The American Congressional Exchange (ACE) project at the Bipartisan Policy Center enables members of Congress from opposite parties to visit each other’s districts, have valuable discussions on shared interests, and build the cross-party relationships that are essential for collaborative problem solving in an increasingly polarized Congress and nation away from the pressures of Washington.
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

AI is transforming finance, government, and society. As Congress considers new technology laws, the future of democratic oversight depends on wisdom, foresight, and political will.
ispyfriend/Getty Images
Can Congress Govern Disruptive Technology?
Aug 10, 2026
Imagine waking up one day to find your bank account frozen because an AI system has incorrectly identified you as a fraud risk. There is no human to call, only another algorithm reviewing your appeal. Hours later, the error is corrected, but the damage has already been done.
Who is actually in charge?
What once sounded like science fiction is rapidly becoming reality as artificial intelligence assumes decisions once reserved for human judgment.
As Congress responds to disruptive technologies ranging from cryptocurrencies to artificial intelligence, it is considering proposals such as the CLARITY Act and the Great American AI Act of 2026.
That is important. But the deeper question is not simply how to regulate emerging technologies. It is whether we still possess the wisdom, foresight, and will to govern ourselves now that we wield tools capable of transforming economic, political, and social life.
Congress has governed earlier technological revolutions, from railroads to nuclear power to the internet. The hardest task has always been overcoming the human failings that keep us from acting wisely when change arrives.
Polarization, misinformation, concentrated power, greed, and political tribalism all predated AI. It did not create these problems. It magnifies them.
Artificial intelligence changes the scale of our choices, not the nature of the people making them.
The real question, then, is not whether Congress can regulate disruptive technologies. It is whether we can govern ourselves while wielding tools that amplify both our greatest strengths and our oldest weaknesses.
The Current Debate
Congress is beginning to confront this challenge on multiple fronts.
Sponsored by Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) with bipartisan support, the CLARITY Act seeks to bring greater certainty to digital asset markets by clarifying the responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its goal is to encourage financial innovation while establishing clearer rules and stronger investor protections.
The Great American AI Act of 2026, released as a bipartisan discussion draft by Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), proposes a broad federal framework for AI governance. It addresses transparency, safety, cybersecurity, research, workforce development, fraud, AI literacy, and the division of authority between federal and state governments.
Together, the proposals show Congress confronting a succession of disruptive innovations. One seeks rules for the future of finance. The other seeks oversight of technology increasingly capable of making decisions once reserved for human beings.
Their larger significance lies in what they acknowledge: technological change is accelerating across several domains, and democratic government must find a way to keep pace.
Yet no statute can supply the wisdom to understand every consequence, the foresight to anticipate every unintended outcome, or the will to act before those outcomes become crises.
An Old Problem in a New Form
Every generation believes its defining technology is unprecedented. Railroads compressed distance. Electricity transformed industry. Nuclear weapons gave humanity the capacity to destroy itself. The internet democratized information while making misinformation instantaneous. AI may reshape how we work, learn, create, govern, and decide.
Each breakthrough has expanded human power. None has expanded human wisdom at the same pace.
That is the paradox of progress: our technological capabilities advance rapidly while our capacity to govern them advances slowly, if at all.
The Founders understood the underlying dilemma. As James Madison observed in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The problem of self-government has never been technology itself. It has always been human nature.
Institutions can adapt. Harder is ensuring that those who create, regulate, and use new technologies wield them responsibly. Can human character keep pace with human capability?
That challenge comes down to three qualities: wisdom to understand what is at stake, foresight to anticipate consequences, and political will to act before events force our hand.
Wisdom: Asking the Right Questions
Wisdom begins by recognizing that not every technological advance automatically serves the public good. Societies often become captivated by what can be built before asking what should be built. Markets reward innovation. Politics rewards speed. Neither necessarily rewards reflection.
