In an era of increasing social isolation, platforms like Facebook and Twitter are among the most important tools we have to understand each other. However, social media can also lead to polarization and misunderstanding as author Chris Bail discusses in this episode of Democracy Works.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order late Thursday evening to eliminate federal funding for NPR and PBS. The order directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and other agencies to cease both direct and indirect public financing for these public broadcasters.
In a social media post, the administration defended the decision, asserting that NPR and PBS "receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.’" The executive order argues that government-funded media is outdated and unnecessary, claiming it compromises journalistic independence.
However, CPB, which distributes approximately $535 million annually to public broadcasters, has pushed back, emphasizing its status as a private nonprofit organization not subject to presidential authority. PBS President Paula Kerger condemned the order as “blatantly unlawful,” while NPR announced plans to challenge it through legal avenues.
This move follows previous efforts by the Trump administration to defund cultural and educational institutions, including the Kennedy Center and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The order's legality is unclear at this time, and it is expected to face legal challenges.
The defunding of NPR and PBS is very much in line with Heritage Foundation's policy guide, which includes a section on CPB, which funds NPR and PBS. The guide argues that public funding for these organizations should be eliminated, citing concerns about bias.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
During the campaign, Trump repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025, saying he had "nothing to do with" the initiative, had not read it, and did not plan to. Additionally, he called some of its proposals "abysmal" and "ridiculous" on his Truth Social platform. However, despite these claims, many of his policies since taking office have closely aligned with recommendations from Project 2025
Thursday night’s executive order, signed by President Trum,p states:
"Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence."
It directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to "cease federal funding for NPR and PBS" to the extent the law allows. The order further states:
"Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens."
These arguments have been central to efforts to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, including recent executive orders and legislative proposals.
The order is expected to face legal challenges, as CPB argues that it operates independently and is not subject to direct presidential authority.
Advocates for NPR and PBS emphasize their vital role in providing free, high-quality news, educational programming, and cultural content, particularly for rural and underserved communities lacking reliable media access. PBS enhances early childhood learning through programs like Sesame Street, while NPR offers in-depth journalism that fosters an informed citizenry. Additionally, public broadcasting is crucial for delivering emergency alerts, disaster coverage, and public safety information in areas where commercial media are scarce.
Public broadcasting has long enjoyed bipartisan support, ensuring Americans access to non-commercial media that serve the public good rather than corporate interests. The funding—approximately $500 million annually—accounts for less than 0.01% of the federal budget, making cost a negligible factor.
PBS and NPR executives warn that defunding public broadcasting would devastate communities that rely on it for trusted news, education, and emergency alerts. PBS CEO Paula Kerger has emphasized the organization's role as an essential service providing universal access to free, high-quality content.
The recent Executive Order is dramatic, but its implications could be even more sweeping if the administration fully implements Project 2025’s recommendations. Among them is a proposal to strip NPR of its noncommercial status and reclassify it as a commercial entity—a move that would force it off the FM dial and open its frequencies to religious broadcasters.
Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Trump-appointed leadership, has already scrutinized NPR and PBS's underwriting practices, questioning whether their sponsorship acknowledgments constitute prohibited commercial advertising.
The most extreme recommendation in Project 2025 is the complete revocation of NPR’s noncommercial status, a shift that could fundamentally alter public broadcasting in the United States.
NPR and PBS have long served as vital pillars of American public media, providing in-depth journalism, educational programming, and cultural storytelling free from commercial influence. Their continued existence ensures access to diverse voices and independent reporting—an essential counterbalance in a rapidly shifting media landscape.
The recent Executive Order raises fundamental questions about the future of NPR and PBS, challenging their role in American public media.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Remote control in hand to change channels.
A close friend of mine recently confessed to having stopped watching cable news altogether because it was causing him and his wife anxiety and dread. They began watching Jimmy Kimmel instead, saying the nightly news felt like "psychological warfare" on their mental state. "We want to know what's going on but can't handle the relentless doom and gloom every night," he told me.
Jimmy Kimmel, host of ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live, seems to understand this shift. "A year ago, I would've said I'm hoping to show people who aren't paying attention to the news what's actually going on," he told Rolling Stone last month in an interview. "Now I see myself more as a place to scream."
