The ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge strives for a more inclusive democracy—one in which all voices are heard. We envision a country in which the electorate mirrors our country's makeup and college students are democratically engaged on an ongoing basis, during and between elections and not just at the polls.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment
Oct 02, 2026
The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.
If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.
Whatever one thinks of the quality of their news coverage, all of us have a stake in resisting the president’s brazen attempt to silence and punish news outlets who refuse to bend a knee to him. Because it is a form of viewpoint discrimination, the ban violates the First Amendment, and I expect that the courts will soon say so.
But whatever the courts do, other members of the Whiter House Press Corps should pack their bags and reuse to give President Trump the coverage he so clearly craves.
The American public learned of the president’s intention from a post on Truth Social. “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS!”
“Media Outlets,’ he continued, “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
Actually, the First Amendment gives broad scope to the press to publish false information so long as they don’t do it with “actual malice.” In its 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan a unanimous Supreme Court held that “When a statement concerns a public figure… it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.”
The president hates that decision and would love to see it overturned
As Justice William Brennan noted, “In the effort to persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."
“That erroneous statement,” Brennan observed, “is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need . . . to survive.’"
The president hates that decision and would love to see it overturned.
And, in an Oval Office meeting with reporters after his Truth Social Post, the president made clear that what irked him about reporters from CNN, MsNow and Politico was that they are “people to write purposely negative stories….”
While the welcome mat is out for reporters who write positive stories about him and his administration. If a reporter does not toe the line, then “that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my — into the people’s house.”
Put aside the telling slip of the tongue and what remains is a boldfaced assertion of a presidential prerogative to punish news outlets because of what they say and the viewpoint they express. There is nothing more central to the First Amendment than that.
Indicators of viewpoint discrimination include official action that “singles out particular speakers may be aimed at restricting certain content or certain viewpoints… (or that) restricts only a particular form of expression may be aimed at suppressing a particular viewpoint.” Excluding three news outlets because of their “negative coverage” is about as clear an indication of viewpoint discrimination as one could get.
As the famous Judge Learned Hand once explained “The First Amendment presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all."
The president and others in his administration have made it abundant clear that they have no interest in hearing a “multitude of tongues.”
And this is not the first time the president has tried to exclude a reporter whose coverage he did not like. In November 2018, closed to the halfway point of his first term his White House suspended the press credentials of CNN’s Jim Acosta after Acosta “challenged the president on his characterization of the migrant caravan moving through Mexico as an ‘invasion.’"
CNN sued and Federal District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to restore Acosta’s credentials on the ground that it hard deprived him of due process by taking it away in a summary fashion.
He based his ruling on a 1977 decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. As that court explained, “denial of a White House press pass to a bona fide journalist violates the first amendment unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest identified by narrowly and specifically drawn standards…(and) that denial of a White House press pass constitutes a deprivation of "liberty" without due process of law within the meaning of the fifth amendment because it interferes with the free exercise of the profession of journalism.”
It added, “notice, opportunity to rebut, and a written decision are required because the denial of a pass potentially infringes upon first amendment guarantees. Such impairment of this interest cannot be permitted to occur in the absence of adequate procedural due process.”
Apparently, the president has not learned his lesson. Or maybe he thinks that when he took the oath of office, he became the decider who could do whatever he wants to whoever he wants.
It looks like he will again have to be disabused of that notion in a court of law and hopefully by the solidarity of the White House Press Corps. But ultimately it will be up to voters to send the message that he is the president in a constitutional republic, not a monarch.
In the meantime, all of us should remember, even if the president does not, Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that "(O)ur liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost… (and that) were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.
Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images
The CLARITY Act
Oct 02, 2026
The CLARITY Act
The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.
What does the CLARITY Act do?
The CLARITY Act sets up a regulatory structure for cryptocurrency or digital assets. The latest version of the bill defines a digital asset as “any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically-secured distributed ledger or other similar technology.” In other words, Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and other similar technologies meant to be used as money or investments.
Why do we need any laws about crypto at all?
Right now, there is no comprehensive regulatory structure for cryptocurrency. The CLARITY Act “aims to establish rules governing how digital assets are issued, traded, intermediated, and supervised across the U.S. financial system.”