The goal is not to slow innovation, but to keep it accountable to democratic values. We should ask whether new technologies protect human dignity, preserve liberty, and broaden opportunity. Those are political questions, not technical ones, and they cannot be delegated to algorithms.
Foresight: Seeing Beyond the Immediate
Disruptive technologies rarely produce only the outcomes their creators intend. Social media promised connection but accelerated polarization and misinformation. The internet democratized knowledge while weakening traditional gatekeepers of truth. AI will also bring extraordinary benefits alongside consequences we cannot fully predict.
Democratic government cannot foresee every outcome. It can, however, think beyond the next election, anticipate second- and third-order effects, and build institutions able to adapt. Waiting until problems become crises is not governance. It is damage control.
Will: The Hardest Democratic Virtue
Wisdom identifies the problem. Foresight anticipates its consequences. Political will turns understanding into action.
This is democracy’s hardest test. Short-term incentives, partisan conflict, and powerful economic interests make it easier to postpone difficult decisions than to confront them.
Effective governance requires leaders willing to act before disaster makes action unavoidable, businesses willing to accept rules that sustain public trust, and citizens willing to value long-term democratic resilience over short-term convenience.
Conclusion
The debate over AI and other disruptive technologies is ultimately not about machines. It is about us.
The two proposals are attempts to keep democratic government relevant in a rapidly changing world. Their deeper lesson is that every generation must decide whether its institutions and civic character can keep pace with technology.
That is the paradox of progress. We continue to invent tools that extend human power while leaving the harder work of cultivating wisdom, foresight, and political will unfinished.
The question is no longer whether these technologies will become more powerful. They will. The question is the one posed at the beginning: Who is actually in charge? If the answer is to remain “the American people,” then our democracy must govern these technologies before they govern us.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

An immigrant woman detained by ICE since February says that she has received limited medical care despite repeatedly voicing concerns that she may have had a miscarriage while at the detention center.
National Immigrant Justice Center
Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage
Aug 10, 2026
Lawmakers are seeking the release of an immigrant woman who says that — despite pleading for help after experiencing bleeding and severe pain, indications of a possible miscarriage — she has received limited medical care in detention.
“This is URGENT, please. I am pregnant and have been bleeding since yesterday, Saturday the 21st. It is vaginal bleeding. I am pregnant, and I am scared for the baby; I am also experiencing pain in my lower back, hips and abdomen. I am under a great deal of stress. Thank you. Please help me,” she wrote in Spanish in an emergency medicine request in late March that was shared with The 19th.
The woman was taken to a nearby hospital that day, where she was admitted for a suspected miscarriage. There, she was told she was not pregnant and that her pregnancy hormone levels challenged the idea that she had been. Despite repeated requests, neither the lawmakers pushing for the woman’s release nor her attorney have been able to access or review her medical records, leaving her in the dark about what actual care she may have received and what could have happened to her pregnancy, including whether she had a very early miscarriage.
Anabell, who asked through her lawyer that her last name be withheld due to safety concerns, met Monday with Democratic Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin and Delia Ramirez of Illinois. The lawmakers visited Kentucky-based Campbell County Detention Center after hearing complaints alleging that the center had provided inadequate medical care.
Neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to a request for comment about Anabell’s medical care, medical records and the availability of prenatal care at the facility.
The visit came months after the Department of Homeland Security, in the face of public pressure, released data showing that almost 500 pregnant, nursing or postpartum people had been detained between January 2025 and mid-February of this year; at the time, DHS reported that 16 miscarriages had taken place in detention facilities. Anabell’s suspected miscarriage would not have been included in that count.
DHS has come under heavy scrutiny for its treatment of pregnant, nursing and postpartum detainees, with multiple women saying they received poor or limited health care, had minimal follow-up for potential pregnancy complications, and struggled to acquire records of any medical care provided while in detention facilities. The department, which oversees ICE, has said the agency gives detainees “the best healthcare many of these individuals have received in their entire lives.” Federal policy says that DHS should detain pregnant, postpartum and nursing individuals only in limited circumstances.