This isn't surprising. For almost a decade now, the relationship between audiences and late-night hosts has changed profoundly. Viewers are tuning out cable news and seeking clarity, humor, and relief from late-night comedians like Stephen Colbert and Greg Gutfeld and the cold opens on SNL. On Bluesky, the buzzy new social platform for those fleeing Elon Musk's X, one user wrote, "It's ironic that I use satire shows as more reliable sources than the US mainstream media." For better or worse, this phenomenon has become a new form of journalism.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
We didn't always turn to comedians for the headlines. For decades, late-night hosts Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, and even David Letterman at his most biting, still centered on celebrity interviews and innocuous zingers. The turning point came after 9/11 when Jon Stewart's emotional monologue on The Daily Show demonstrated that comedy could process national grief.
Following Trump's election in 2016, traditional news became more combative and chaotic. The nightly barrage of outrage left viewers emotionally exhausted. Therapists coined it: "Trump Anxiety Disorder." A recent Axios report found that the chaos surrounding Trump and the 2020 election contributed to a 10% rise in major health issues, including cancer and heart attacks.
In this increasingly tense political climate, liberal audiences found validation through shows like HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Real Time with Bill Maher, and NBC's Late Night with Seth Meyers' segment "A Closer Look". These programs offer viewers not just a recap of the news but a way to process it, laugh through it, and bear it. They tackle the most important stories of the day from the tariff wars, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case, and a potential Trump third term, all blurring the lines of comedy and journalism.
The popularity of this approach is evident in the ratings. Shows from Colbert, Kimmel, and Gutfeld often outperform traditional cable news in their respective timeframes. For instance, on April 17, Gutfeld! captured 3,177,000 viewers at 10 p.m., significantly outperforming CNN's Abby Phillip (527,000 viewers) and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell (1,643,000 viewers) in the same slot. This performance has established Gutfeld as the dominant voice in late-night ratings.
For conservative viewers, long feeling alienated by mainstream comedy, the rise of Greg Gutfeld—the former Fox News host turned late-night comedian—and his late-night show Gutfeld! wasn't about offering traditional late-night laughs, it was about providing conservative viewers a late-night space where their frustrations were acknowledged with humor, not shame. His success highlights how late-night comedy has evolved into ideological echo chambers that reinforce our worldviews, signaling a profound shift in how we consume political information today.
Yet, while comedians offer us a news style that relieves the stress of traditional reporting, it's important to remember they are not journalists. John Oliver, host of HBO's Last Week Tonight, describes his broadcast bluntly: "It's not journalism. It's comedy first, comedy second." It's true that their job is to entertain first, but it's also clear they do a kind of journalism that engages and connects with us in ways traditional news no longer can. The balance we strike is revealing: we choose comfort over journalistic credibility.
Mainstream news has stopped working for many Americans. That's why late-night comedy, for all its irreverence and partisan leanings, is doing what we once expected journalism to do: tell the truth, make it understandable, and offer us a sense of understanding and comfort.
Meanwhile, with news channels pushing viewers into opposing camps, comedians have become one of the few places where people still gather, night after night, for some much-needed catharsis. But whether you agree with their politics or not, they have become the voices Americans turn to when the world stops making sense. They remind us that we're not crazy, and in a country where the truth can sound like a joke, the last laugh belongs to those who can still help us make sense of it all.
Jack Rico is an entertainment journalist, TV host, and media pundit with over two decades of experience covering Latinos in media and entertainment. He was recently featured on ABC News' primetime special Latinos in Hollywood and is the co-host of the Webby-nominated podcast Brown & Black.
A 3D generated image of modern vehicles with AI assistance.
Let’s be honest: does driving feel safe anymore? Ask anyone navigating the daily commute, especially in notoriously chaotic places like Miami, and you’ll likely hear a frustrated, perhaps even expletive-laden, "No!" That gut feeling isn't paranoia; it's backed by grim statistics. Over 200 people died on Travis County roads in 2023, according to Vision Zero ATX. Nationally, tens of thousands perish in preventable crashes. It's a relentless public health crisis we've somehow numbed ourselves to, with a staggering cost measured in shattered families and lost potential.
