Ken Rudin joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career as a journalist at NPR, hosting his podcast, The Political Junkie and why he's changed his nonpartisan orientation in the Trump era.
Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis.
Artificial intelligence (AI) promises a future once confined to science fiction: personalized medicine accounting for your specific condition, accelerated scientific discovery addressing the most difficult challenges, and reimagined public education designed around AI tutors suited to each student's learning style. We see glimpses of this potential on a daily basis. Yet, as AI capabilities surge forward at exponential speed, the laws and regulations meant to guide them remain anchored in the twentieth century (if not the nineteenth or eighteenth!). This isn't just inefficient; it's dangerously reckless.
For too long, our approach to governing new technologies, including AI, has been one of cautious incrementalism—trying to fit revolutionary tools into outdated frameworks. We debate how century-old privacy torts apply to vast AI training datasets, how liability rules designed for factory machines might cover autonomous systems, or how copyright law conceived for human authors handles AI-generated creations. We tinker around the edges, applying digital patches to analog laws.
This constant patching creates what we might call "legal tech debt." Imagine trying to run sophisticated AI software on a computer from the 1980s—it might technically boot up, but it will be slow, prone to crashing, and incapable of performing its intended function. Similarly, forcing AI into legal structures designed for a different technological era means we stifle its potential benefits while failing to adequately manage its risks. Outdated privacy rules hinder the development of AI for public good projects; ambiguous liability standards chill innovation in critical sectors; fragmented regulations create uncertainty and inefficiency.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Allowing this legal tech debt to accumulate isn't just about missed opportunities; It breeds public distrust when laws seem irrelevant to lived reality. It invites policy chaos, as seen with the frantic, often ineffective, attempts to regulate social media after years of neglect. It risks a future where transformative technology evolves haphazardly, governed by stopgap measures and reactive panic rather than thoughtful design. With AI, the stakes are simply too high for such recklessness.
We need a fundamentally different approach. Instead of incremental tinkering, we need bold, systemic change. We need to be willing to leapfrog—to bypass outdated frameworks and design legal and regulatory systems specifically for the age of AI.
What does this leapfrog approach look like? It requires three key shifts in thinking:
First, we must look ahead. Policymakers and experts need to engage seriously with plausible future scenarios for AI development, learning from the forecasting methods used by technologists. This isn’t about predicting the future with certainty but about understanding the range of possibilities—from accelerating breakthroughs to unexpected plateaus—and anticipating the legal pressures and opportunities each might create. We need to proactively identify which parts of our legal infrastructure are most likely to buckle under the strain of advanced AI.
Second, we must embrace fundamental redesign. Armed with foresight, we must be willing to propose and implement wholesale reforms, not just minor rule changes. If AI requires vast datasets for public benefit, perhaps we need entirely new data governance structures—like secure, publicly accountable data trusts or commons—rather than just carving out exceptions to FERPA or HIPAA. If AI can personalize education, perhaps we need to rethink rigid grade-based structures and accreditation standards, not just approve AI tutors within the old system. This requires political courage and a willingness to question long-held assumptions about how legal systems should operate.
Third, we must build in adaptability. Given the inherent uncertainty of AI’s trajectory, any new legal framework must be dynamic, not static. We need laws designed to evolve. This means incorporating mechanisms like mandatory periodic reviews tied to real-world outcomes, sunset clauses that force reconsideration of rules, specialized bodies empowered to update technical standards quickly, and even using AI itself to help monitor the effectiveness and impacts of regulations in real-time. We need systems that learn and adapt, preventing the accumulation of new tech debt.
Making this shift won't be easy. It demands a new level of ambition from our policymakers, a greater willingness among legal experts to think beyond established doctrines, and broader public engagement on the fundamental choices AI presents. But the alternative—continuing to muddle through with incremental fixes—is far riskier. It’s a path toward unrealized potential, unmanaged risks, and a future where technology outpaces our ability to govern it wisely.
