Michael Fortune

This raises another set of questions.

Are we investing in safety, or are we investing in control?

How do we reconcile the need for effective policing with the necessity of maintaining community trust?

Supporters of militarization argue that in high-risk situations, military-grade equipment is essential.

However, critics contend that the use of such aggressive police tactics instead breeds fear and erodes public trust, creating a rift that could take generations to mend.

In light of this discussion, it's imperative that we push for reforms that prioritize community safety without undermining community trust.

Moving towards a model of policing that emphasizes de-escalation over aggression may help bridge the divide and foster safer environments for everyone.

Thanks for joining the Fortune Factor podcast.

Movement that inspires.

Welcome to the Fortune Factor podcast.

Today we're diving into a hot topic that hits close to home for many Americans, the ongoing tug of war between state sovereignty and federal authority.

It's a conversation about how states frame their struggles with the federal government, often labeling it as overreach while bringing attention to the potential harm to their communities.

Let's start with environmental regulations, a prime example of this clash.

Back in 2014, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act was introduced, aiming to limit the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, along with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

The goal?

To curb certain regulations concerning the nation's waters and wetlands.

Many state leaders see this as a necessary move to protect their local environments from what they perceive as intrusive federal control.

Switching gears, let's talk about immigration enforcement.

In 2025, Maryland made headlines by expanding its participation in a program that allows local police to enforce federal immigration laws.