But imagine a different reality, one where that daily fear evaporates. What if I told you that the technology to dramatically reduce this carnage isn't science fiction but sitting right under our noses? Autonomous vehicles (AVs), or self-driving cars, are here and rapidly improving. Leveraging breakthroughs in AI, these vehicles are increasingly outperforming human drivers, proving to be significantly less likely to cause accidents, especially those resulting in injury. Studies suggest that replacing human drivers with AVs could drastically cut road fatalities. Even achieving just 10% AV penetration on our roads might improve traffic safety by as much as 50%, with those gains likely to grow exponentially as the technology becomes more sophisticated and widespread.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The benefits extend far beyond preventing crashes. Many AVs are electric or designed for fuel efficiency, promising cleaner air. They can reduce frustrating traffic congestion by communicating and coordinating movement. Perhaps most profoundly, AVs offer the potential for unprecedented mobility and freedom for millions—the elderly who can no longer drive safely, people with disabilities who face transportation barriers, or even just reclaiming hours lost to stressful commutes.
Given this potential, you'd think we'd be rolling out the red carpet for AVs. Private companies are certainly betting big, pouring billions into research and development. Fleets of robotaxis are already operating, albeit cautiously, in cities across the country such as Austin, Miami, and San Francisco. Yet, the transformative leap—widespread adoption that truly moves the needle on national safety statistics—remains frustratingly out of reach. Why the delay?
Ironically, the biggest roadblocks aren't primarily technological anymore. They are political, regulatory, and societal. We currently face a chaotic mess of differing state and local AV regulations—a regulatory traffic jam that makes large-scale deployment a nightmare. How can a car designed to cross state lines operate effectively if the definition of "driver" or the rules for operation change every few hundred miles? This regulatory uncertainty chills investment and forces companies into limited, geographically constrained testing, which slows down the learning process that is essential for improving AV safety and reliability across all driving conditions. Add to this a healthy dose of public skepticism that is often fueled by unfamiliarity and fear that is amplified by a media focus on glitches rather than the millions of safely driven miles.
This is precisely where government leadership becomes critical. And I argue it's not just a good idea; it's a constitutional obligation. The federal government has a fundamental duty, rooted in the Constitution itself, to actively promote technologies that significantly advance public safety and well-being.
This duty isn't theoretical; it's embedded in the very DNA of our nation. The Constitution's Preamble explicitly states a core purpose to "promote the general Welfare". This wasn't just hopeful rhetoric. The Founders drafted the Constitution because the previous government under the Articles of Confederation was demonstrably ineffective—unable to manage national defense, economic stability, or even internal order. They intentionally created a stronger federal government capable of tackling big, collective problems for the common good. This implies what some scholars call a "right to effective government"—a right to expect our government to use its powers competently to protect us and improve our lives, especially when individual or market actions fall short.
Protecting citizens from widespread, preventable harm like mass traffic fatalities falls squarely within this duty. We've seen the government fulfill this role before. Remember the fight over seat belts? Initially appearing in the 1930s, they faced decades of resistance from manufacturers arguing that "safety didn't sell" and from public pushback against the mandates. It took years of advocacy and eventual government action—federal standards pushing states to enact laws—to make seat belts ubiquitous. The delay undoubtedly cost countless lives. Today, nearly 375,000 lives have been saved since 1975 thanks to those belts.
Federal inaction on AVs today risks repeating that tragic history, sacrificing safety on the altar of regulatory timidity. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the explicit authority to set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to protect the public from "unreasonable risk". It’s time they used that authority to create clear, uniform, national standards for AVs, providing the roadmap that the automotive industry needs.
Now, let's acknowledge the real concerns surrounding AVs. Data privacy is paramount—cars packed with sensors could collect vast amounts of personal information. We need robust regulations to ensure this data isn't misused or exploited. The transition will inevitably impact jobs, particularly in trucking and transportation, requiring proactive policies for worker retraining and support. Ensuring equitable deployment is vital, so AV benefits can reach rural communities and lower-income individuals, not just affluent city dwellers. Environmental impacts also need careful management to ensure that AVs lead to a net reduction in emissions. These are serious challenges requiring thoughtful, proactive policy responses that are developed *alongside* AV deployment, not as barriers to it. They do not, however, outweigh the moral imperative to prevent tens of thousands of deaths each year.
