Term limits for Supreme Court Justices have been proposed as a way to make the Court more representative of the partisan makeup of the country. In this episode of You Don’t Have To Yell, Suzanna Sherry, Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University, explains how this would result in more partisan judges, more partisan rulings, and legal instability.
View of the LNG Terminal in San Juan, where most of Puerto Rico's natural gas resources are shipped to. The island currently imports 85% of its energy resources.
When President Biden first announced $1 billion in funding to install rooftop solar in Puerto Rico’s vulnerable communities two years ago, many Puerto Ricans felt it was cause for celebration. Federal officials have long sought to support rooftop solar in Puerto Rico, which could help the island's unstable energy grid become more energy-independent.
But under the leadership of President Trump — and with support from Puerto Rico’s newly elected governor, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colòn — these federal dollars could end up going toward the island’s gas-heavy grid rather than renewable energy efforts.
On May 21, the Department of Energy announced it was redirecting $365 million from the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund toward “technologies that improve system flexibility and response” for Puerto Rico’s power grid.
This fund was first established by the Biden Administration in February 2023, earmarking $1 billion in federal funding to build energy resilience for the island’s most vulnerable residents. Puerto Rico suffers from frequent blackouts and a notoriously unstable electric grid, and during natural disasters, rural communities are often without power for weeks or even months. The majority of the Energy Resilience Fund was intended to combat this by providing funding for rooftop solar installations on essential buildings, such as rural community health centers and the homes of low-income residents.
Since January, this funding has been slowly eroded. The first phase of funding, originally slated to provide $450 million for rooftop solar installations for low-income families, is set to be terminated in June, with less than half of its projects completed, according to grant recipients.
And with the May 21 announcement, experts are concerned that the final chunk of funding from this once-essential energy resilience fund will be redirected to Puerto Rico's existing energy infrastructure, much of which relies on coal and natural gas.
“These cuts are very dangerous because we don't really have a way to substitute those funds,” said Rolando Emmanuelli Jimenez, an attorney from San Juan and an expert on Puerto Rico’s energy sector. “Being a territory, we don't have the protection of equality among the states. So it's particularly worrisome that maybe the cuts in the states will be moderate, but here in Puerto Rico, they will be very profound.”
Solar is especially vital in Puerto Rico. The island’s maximum rooftop solar capacity is over 24 terawatt hours — that’s four times as much as its current residential energy consumption, according to a 2020 analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
But currently, 93% of Puerto Rico’s grid runs on fossil fuels, and 85% of its energy resources are imported. The cost of energy per kilowatt-hour is higher than that of all but three U.S. states, primarily due to the high cost of importing fossil fuels. And under the management of two private corporations — LUMA Energy, which runs Puerto Rico’s transmission lines, and Genera PR, which runs its generation system — the government has lost much of its control over electricity prices.
Frustrated with the current electric system, many Puerto Ricans have turned to solar as a source of clean energy and a way to avoid the frequent blackouts under the LUMA-managed grid. The PR-ERF was just one of several funding streams designated by the Biden Administration for solar in Puerto Rico.
However, Governor Jennifer Gonzalez-Colón has faced backlash from some Puerto Ricans for her handling of energy policy since taking office in January, as well as for the changes to the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund. While Gonzalez-Colòn had previously pledged to defend the island from Trump's funding cuts, her administration told the Associated Press in early May that she ultimately revoked her support for the Energy Resilience Fund. She has since publicly supported redirecting these grants to island-wide transmission systems.
“Rather than impacting a few customers, deploying these funds for urgent projects that improve the resiliency and reliability of our grid will have widespread, lasting benefits for all 3.2 million Americans in Puerto Rico,” Gonzalez-Colòn said in a May 21 press release announcing the change.
The first Trump administration had already authorized $18 billion in emergency funding to go toward system-wide transmission upgrades in Puerto Rico. These funds are currently frozen, but the new governor has recently pledged to ensure that federal authorities will deliver these funds.
In the wake of these policy changes, many Puerto Ricans — especially those in rural areas who have suffered from an unreliable electric system — were left feeling frustrated.
“The governor has made a political calculation to not go against the Trump administration, and is basically acquiescing to whatever the Department of Energy decides,” said C.P. Smith, executive director of Cooperativa Hidroeléctrica de la Montaña. “This is something that is very problematic.”
Since 2023, Cooperativa Hidroeléctrica has operated a solar microgrid in the mountain town of Castañer. This system links several solar panels into one small grid, enough to power a few dozen homes independently of the larger grid.
Cooperativa Hidroeléctrica received a grant from the Energy Resilience Fund as part of the Solar Ambassador Prize, which comprised the first $450 million of the fund. These grants were slated to go toward "last-mile communities" — rural households and towns, such as Castañer, that often experience the longest wait times for electricity restoration after blackouts.