A major point of contention between legislators within each chamber of Congress and between chambers is how to divide (or if it should be divided at all) oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The SEC is much larger than the CFTC and has a reputation for more aggressive oversight than the CFTC. This version of the CLARITY Act gives the CFTC more power than the SEC. But at the same time, “The division would not assign every [cryptocurrency type] permanently to one agency. Classification would depend on the asset’s legal rights, offering structure, network development, issuer involvement, and the activity being regulated, which could leave some questions of regulatory authority involving both the SEC and the CFTC.”
What else is in those 600+ pages?
Punchbowl noted that the current version of the CLARITY Act includes a change to an existing law that would allow for criminal prosecutions related to blockchain issues. Specifically, “A key change would no longer explicitly shield certain decentralized finance developers from 18 USC 1960, the part of the federal criminal code that prohibits unlicensed money transmission. The liability protections are now civil, rather than criminal.”
This provision might be good for users of crypto, but is not popular with developers.
Punchbowl also says “Another provision directs the Treasury secretary to monitor for signs of bank deposit flight tied to stablecoin rewards 18 months after the enactment of the law. “ This is an attempt to address worries of (among others) community banks. NPR described the concerns of community banks in an article yesterday.
Trump and Crypto
President Trump has made truly staggering amounts of money ($1.4 billion reported for 2025) off of his own cryptocurrency and related digital assets through his family-owned World Liberty Financial. Would the CLARITY Act prevent him from further enriching himself while in office?
The answer here tends to depend on who you ask and which party they belong to. The Associated Press reported on September 14 that “Trump agreed to new ethics rules to get a crypto bill across the line”.
However, as Judd Legum of Popular Information noted, the CLARITY Act grandfathers in Trump’s existing business interests.
Nor does it appear to address a move also reported Monday morning by the Washington Sun in which wallets matching known holdings of President Trump and his sons were moved into “vesting contracts”. These contracts require that no sales occur for at least two years, e.g. the end of the President’s legally final term as president. Presumably, because the President already has these tokens and the CLARITY Act grandfathers in existing cryptocurrency ownership, nothing in this move would be affected by the law should it ever pass.
The current version of the CLARITY Act was apparently weak enough with respect to banking industry concerns for four Republicans to join all Democrats in voting no on a procedural vote that, for now, brings progress on the CLARITY Act to a halt.
What does that mean for you if you have opinions about the CLARITY Act?
There’s more time to learn about cryptocurrency if you need to, about the bill if you need to and to contact your members of Congress if you have concerns. You can get contact information for your members from the GovTrack homepage.
The CLARITY Act was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.
Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images
When Money Trumps Life
Oct 01, 2026
Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.
Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.
The people are already paying a colossal price. On August 26, likely triggered by climate change, a glacier collapse in the Himalayas launched mudslides through Nepal, killing more than a thousand people. Nepal produces less than 0.1% of global emissions; as the prime minister of Nepal said at the UN last week, “We did not create this crisis.” He went on to say it was more than a local tragedy but a “warning to the world.” Our President has heard the warning, but is actively railing against it. People are dying, and Trump is making money.
Trump’s war is aggressively contributing to global warming, producing more emissions in the first two weeks than Iceland produces in a year. It’s fueling a global energy crisis, and it’s costing lives. At least 19 American service members have been killed, though U.S. officials say the real number is higher. As a veteran who spent ten years as a Naval officer and deployed to the Persian Gulf, I’ve been shocked by the flippancy with which this president has disregarded the concerns of American service members. Last week, the acting Navy Secretary confirmed that eight sailors in the USS Abraham Lincoln's strike group attempted suicide over a record 286 days at sea with no port call. Back in August, when a reporter asked Trump whether the deployment had gone on too long, he said, “No. No. No. Not nearly long enough.” Not nearly long enough for whom, exactly?
In Iran, human rights monitors documented more than 3,600 dead by April, including the 168 children killed when a U.S. missile struck a girls' school on the first day. I doubt Trump lost any sleep over it, as all he had to say was “war is nasty.” In April, he threatened Iran online, writing, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” That same day, one of Trump’s investment accounts sold as much as $1 million in Exxon Mobil stock. Hours later, the White House announced a ceasefire, and the next morning, Exxon opened more than 6% lower.
While Americans pay $71.5 billion more at the pump, Trump’s personal portfolio is booming. Perhaps that’s why in June he threatened to go “right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head.” This strongman talk may be meant to intimidate and bully, but it reads as the tirade of a tyrant with the diplomatic maturity of a toddler. Ultimately, achieving peace in the Middle East may simply not be his concern while he profits off the lack thereof. Trump’s July disclosure alone lists 1,156 trades, including weapons makers Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Palantir. And crypto, which Iran is using to collect tolls on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, was his biggest source of income last year. With so much money to be made, why care about the cost in human life?