We face a clear choice. We can continue down the current path, accepting the horrific and largely preventable toll of human driving errors as well as allowing fragmented regulations and unfounded fears to stall progress indefinitely. Or, we can embrace the promise of AV technology and demand our government fulfill its most basic constitutional obligation: to act effectively to safeguard our lives and promote general welfare. This requires decisive federal leadership now—setting clear national standards, facilitating safe and widespread testing to build public trust, and creating policies that manage the transition responsibly. The technology to save these lives is within reach. It’s time our policies caught up.
This is a summary of "A Constitutional Mandate to Adopt AVs," originally published in the Washington and Lee Law Review Online.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Humans are using laptops and computers to interact with AI, helping them create, code, train AI, or analyze big data with fast, cutting-edge technology.
Huiyan Li
WASHINGTON – During a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on April 9, Democratic representatives repeatedly raised concerns that President Trump’s new tariffs and attempts to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act would harm U.S. competitiveness in artificial intelligence (AI).
“Republicans constantly talk about winning the AI race, but the actions they’re taking may appear as if they're purposely trying to lose that race,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).
The U.S. remains at the forefront of foundational AI research, largely driven by its innovative tech industry and ability to draw top talent from around the world. However, experts cautioned that this lead is fragile and the gap is closing.
The January release of the Chinese AI startup DeepSeek’s R1 Model challenged the U.S.'s long-standing dominance in AI development, as the model rivals the most recent American reasoning models at only a fraction of the cost.
Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO and chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project, stated that outcompeting China is not only an economic goal, but also a strategic imperative for America to “preserve American economic dynamism, military superiority, and global influence.”
Pallone, the ranking member of the committee, stated that Trump’s tariffs would increase the cost of materials the U.S. needs for the AI competition, such as steel and aluminum.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Starting last month, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on imports of steel and aluminum products from all countries, restoring Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Higher material costs could drive up expenses for building data centers and the transmission infrastructure that supplies electricity to them. The experts said these facilities are essential, and more should be built to advance AI.
Tariffs are already affecting AI-related industries. U.S. memory chipmaker Micron Technology announced on Tuesday that it would raise prices on some products starting Thursday due to President Trump’s new tariffs.
Manish Bhatia, executive vice president of global operations at Micron, was also on the witness panel. When Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) asked him about the price increases, he responded vaguely, saying, “Tariffs are an evolving situation.”
David Turk, a former deputy secretary of the Department of Energy under the Biden administration, stated that the tariffs imposed by President Trump introduced an immense amount of uncertainty that could deter near-term investment in powering AI.
“Folks who are planning data centers want certainty. They want stability of policy so they can plan on the floor. Tariffs are absolutely the worst if you want to bring on additional data and additional energy for data centers,” said Turk.
Turk added that Trump’s pledge to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides tax incentives, grants, and loans for clean energy, could discourage energy investment and drive costs even higher.
“We also need to be honest with ourselves right now. The quickest power, the most affordable power to bring onto our grids, including for data centers, is renewables and storage,” said Turk.
In 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that 93% of new electricity capacity additions would come from renewable sources (solar and wind) and energy storage.
As the U.S. prioritizes meeting the surging energy demand driven by AI, Turk said it was the wrong time to make it more expensive to bring new electricity online, urging Congress to retain these important tax grants and loan tools.
Some Republicans disagreed.
“We are not going to do it with renewables because we just don’t have the time to build all you have to build out, including the transmission lines,” Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) said.
Palmer noted that a significant number of power generation facilities in the U.S. were shuttered and dismantled; however, the transmission lines from those facilities still remain. He suggested that the quickest way to meet energy demand would be to deploy small modular reactors that can be plugged into the existing transmission infrastructure.
Schmidt, former CEO of Google, agreed that small modular reactors could be a good solution. However, he stressed that none exist yet in America, and under the current regulatory structure, it could take 12 years to get one approved.
“We need a new program around much faster permitting for safer and safer fission and fusion nuclear SMRs as the correct path,” said Schmidt.
Huiyan Li is a reporter for Medill News Service covering business & technology. She is a journalism graduate student at Northwestern University specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs.