Anabell tested positive for pregnancy on two separate tests after she arrived at the detention center; then, weeks later, she began to cramp and bleed, according to her lawyer and her own account as told to the two lawmakers. Federal policy dictates that women of childbearing age should typically be provided with a pregnancy test upon being detained in case they may require special food or medical care.
Anabell’s account, which has not been publicly reported, comes less than 100 days before an election in which voters appear increasingly dissatisfied with Republicans’ approach on immigration policy.
Federal policy dictates that detainees with a positive pregnancy test should be taken for a visit with a qualified medical professional — such as a doctor or a nurse practitioner — within 72 hours. Anabell told her lawyers and lawmakers that she received no medical prenatal care and was not provided with prenatal vitamins.
Anabell also told her lawyer that at one point, when she moved holding cells, she was tasked with carrying her mattress and a heavy bin with her personal belongings. Copies of several meal stickers affixed to her food throughout the month of March, shared with The 19th by her lawyer, show that the agency was offering a modified diet: “Special Diet Details: Medical Diet. Pregnancy/High Protein.”
Copies of several meal stickers affixed to Anabell’s food throughout the month of March, shared with The 19th by her lawyer, show that the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency was offering a modified diet. (National Immigrant Justice Center)
Anabell immigrated to the United States from Nicaragua in 2022 and settled in Milwaukee, where, her lawyer said, she was working in food service. She is petitioning for asylum in the United States; her claim for asylum was scheduled for a hearing last week before it was postponed because of scheduling issues.
It’s still unclear what, exactly, happened to Anabell. When her bleeding began, Anabell told her lawyer and the lawmakers, she was given sanitary pads. At the hospital, they cast doubt on if she had been pregnant. Typically, people who experience a miscarriage have elevated hormone levels for several weeks afterward, which Anabell did not have. Ten days later, she was taken back to the hospital where her lawyer said she received pain medication. Her lawyer said she has not received medical care since, despite continuing to experience pain, numbness, vomiting and hair loss.
Anabell’s lawyers have made requests for her medical records to both ICE and the detention facility, and neither of those requests has been fulfilled. Reps. Moore and Ramirez also drafted a medical release form signed by the detainee and presented it to the facility Monday; they have not yet received the records, either.
“We don’t have any access to her medical records. They keep sort of passing us back and forth,” said Colleen Ward, a lawyer with the National Immigrant Justice Center who is representing Anabell. “She hasn’t been able to see her records and it leaves questions for her about what kind of medical care she needs and what actually is going on in her body. She’s had this very traumatic, very painful experience, and she has these ongoing symptoms. There’s a real denial in the jail that any of this even happened.”
People detained by ICE are legally entitled to records of any medical care provided while they are in federal custody, and DHS says it provides medical records to any detainee who requests them. But formerly detained women and immigration attorneys alike have called the process of obtaining those records cumbersome, and in some cases functionally unworkable.
“Her attorney can’t get the medical information, and Anabell herself can’t get the medical information. In the meantime, they’re denying that she had a miscarriage. She has since been in pain, back pain, and they tell her that if she needs any medical treatment, she needs to go to the commissary and buy some pain medication,” Moore said in an interview after the visit.
Without medical records, it’s difficult to say what may have happened to Anabell, including whether her bleeding may have been a delayed symptom of a much earlier, undetected miscarriage, said Amanda Heffernan, a longtime nurse-midwife and professor of midwifery at Seattle University. But had Anabell received regular health care — including a doctor’s visit upon her positive pregnancy test and possibly a follow up a few weeks later — it would likely have been easier to assess what actually happened to her and follow up appropriately.
Data released by the Department of Homeland Security shows that almost 500 pregnant, nursing or postpartum women had been detained between January 2025 and mid-February of this year. (National Immigrant Justice Center)
“You’ve decided you’re going to detain pregnant people? You’re responsible for providing proper care, but the system isn’t designed for the consistency and promptness that proper care requires,” Heffernan said.