“These are families that have suffered the most in terms of the poorest electric reliability,” said Smith.
Cooperativa Hidroeléctrica was planning to build 110 additional microgrids in rural neighborhoods over the next two and a half years. However, earlier this year, they discovered that their funding from the Energy Resilience Fund, as well as other grants from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, had been canceled.
According to Smith, there’s “no way” Cooperativa Hidroeléctrica can continue operating its existing microgrid, or move forward with building new ones, without federal funding.
“This is exactly the role of government with a capital G, right? Government steps in to take care of the cost of large infrastructure projects and other resiliency measures that cannot be attended to by the private sector, especially when we're talking about remote rural communities,” he said. “It doesn't mean that the government has to give giveaways, but those guaranteed loan programs are very important to be able to serve these communities that are poorly attended.”
Gonzalez-Colòn, a longtime Republican, has already followed some of Trump’s federal energy policy moves. The first law she passed was a package that eliminated Puerto Rico’s goals of transitioning to 40% renewable energy by 2025 and 60% by 2040. The law left the island’s ultimate goal of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2050 intact, but Gonzalez-Colòn hasn’t approved any new solar or wind projects while in office.
“Even the final renewable energy goal that was kept on the books, that is not going to be achieved,” said Ruth Santiago, an environmental lawyer based in Salinas, Puerto Rico. “All of these new gas power plants will take a few years to come online and have usually operational lives of 25 to 30 years.”
Gonzalez-Colòn also declared an "energy emergency," mirroring the one proclaimed by President Trump on his first day in office. The move drew attention to the island's power shortage and unstable grid, which could prove fatal as the Atlantic hurricane season approaches this summer. But according to Santiago, this could also be an attempt to speed up permitting for fossil fuel plants.
“Basically, the government is exempting all new energy, all energy infrastructure work, from Puerto Rico permitting requirements,” Santiago said. “They’re trying to sort of latch onto the federally declared energy emergency by President Trump, to potentially eliminate any permitting requirement, like Clean Air Act permits.”
Aside from the PR-ERF, federal funding cuts have also had indirect impacts on renewable energy research. Francisco Valentin, who runs a rural medical clinic in the mountainside province of Utuado, said his clinic has worked with U.S. universities for years. American students have visited Utuado to help provide healthcare to locals and to maintain the solar panels that power Valentin’s clinic.
In the wake of recent cuts to research universities, though, Valentin said he's nervous these programs might not continue. His clinic had already lost two grants from Fordham University, which would have amounted to $420,000. The University of Puerto Rico, which received over $51 million in total NIH grants across its campuses this year, has also begun to experience difficulties accessing databases for climate and renewable energy research.
“When you start to work with the communities, you can start to see that a lot of things that [need] help, and the people just have… the desire to be part of the solutions,” Valentin said. “But the government [isn't here]. They don't care. They don't have the resources.”
For now, both federal and Puerto Rican politicians say they're keeping fossil fuel plants running to ease the transition to renewable energy while also avoiding an energy shortage. Governor Gonzalez-Colòn plans to redirect some of the PR-ERF grant money toward building temporary fossil fuel plants and repairing aging ones.
“By redirecting these funds, we will ensure taxpayer dollars are used to strengthen access to affordable, reliable, and secure power, benefiting more citizens as quickly as possible,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright in the May 21 press release.
However, given both Trump and Gonzalez-Colón's recent actions, experts like Emmanuelli are concerned that these temporary solutions could permanently put Puerto Rico on a path away from renewables.
“Right now, we don't know when we will have the capability in terms of renewable energy to substitute those new investments in natural gas,” Emmanuelli said. “I believe that the strategy for those sectors is to try to push hard here in Puerto Rico, to install temporary generation, to make them eventually permanent. So we will be tied to that energy that is not the best for Puerto Rico, that will make Puerto Rico a slave of the markets of natural gas.”
Lily Carey is a graduate student in journalism at Northwestern University.
A group of hikers at the Zion National Park in Utah.
Congress is discussing a dark and disturbing deal right under our noses: to sell up to a quarter-billion acres of America’s public lands. The proposed bill would open vast stretches of federally protected lands, including national forests to private interests. Without any substantial safeguards, these lands could be bought by foreign investors, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy to be developed into gated communities, resource extraction sites, or other commercial ventures. This legislation is a corporate land grab that threatens our natural heritage, our safety, and our future. It is a full-frontal attack on the American West.
Our country’s natural wonders are already under fire. This administration recently laid off roughly 1,000 workers in the National Park Service, or about five percent of its workforce. These dedicated professionals are the backbone of conservation efforts; they manage trails, clear brush, teach visitors about the animals and the stars, and tend to endangered species (and, presumably, at least one of them runs the National Park Service social media accounts, which are fantastic). When the personnel responsible for maintaining our parks are cut back, we risk letting our environment fall victim to neglect, creating conditions ripe for ecological disasters.