AI offers incredible possibilities but realizing them requires more than just brilliant code. It requires an equally ambitious upgrade to our legal and regulatory operating system. It’s time to stop patching the past and start designing the future. It’s time to leapfrog.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
“Student journalists are uniquely positioned to take on the challenges of complicating the narrative about how we see each other, putting forward new solutions to how we can work together and have dialogue across difference,” said Maxine Rich, the Program Manager with Common Ground USA. I had the chance to interview her earlier this year about Common Ground Journalism, a new initiative to support students reporting in contentious times.
A partnership with The Fulcrum and the Latino News Network (LNN), I joined Maxine and Nicole Donelan, Production Assistant with Common Ground USA, as co-instructor of the first Common Ground Journalism cohort, which ran for six weeks between January and March 2025.
The sessions integrated Common Ground USA principles of “campuses, which can model our nation’s highest ideals: coming together across differences to serve the common good,” and Solutions Journalism Network’s “to transform journalism so that all people have access to news that helps them envision and build a more equitable and sustainable world.”
Concepts like The Power Of Self Narrative, about how our lives can powerfully shape our resilience to challenges, and help others through their blind spots, resonated with cohorts like Maggie Rhoads, a student at George Washington University. “My problems as a journalist are often the same as others from across the country. Knowing this definitely makes me feel less alone in my reporting journey,” she said.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Maggie now writes regularly for the Fulcrum. I invite you to read her stories on how legislation and policy impact communities by clicking HERE.
Georgetown University student Alexis Tamm agrees. “I had an amazing experience as a member of the first Common Ground cohort! The program introduced me to solutions journalism very thoroughly,” she said. Solutions journalism is rigorous and compelling reporting about responses to social problems, which includes these key elements: response, insight, evidence, and limitations.
Instead of just highlighting the problems challenging a community, solutions journalism’s approach to news reporting explains how and why responses are working, or are not working. The goal is to present people with a truer, more complete view of these issues,
I am mentoring Alexis with an upcoming article that will be published on the Fulcrum, about a program helping formerly incarcerated individuals get the resources they need to integrate back into society properly.
Feedback collected at the end of the Common Ground Journalism initiative found that most students in the first cohort agree or strongly agree that Common Ground Journalism made them feel more comfortable reporting on minority perspectives and humanizing opposing political opinions.
I am happy to share that the Fulcrum and LNN will join the next session, which will begin in September! Students interested in applying can get more information and fill out a form by clicking HERE.
By reporting on diverse viewpoints and issues, journalism fosters public debate and encourages civic participation. That is why the Fulcrum is committed to mentoring students with valuable guidance and feedback, allowing them to navigate the challenges of journalism while fostering a deeper understanding of their responsibilities as journalists.
The publication has a longstanding relationship with Northwestern University's Medill on the Hill Program. Student journalists pitch stories about how democracy unfolds in Washington, D.C. Their quality reporting, often featured on the Fulcrum, provides valuable perspectives that widen our audience’s viewpoints.
Through that alliance, I met Atmika Iyer, a graduate student in Northwestern Medill’s Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs reporting program who is an intern with the Fulcrum this spring. Check out her work by clicking HERE.
Duke University student Bennett Gillespie will join the Fulcrum as an intern in June.
The Fulcrum has joined LNN and NPR’s Midwest Newsroom in sponsoring Jessica Meza from the University of Lincoln- Nebraska, as this year’s Hortencia Zavala Foundation Summer Intern. Meza will not only benefit from the coaching and visibility of three news outlets, but will work side by side with journalists in the Nebraska Public Media newsroom.
This summer, I will lead the first Fulcrum Fellowship, where five students from across the country will be trained in solutions journalism and complicating narrative techniques to produce stories that counter the one-dimensional narratives too common in mainstream media.
Nurturing the next generation of journalists is a collaborative effort that the Fulcrum takes seriously. After all, a well-informed electorate is essential for a healthy democracy, as it enables individuals to engage meaningfully in the political process.
Editor’s Note: Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
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.
Journalist and Political Junkie Ken Rudin