Already, numerous women have said that they received inconsistent or inadequate prenatal care while in ICE detention — including when experiencing pain or bleeding.
Moore and Ramirez described an emotional and complicated scene when they visited with Anabell on Monday.
“We asked, could we just please have a typical weekly menu to see the offerings, and that was not provided,” Moore said. “In a room that they called a kind of a triage for medical problems, they had a dirty mattress on it, and they told me that it was not dirty; it was just stained.”
Ramirez introduced a resolution in December calling on the Trump administration to permanently reinstate policies protecting pregnant immigrants and to closely monitor reproductive health care quality and access across all detention facilities.
“Watching Anabell walk into that room and fall into the arms of Congresswoman Moore weeping just was really heartbreaking for me,” Ramirez said. “Today is a perfect example why this legislation is so incredibly important.”
Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Activating the Citizenry: Why Third Spaces Are the Key to Saving Democracy
Aug 10, 2026
Americans aren’t hanging out together as much as they used to, and it’s having a crippling impact on democracy. It sounds dramatic, but it’s true. According to Montesquieu, who wrote The Spirit of the Laws in 1748, democracy requires three basic background conditions to be viable: relative economic equality; an active, connected citizenry that can work for common causes, which he called civic virtue; and a government with separated powers.
When asked if the United States was a monarchy or a republic, Benjamin Franklin declared, “a republic . . . if you can keep it.” In contemporary American society, each one of these conditions has weakened since Franklin’s cautionary quote in 1787.
What a Free People Looks Like
Franklin was stating what all supporters of democracy must understand: it is always the people who ensure that they will collectively rule and not be ruled over. No historical bequest nor institutional design allows a people to remain free without their own vigorous participation.
Today, the freedom we make together is in danger because we have allowed the habits and institutions that bring us together to atrophy. Since the work of Theda Skocpol and Robert Putnam in the 1990s, we have known that American civil society and the trust, knowledge, skills, and fellowship that they foster, have been in decline. Although the fact of this decline has been endlessly cited, we have not taken the implications nor the imperative of its reversal seriously enough.
Free people require what sociologists call third spaces outside of their homes and workplaces. Third spaces are where people can gather, build relationships with each other, develop cooperative goals and interests, share and vet information, and build skills necessary for leadership, collaboration, and accomplishment. America used to have many such spaces. After the Civil War, Americans of all kinds, often led by newly free Black people, began busily building civic and mutual aid organizations across the United States. These organizations were usually segregated by race and sex, but they were integrated across class and proliferate. From mother’s clubs to Elks’ lodges and unions to mutual insurance agencies, the period from the 1880s to the 1920s was one of dynamic civic cultivation. By the middle of the 20th century, most Americans belonged to a federated organization, and there were dozens of organizations that boasted memberships that equaled 1% or more of the American population. These groups spread through local chapters connected to national structures, expanding their reach.
Scaling Up Local Engagement
These civic groups were not professionally managed, donor-funded advocacy organizations; that form did not come to dominate civil society until the late 1960s. Instead, these were federated “translocal” associations that were rooted in local communities and bonded to them through membership, regular gatherings, and direct service but still connected across, state, regional, and national levels. Indeed, some groups even boasted international presence. Federated assemblages were primarily powered by dues, not donors, so they required broad-based, committed support. They were run on a mostly volunteer basis by people who acquired the knowledge and skills they needed through the process of working with and for their communities. It was through these civic third spaces that large swaths of the American public were able to develop and affirm shared values and nurture the skills, connections, and solidarity that allowed them to set ambitious agendas for both local service and advocacy for public social programs at the municipal, state, and national levels.