Since the passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, presidents have been able to designate national monuments and safeguard our most cherished landscapes. Traditionally, presidents have honored the monuments established by their predecessors, but during his first term, President Trump challenged the status of not one, not two, but 26 national monuments. This resulted in significant reductions in the size of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, and revealed a dangerous willingness to prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability, underscoring the fragility of these protections. This most recent legislation would exploit that fragility with devastating consequences.
The West is already uniquely positioned at the forefront of climate instability. From wildfires and droughts to rising temperatures and sea levels, this region has the unmistakable fingerprints of climate change all over it already. When public lands absorb carbon dioxide, regulate local temperatures, and sustain biodiversity, removing protections and selling them off will only accelerate environmental degradation, removing natural buffers that help mitigate these crises. From California to Colorado, the West offers a gateway to nature with a front-line community for climate impacts, and our economy depends heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation, agriculture, and clean water. Pawning off these lands risks homes and lives while undercutting our economic backbone and jeopardizing future growth. As a Native American Proverb–which was once shared with me by a Park Ranger–goes: "Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money."
Deforestation and resource exploitation make natural disasters more severe, diminish our ability to adapt to climate crises, and hamper strategic capabilities, making the U.S. more vulnerable. In fact, even the Department of Defense calls climate change an “existential threat,” as our own military prepares for conflicts over dwindling resources and territorial disputes arising from environmental crises. If the U.S. forfeits control over our public lands and ecosystems, our ability to project power, defend our interests, and adapt to these emerging threats will diminish too.
Besides, public lands should belong to all Americans. In 2023, the national parks welcomed over 325 million visitors—a remarkable 16% increase since 2010. These open spaces are not just scenic backdrops for memorable family vacations; they are crucial ecosystems that sustain biodiversity, offer recreational opportunities, and serve as a reminder of our environmental heritage. They promote health, learning, and community. They are priceless. But privatization limits future generations’ opportunities to enjoy nature; once privatized, these lands could be logged, drilled, mined, or paved, destroying ecosystems and wildlife habitats. As American as it may be to steal land, gain a sense of pride from it, and then strip it for parts, we can do better. Wouldn’t it be more American to preserve our purple mountain majesties for the American people?
Protecting what belongs to all of us shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but the American people may have to prove to the American government what the stakes really are here. If we don’t want to lose these lands forever, we must act now. Your voice matters. Keep exploring outdoor spaces, share stories of your experiences, and remind yourself and your community about how vital our lands are. Call your senators. Insist that instead of carving up the commons, we invest in conservation programs, sustainable water policies, and infrastructure improvements with a long-sighted perspective on preserving public resources. Tell them Teddy Roosevelt advised: “What you can do is to keep it for your children and your children's children and for all who come after you.” Or at least ask that the bill include a right of first refusal to Tribal Nations. No matter what, we should get to weigh in before these irreplaceable public lands are liquidated.
If Congress cuts down the trees in the forest but we’re not there to see it, does it make a sound? The only way politicians can get away with this kind of highway robbery is if We the People either don’t notice or don’t do anything about it once we do. The issue deserves to be more than a sneaky line item tucked away in a big budget bill. It deserves a public debate. Let’s insist on one.
Julie Roland has deployed to the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating from the Navy in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She graduated law school from the University of San Diego, is currently pursuing a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is the director of the San Diego chapter of the Truman National Security Project.
Since 2023, 30.8% of King County households have reported speaking a foreign language other than English at home. The demographic shift indicates that residents aged 65 and older are projected to increase by 85% between 2020 and 2035, according to Age Friendly Seattle.
Among them, a growing number are immigrants with limited English proficiency, often isolated from digital tools and access to public services.
According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), over 25 million people in the United States are bilingual yet have limited English proficiency (LEP). When accessing healthcare services, limited communication between care providers and patients can lead to adverse outcomes, including risks to patient safety or even death.
On March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14224, officially designating English as the U.S. national language — a historic first at the federal level and canceled EO 13166, signed by Clinton, which obliged federal agencies to offer language access for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).
While EO 14224 is not explicitly against multilingual services, it abolished longstanding laws and policies that ensure federal agencies work to eliminate discrimination against LEP individuals.
Roughly 13% of King County seniors have reported facing language barriers, often relying on family members or community centers to navigate basic to vital life tasks, such as making a doctor's appointment, ordering food, filling up gas, and asking for directions.
"The language barrier is one of the most critical issues for our older adult clients," said Meeran Sung, a case manager at the Korean Community Service Center (KCSC). "Older folks come to me for help in private matters like phone bills or apartment documents, but when it comes to government programs like food stamps or housing, it gets harder. I have to meet with them one-on-one, explain the programs in their language, and help them fill out applications."