The same math applies to AI. The day after Trump spoke at the UN, where he equated AI doomsday talk with other hoaxes, OpenAI's Sam Altman and Anthropic's Dario Amodei told the Security Council the opposite: slow down, cooperate, take extreme care. Even Elon Musk backed their call for pacing. The people building the machine are begging for brakes, and the President is hitting the gas. Beijing has already published its own AI safety framework, but Trump continues to dismiss the risks, making trades in AI giants at the same time, with sales of up to $25 million each in Microsoft and Amazon in July alone. Last week, when Xi Jinping visited the White House for a historic state visit, no agreement on AI was reached, but Trump did throw him a dinner featuring a guest list of tech moguls worth a combined $2.4 trillion.
Trump has shown us who he is, and we should believe him. The global aid cuts he set off by gutting USAID are projected to lead to at least 9.4 million deaths by 2030, including 2.5 million small children. At home, the health provisions of his signature tax law could mean more than 16,000 preventable deaths a year, and his SNAP cuts could lead to 93,000 premature deaths by 2039. At the UN, he wondered aloud if he should “annihilate” Iran and “drive them into hell with no chance of survival.” He also bragged about taking control of Venezuela's oil, saying “to the victor belong the spoils.” To Trump, a country–even his own–is not a place brimming with its own society, history, and culture. It's land to pillage, resources to extract, and people to exploit.
I don't need our leaders to be saints, but can we not at least hold them to a standard where they value human life above capital? The sailors on the Lincoln deserve that. So do the families digging through mud in Nepal, the parents in Minab, and the grandmother about to lose her Medicaid.
This president has shown nothing but reckless abandon in the face of existential threats, but we don't have to follow his lead. We can still fight to slow climate change. We can protest this war, bring our troops home, and demand a return to diplomacy. We can organize to regulate AI before it's too late. And we can cherish each other. The President of the United States might not put much stock in our lives, but we can. Check on your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Hold each other. Fight for each other. On that note, if you’re reading this, I just want to remind you: you are loved (and if you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988). Your life matters.
The midterms are November 3. This election, vote like your life depends on it, because it might.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Pool/Getty Images
How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions
Oct 01, 2026
A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.
These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.
Despite the facts of the matter, Trump continues his assault on our institutions through his words and actions. For decades, Primetime presidential speeches have been used to speak directly to the public during wars, economic crises, and moments of national grief. These addresses can be reassuring. They can make government action easier to understand and give people a sense that their leaders are responding to an emergency.
Ronald Reagan used television to project optimism and national confidence during the Cold War, a period of large paranoia and uncertainty. George W. Bush’s speeches after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 helped create an early sense of unity even across the world, although later questions about the Iraq War damaged trust in government claims. Barack Obama often used his national addresses to explain major policy decisions and encourage civic participation.
Trump constantly fails to do many of those positives. His primetime speeches heavily deepen the division this country has been experiencing in the last 20 years in particular; the president encourages people to believe that elections, courts, or civil servants are inherently corrupt, which then closes the door for the public to accept outcomes they do not like. That problem has never been confined to one party or one president. Democratic principles depend on more than laws to keep them accountable. They depend on a shared belief that institutions can be challenged, criticized, and improved upon without being dismissed as illegitimate whenever they produce an unfavorable result. No, that does not mean presidents should avoid criticism.
Yes, government institutions should be questioned, investigated, and reformed when they fail. But mindful criticism is most useful when it is specific, evidence-based, and paired with a realistic solution. Trump leans more on cynicism, whereas he displays much more personal bias, ego, and mental rigidity.
[INTERVIEW SECTION????]
Historically, primetime presidential speeches strengthen democracy when they help Americans understand a challenging topic and encourage them to participate at the local and federal levels. They weaken democracy when they turn routine political disagreement into a reason to reject the legitimacy of systems and institutions altogether.
For voters, the goal to aspire towards is knowing the difference between hearing and listening. The care that you put into analyzing these speeches is what separates the two. A president’s words matter, but they should never be accepted without questions: What evidence supports this claim? Who can verify it? Does the proposed solution protect democratic participation, or does it make power less accountable?
Those questions are not partisan. They are part of what it means to be an informed citizen.
Shon Eric Hernandez is a Fulcrum fellow and MDC contributor. He can be reached at shondesil06@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More