If not for the robust civil society infrastructure that existed, the New Deal, which is often lauded as being the result of President Roosevelt’s energetic leadership, would not have been possible. And the social movements of the middle 20th century could not have been as effective. Indeed, the largest translocal federated groups—like the Fraternal Order of the Eagles (of which FDR was a member), the Grange, the Prince Hall Masons, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, and the National Association of Colored Women—worked tirelessly for a diverse array of programs that both set the agenda and charted the landscape of political possibility for the 20th century. Many advocated for social insurance, national education programs, anti-lynching, Veteran’s benefits, and diverse workforce opportunities for Americans. These institutions provided meeting places, civic education, skill building, and community for their members. Public education was organized and new constituencies and new voters were mobilized. Translocal civic organizations were spaces where people learned that they could do things together, and that they could solve problems by coordinating with their fellows while also demanding accountability from their governors. The people within these organizations built social capital and political efficacy, which became the scaffolding for the new world they were ushering into existence. The people also learned that when they organized for fun and common purpose, they became the engines of democracy. This rich landscape of civic association was a crucial background condition for building modern America, the incarnation of the republic that came closest to egalitarian democracy. The vision, which is now at grave risk.
Americans Want to Engage
Today, while about a third of Americans volunteer time to improve their community in some way, only 6% reported belonging to “a business or civic group such as such as Rotary, League of Women Voters, Masons, or Junior League,” suggesting a decline in spaces that can serve the relational and skill-building functions required for democratic sustenance. According to Kettering and Gallup’s recent Democracy for All Project survey, those who participate in the civic lives of their communities are also more likely to affirm democratic values, believe ordinary people can create change through a myriad of activities, and be registered to vote.
However, a crucial finding in the Kettering-Gallup poll does point toward a solution. While about 33% of people are community participators, an additional 30% say that they wish they could be. There is a lot of latent desire for the kind of community connection that makes democracy both possible and strong. When asked what keeps them from being as involved in civic life as they want to be, 47% of respondents indicate lack of time due to work and family obligations. What you might not expect is that the next most common barriers are not being invited to participate (43%) or not being shown where and how to get involved (42%).
In the same spirit of John Dewey and Jane Addams’ famous quote, “The cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy,” I submit that the cure for the ills of a civil society in decline is the robust invitation to reinvigorate our social, civic, and political connections through third-space, translocal associations that do more than politics. Such spaces can join us together in and beyond our neighborhoods and help to make both the tough work and considerable pleasures of collective self-rule actual, in small and large ways.
Democracy Depends on What We Do Together
The freedom that Americans laud—right now, everywhere—is not the automatic inheritance of any people. Instead, it is established in our practices of meeting one another where we are and deciding that we can, that we must, and that we will decide our fates together. The cultivation of this kind of freedom is not primarily accomplished in heroic displays on battlefields or through triumphs in the courts nor even in landslide victories on election day. Any of these things may be necessary but none are sufficient on their own. People must come together, deciding that they care for one another and will fight to secure each other’s liberty on equal terms. This kind of togetherness and resolve used to be called civic virtue, but such virtue is not merely the result of individual characters. Civic virtue is brought forth through the collective practices, institutions, routines, and rituals that we keep and which bring us together across differences to do things for ourselves and one another. This is the ground upon which a republic is built and maintained, and it is the space that it is essential to reinvent and reinvigorate now. It is the only way we will be able to continue to answer Franklin’s muttered charge in the affirmative: “Yes, sir, as for the republic, we the people intend to keep it.”
This article was originally published as part of From Many, We, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that highlights the insights of thought leaders dedicated to the idea of inclusive democracy.
Deva Woodly is professor of political science at Brown University and a Charles F. Kettering Foundation research fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less

Three law books beside opened notebook
Photo by Mikhail Pavstyuk on Unsplash
Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy
Aug 09, 2026
This year marks the 250th anniversary of our founders’ Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. But the constitutional democracy it enabled - designed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - is now threatened, not by a foreign adversary, but from within.
Persistent constitutional and statutory transgressions, coupled with the continued erosion of democratic norms that once safeguarded our institutions, have undermined the foundations of our democratic order. They have also shaken Americans’ confidence in its durability.