Many immigrants who often relocate to be with their children face inevitable barriers to access as they "age abroad," which often exposes them to a high risk of dementia, social isolation, and a lack of culturally appropriate care.
"Many older adults say their children are too busy to help," Sung said. "We often hear about conflict between first-generation parents and second-generation children, especially when cultural differences or language barriers exist. Many older immigrants don't want to burden their children, so they avoid asking for help even when needed."
Language barriers also complicate life for families in the "sandwich generation," where adult children must juggle raising their own children while caring for aging parents.
"There are a lot of challenges for middle-aged folks who are both parenting and caregiving," said Grace Lee, a program coordinator at KCSC. "They feel responsible but often don't have the right resources or time to give their parents the care they need."
The United Nations Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) reports that by 2050, one in six people globally will be over 65.
As the global aging issue grows louder, AI-based health tools have evolved into fascinating approaches to elderly care.
The demand for AI-powered community services that utilize AI to alleviate caretakers' burden and enhance their responsibilities has been increasing, ensuring seniors have access to all aspects of communal life without facing discrimination, isolation, abuse, or other forms of exploitation.
According to the NIH, AI-based health technologies can detect early warning signs of disease and offer personalized, prompt treatment plans based on precise data analysis.
For instance, an automated home safety wearable device, such as an Apple Watch, tracks and analyzes data from the user's vital signs and activity level, sending real-time alerts to designated family members or medical agents without human intervention when it detects something unusual based on the electronic health record.
Additionally, telehealth platforms are revolutionizing long-limited access to 1:1 doctor consultations for aging and younger populations in remote or underserved areas.
Lindsay Kim is an administrative officer, caseworker, legislative & research assistant, and freelance student journalist studying at the University of Washington.
Lindsay was a student in Hugo Balta's solutions journalism class. Balta is the Fulcrum's executive editor and the publisher of the Latino News Network. The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Jared Tucker, a student at the University of Washington and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.
Here’s his insight on the topic.
Elon Musk is worth $409 billion.
In the months following President Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House, Musk was at his side. With his newfound power as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk cut millions of dollars in funding to important government divisions, research, and public services. His name was never on the ballot.
An unelected billionaire slashing funding for the masses to aid the rich is not democracy. It’s an oligarchy.
As students, we constantly hear about the triumphs of American democracy. We learn about a government 'by the people and for the people,' where individual citizens can have their voices heard and beliefs recognized in a diverse Congress.
Yet here we are, stuck in a two-party system where new ideas are cast to the side, and politicians don’t represent all people — just people who give them money.
It’s impossible to win an American election without the support of billionaires, so that’s where the candidates put all of their focus. While individual people may be told their small donations can truly make a difference, it’s nothing against the power of men like Peter Thiel, who use their billions to influence politics behind the scenes.
It’s men like Musk, Thiel, and the 757 other billionaires in the United States who pick the president, determine which issues garner focus, and decide where the money goes. That’s just 0.00023% of the nation's population. They fund the campaigns, and in turn, they get what they want. A government made up of the few using their wealth to control the many. That is an oligarchy.
It was just in 1976 that former president Jimmy Carter narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Gerald Ford to win the presidency. Carter was a farmer and a veteran, two things synonymous with middle America and the average individual. Now, another one of the country’s 759 billionaires holds this nation's highest office.
Trump leveraged his wealth and that of his billionaire friends to regain power. And since he has taken every action to sustain — and even grow — the already gargantuan wealth gap. He will always act in the interest of the few, never the many.
So what can be done about it? How can individuals return the government’s power to the people? How do we stop the oligarchy?
Every two years, the same solution is brought up. Vote. If we just vote out the billionaires, we can put people in power who serve our interests.
This is exactly how the system should work. If more people had voted, this oligarchy never would’ve been put in power… in theory. But the enormous list of problems with American democracy doesn’t stop with the right. The left’s refusal to change and failure to represent their base have dwindled citizens’ participation in democracy. The repeated nominations of boring moderates with the same agenda will never motivate people to vote.
And of course, those candidates are also funded by billionaires and are at the behest of major corporations.
To truly represent the views of over 300 million Americans, we need to develop a multi-party system. Not only would it encourage public participation, but it would also allow people to have their most pressing issues heard in Congress.
It would be a start at reinvigorating democracy and help dilute the power of the nation’s wealthiest individuals.
However, with the stubbornness exhibited by career politicians, changes that could harm their chances of power will likely never be realized in the near future. As always, those put in power serve money and themselves.
As long as billions of dollars are allowed to govern our political system, we will never have a true democracy.
Jared Tucker is a sophomore at the University of Washington — Seattle studying Journalism and Public Interest Communication with a minor in History. Jared is Co-Sports Editor for The Daily UW, the student newspaper of the University of Washington, where he covers UW football and has written over 80 stories about a wide range of UW athletic events, athletes, and news.
