic cut of about 17% for every retiree in 2034. Meanwhile the people holding families together, often women caring for parents and kids at the same time, are the ones paying the hidden price.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "We can't afford to expand anything when Social Security is already short." The gap is real and has to be fixed first and honestly. Doing nothing means automatic benefit cuts of about 17% in 2034, so the question isn't whether to act but how. Roughly what the main options close (share of the 75-year gap in the 2026 report):

Sources: SSA Office of the Chief Actuary scoring and CRFB analysis of the 2026 Trustees Report. The audit would re-score each option for our design. We lean toward combining removing the cap with a modest benefit limit at the top, and protecting everyone retired or close to it.

How we'll know. How long Social Security can pay full benefits, poverty among seniors, people aging at home, VA wait times, veteran suicide and how long disability decisions take.

20. Defense, trade and the world

The goal. America stays the world's leading power by staying ahead in technology and keeping its word, not by spending the most. A country that's safe, trusted by its allies, and helps other nations do well instead of needing them weak.

The problems we're trying to solve.

Why it matters. The U.S. spent about $954 billion on its military in 2025, nearly three times China's estimated $336 billion and more than the next several countries combined (SIPRI, 2026). Yet the Pentagon failed its eighth straight audit in 2025 and doesn't expect to pass one before 2028, and weapons programs regularly run years late and billions over budget. That waste doesn't make us safer. Meanwhile rivals are investing heavily in AI, cyber, drones and space. Trade can raise living standards or hollow out towns, depending on how it's done.

What we propose.

What we can do without Washington.

The strongest objection. "Cutting anything at the Pentagon weakens us against China and Russia." Cutting waste isn't cutting strength. Every dollar lost to a failed program is a dollar not spent on what actually keeps us ahead.

How we'll know. Progress on the audit, cost overruns, readiness, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, alliance commitments and job changes tied to trade.

Still open. How to unwind the tariffs now in place without shocking the businesses that have adjusted to them, while keeping support limited to industries tied to security or critical supply, like advanced chips, batteries, critical-mineral processing and key drug ingredients, for no more than eight years, with public milestones and automatic expiration.

Still open

How the twenty commitments fit together as one plan (one budget, what comes first, one scorecard, the people to deliver it, and the three first commitments) is set out in the framework. What follows are the decisions and facts still being worked out across all twenty.

Something to add or correct on this page? Send it in.