The 250th anniversary, meant to be a moment of reflection and celebration, now stands as a call to action in the spirit of the document it commemorates. If we act with the resolve this moment demands, our response to these threats, like the Declaration itself, will be genuine cause for celebration.
To be clear, these threats are not abstract, and our responsibilities are not hypothetical. We must ask ourselves plainly:
Can we remain silent when constitutional provisions and laws are repeatedly tested, and in some cases, clearly violated; when institutions designed to serve all Americans are hobbled or commandeered for personal or political ends; when false claims are systematically deployed to undermine the legitimacy of elections; when voting rights are burdened or votes diluted through redistricting for partisan political gain; when the press is bullied and attacked to undermine its credibility and stifle criticism?
Can we stand by while opposing views and candidates are delegitimized through baseless personal attacks; while judges are threatened or harassed in their personal lives because of a ruling; while actors, including elected officials, generate falsehoods on matters big and small with such regularity and audacity that they cripple the exchange of ideas, and normalize lying and misinformation in public life?
Like the grievances against the Crown in the Declaration, these conditions call us to action.
No one should answer this call more urgently than lawyers. They occupy a unique position in our constitutional democracy — one not shared by other citizens. The legal profession holds a near-exclusive, state‑sanctioned authority to represent parties and shape the issues presented to courts. As such, they play a singular role in enabling access to the judiciary, where individual rights can be adjudicated and constitutional questions resolved. The courts cannot act without a case or controversy, and it is lawyers who must bring those cases forward for judicial review. And, they have done so.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed challenging the current administration's actions across a wide range of topics, including immigration, civil liberties, citizenship, federal employment, taxes, and spending. Courts have issued many preliminary and final rulings, often halting or staying illegal policies and actions. We can be proud of the indispensable role that lawyers have played in enforcing democratic rights through the courts and challenging laws and actions that undermine democratic principles or threaten our democratic system.
But while court orders addressing unconstitutional or illegal conduct can reinforce the rule of law and create space for civil society to operate, they are not sufficient on their own to meet the threats facing our democracy. It is citizens, including lawyers in their role as citizens (citizen‑lawyers), who must fill that space with their voices, their actions, and, most importantly, their vote - especially in the face of undemocratic actions that fall within the bounds of the law and therefore outside the reach of the courts.
Conduct that violates democratic norms and principles cannot go unanswered. It is important to identify and condemn undemocratic actions in traditional and social media. But full-throated opposition often requires us to leave our comfort zone. A protest gains power when it is in person, in public, and in concert with fellow citizens. This is the collective voice represented by the Declaration.
As important as it is, we must do more than vote: we must defend the right of all citizens to vote and encourage participation. We need to work together to remove barriers and disincentives to voting and, where barriers remain, organize paths around them. Volunteering at the polls and educating voters about their rights and responsibilities strengthens the voting process and increases participation. High participation fortifies elections.
Unconstitutional, illegal, or undemocratic conduct is often bolstered by denials or misrepresentations that twist facts, misstate the law, or invoke a contrived emergency. Citizen-lawyers can be a force‑multiplier in cutting through the fog of disinformation, especially on matters of law; this may be their most important role outside the courtroom. A lawyer’s lifeblood is separating the proven from the unproven, the relevant from the irrelevant, and fact from opinion. Uncovering the truth and exposing disinformation will clarify what’s at stake and strengthen public opposition to undemocratic and illegal policies.
The Declaration’s 250th anniversary calls all of us to exhibit the same courage that animated its signing. Lawyers and citizens working together must confront constitutional illegality, expose disinformation, and defend the vote. Given their role as bridges between citizens and the courts and their training in the pursuit of truth, lawyers, in their dual capacities, must lead when our democracy is under attack. Moving forward with resolve, we will realize the promise of the Declaration of Independence.
This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.
Michael Curry is a University of Texas Law School graduate who served for over a decade as an adjunct professor. Retired, he is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy, serving as the Meeting the Moment co-lead for Texas.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















